Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaba Modern}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillyeo}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillyeo}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Wu}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Wu}}

Revision as of 04:48, 20 March 2008

< March 19 March 21 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaba Modern

Kaba Modern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's non-notable group. The page is a self-promotional article that doesn't provide encyclopedic context. graphitesmoothie (talk | contributions) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it may be a poor article, but the dance group is featured on a national TV show (America's Best Dance Crew). I'd say it's far from non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by California golden bears (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. Appears to have adequate coverage in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, from a search of recent and archived news articles, and is also mentioned in The Unofficial, Unbiased Guide to the 328 Most Interesting Colleges as an "award-winning hip-hop dance group". Cirt (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Group has been in an internationally-televised show for weeks, which I think makes them notable. Article is sourced by nationally-recognized publications. I don't see the problem here. -Animesouth (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with animesouth and cirt, about their national/international status, but that whole introductory paragraph is copied and pasted from Kaba Modern's website. I might go ahead and rehash that whole paragraph in the next day. - Lesserm (talk) 0:56 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, after improvements during discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pillyeo

Pillyeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was prodded; someone removed it. Unverified article about a non-notable movie. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... It doesn't look like that's the same movie. The plot summaries don't line up, besides just the titles. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down to the bottom. It only gets a mention, but it's there. Hopefully more substantial sources will be forthcoming. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. See it now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Fix't. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Scrapes by with added refs and links to further refs. Ty 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wu

Sam Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability tag up since April with no improvements since, contested prod. Wizardman 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Damned if I know if any of the content is relevant for merging... — Scientizzle 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kheith'as

AfDs for this article:
Kheith'as (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom, article that's of questionable notability that's remained in terrible shape since being tagged with a bunch of stuff in April. I have no opinion on the matter. Wizardman 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. There is disagreement over what content, if any, should be merged into The Space Trilogy, but that can be worked out at Talk:The Space Trilogy (any editor undertaking to merge any content is reminded to follow the requirements of WP:MERGE, for the sake of all of us and the GFDL). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hnau

Hnau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability tag up since April, and I find it in question as well. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the matter. Wizardman 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trim, merge, and redirect. Was going to say keep, because the content is interesting and notable, the adoption by others as a discussion term very much so (there are verifiable references), and its fictional status is adverted (which is not the case with the Urantia AFDs); but it would fit much better in the Glossary section and in a new Hnau section of Space Trilogy, and I think a mention and link at sentience is also sentient. Someone looking for "hnau" will want to start in a section of Space Trilogy itself rather than have to make it another click-- but will not be likely to want to start in sentience. The conversational passage from Lewis is redundant, of course. I would also redirect all the Old Solar words and "Old Solar" itself if they haven't already. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be small portions of this article that deserve to be merged but the primary concern should be to remove this type of article. If someone wants to save a bit of it; so be it. --Stormbay (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. I rarely come across afds where there is some content I'd say is worth saving, but that this word has been adopted by other authors hints that it carries some importance - perhaps not in an encyclopedia, but rather in a dictionary. transwiki to wiktionary! Jobjörn (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AntiVirGear

AntiVirGear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory of malware; no non-trivial secondary sources given; listing by Anti-Virus companies would be considered trivial. Prod contested; rationale was "software is notable enough to be on wiki". Jfire (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh shut up you lot. Wikipedia isnt this Wikipedia isnt that. Its informative, therefore should have its own article! Sotonfc4life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotonfc4life (talk • contribs) 10:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and rename. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boetsch

Boetsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is clearly enough material. And he's notable. A major academic administrator & a reasonably distinguished scholar. Carelessness of the person writing the article isnt relevant to notability. DGG (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciarán Llachlan Leavitt

Ciarán Llachlan Leavitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Referred from prod - published author of Canadian First Nations heritage who is one of few to be published in the American market. No opinion from referee. theProject (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a google search gets many hits (the above search is of google news) but nothing that looks like a substantial review from a reliable source. Google scholar gets lots of hits but not to a technical writer. Same person? Appears to be Canadian... Nick Connolly (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I purposefully chose google news because it usually includes only news sources, which establish the "significant coverage by reliable sources independant of the subject" that is required by WP:BIO. A lot of the Google hits are just sights that are selling her book and cen be misleading for notability purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find the books listedin the article written by her-- or any other of her published work-- on WorldCat. The best information I can find on he books is [3], from which it s apparently avaialb le print on demand from a decentralised online publisher. From her web page [4] I see she is still an undergraduate. DGG (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with DGG and brewchewer.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. For closing rationale, see talk page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio DJs

List of radio DJs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hopelessly incomplete list. Already categorized. Is this article adding any value? Rtphokie (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would be far better handled by the already extant category. - Dravecky (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It does serve one purpose that a category wouldn't, which is to explain the significance of a particular person's contributions to radio. I'm not that enthusiastic about it, but it has potential. At the moment, it appears that efforts are being made to confine this to radio hosts who are notable among radio hosts, but that won't necessarily last. There's apparently a "Radio Hall of Fame", and maybe such a list should use that as a starting point. Mandsford (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Hi, I created this article by cutting out this (admittedly incomplete and rough) list out of the main DJ article. My concerns with list articles: I believe that lists are a major way for POV and OR to creep into Wikipedia, because whereas it is fairly hard to "sneak in" non-notable information about your brother's ex-girlfriend's bar band into a proper article on the history or rock, such non-notable content is often added to list articles. However...That being said, I think list articles can be useful if the lede lays out a notability criterion (e.g., for music, being in the top 10, for scientists, being listed in "Who's Who in Science", etc) --- and, as long as the list is organized in a way that makes it useful to readers. I think alphabetical lists are not that useful to general readers, since the list by itself does not give any sense of the timeline or relationships between the listees. I think it is better to list the items chronologically or by country / genre, etc. Conclusion: A well-done "List of Radio DJs" article would be useful to readers. The current list is NOT well done. But it should be improved, not deleted. ThanksNazamo (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment significance should be established in the article, not a list.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentHi,Due to space limitations, it is natural that the main article on a given topic will mainly deal with just the most inflential examples. For example, for an article on the history of house DJs in Detroit, we are mostly going to hear about Frankie Knuckles. However, let us say that there are 30 other house DJs from Detroit in the 1980s that meet Wikipedia notability criteria (e.g., they recorded for major labels, sold XX million records, and were reviewed in leading music publications). In this example, an article entitled "List of 1980s Detroit House DJs" (which would have a ==See also== note in the main "History of House DJs" article) would help readers to see the less well-known, but still-notable DJs from this period. ThanksNazamo (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The better article about those 30 other house DJs, if notability could be established, would be a prose article about "Detroit House DJs of the 1980s" instead of a bare list. A listing of people not themselves notable enough to have their own article is little better than useless. Flesh it out with referenced information and make a go of it. - Dravecky (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi, Thanks for your comment. Sorry, I didn't specify that all of the people in the list would have to be notable enough to have their own article. I am arguing that without the "List of Detroit House DJs of the 1980s" list, these lesser-known DJ articles would just be drifting around in Wikipedia. Another thing I didn't mention is that, IMHO, lists should have at least basic information along with the Wikilinked name. Thus for the House DJs example, we might hear what major clubs they were residents at, their major releases, top 10 tracks, etc. These little biography summaries (just one or 2 lines per person) are the "value-added" that makes the list article more valuable than just the "CATEGORY" list. Just some ideas : ) Nazamo (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentRegarding the "Hopelessly incomplete list" comment in the headline, I think that that is not a good part of a deletion argument. If problems with the current level of completion of an article was a valid grounds for deletion, then we should go and delete all "Stub articles.".... :) .... No, but seriously...Isn't it a stronger argument to claim that there is a fundamental problem with the list ITSELF (e.g., POV fork). In this case, the "concept" of the article is sound. It is just the "execution" that is problematic. The article can be improved, as I discuss elsewhere in this section. Thanks...Nazamo (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from being hopelessly incomplete, it's hopeless that it could be anywhere near complete. It's not really useful as a list; the category works far better. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but should be expanded and split up by country (as a list of all notable DJs worldwide would probably be too long for a single list). DHowell (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wake up keeple! These kind of things are better covered by categories. If you want to view all of them once, use Special:CategoryTree. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA UP HERE, PEOPLE!

Has nobody noticed that some of the editors here are talking about DJs in the club sense of the term, some in the hip-hop music sense, and the others about actual radio disk jockeys, the subject of the list? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree and unfortunately the list itself, as it stands, is a mix of historic radio figures, internet radio hosts, club DJs, and a few talk show hosts (Art Bell is a talk show host, not a disc jockey). It's a mess in need of deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System Simulation Ltd

System Simulation Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The company has notable clients and devised computer systems for them, but I don't think that passes WP:CORP. There's limited RS coverage and it doesn't indicate notability. Ghits appear to be primarily directory listings. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. This would appear to be a business that has carved out a niche market for itself; it takes nothing from that achievement to note that it is rather obscure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — this company is a leading company in the cultural technology sector with independent references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major company in very specialised field. That the field is obscure doesnt prevent the company from being notable within it. Developing the computer systems for the specialised basic enterprise activity of very notable organisations is significant. DGG (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going to disagree here, WP:CORP says, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." That is simply not proven here and there's no evidence (see my results above) that it exists. Of the three sources, one is the company's own site and two are 'bios' from its clients. Neither establishes notability and they don't appear to establish notability. I can say what I want about a company, but I thought core guidelines/policy of WP rely on that being verified. Thoughts? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 11:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Both the Animated channel 4 logo and animations for the Alien film (both notable acheivments at the time) were developed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seo01 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was stubified. While the consensus is that the company is notable, the current article was manifestly promotional, and was authored by a company employee or former employee with a clear conflict of interest. (In the course of due diligence, I found this web page, which refers to "Maggie Rabe, marketing coordinator at Junction Solutions, Lincolnshire, IL"; if it becomes necessary, this can be listed on WP:COIN. Therefore, I have stubbed the article and it can be rebuilt by non-COI editors, following Wikipedia policies on verification, courcing, and NPOV. --MCB (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junction Solutions

Junction Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy, then prod. Company is not notable, fails WP:CORP. Article is overly promotional, and the original author has been warned about this repeatedly and has ignored requests to fix it without comment. Self-promotion is strongly suspected, as main author is an WP:SPA with no other articles edited whatsoever. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and stubify. Looks like there's some valid stuff there, so we shouldn't fully delete it. Granted that a lot of it's crap, so just cut all that out and keep whatever's left. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources do not directly deal with the subject of the article. En passant mention does not qualify regarding WP:N issues... this seems more like an advertisement than an appropriate article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a valid and notable company. Per the WP: N the concept of notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Also, let's all please adhere to the WP: TALK Guidelines: The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy, and consideration. Instead of criticizing, perhaps time would be better spent editing said page. And Realkyhick ]] it might be beneficial for you to read the WP: BITE article. What makes Junction Solutions a candidate for speedy deletion and not Kineticsware, Inc. when they are both software companies and Microsoft partners that deliver enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions? Please expand. MaggieRabe
    • Comment: As a longtime editor here, I am very well acquainted with WP:BITE. I left a message quite some time ago on the Talk:Junction Solutions your talk page, informing you of the issues that needed to be resolved. You did not respond in any fashion, ask any questions, or engage in any dialogue. You merely removed any warning tags that were applied without comment, left the {{underconstruction}} tags in place for a long preiod of time, and persisted in adding promotional material about the company. As for Kineticsware, Inc., I'll repeat our oft-cited policy: The fact that other similar articles exist is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Each subject must stand or fall on its own merits, not by attempting to link notability to a similar subject. It often means that we simply haven't gotten around to flagging the other article(s) for deletion. And now that you've brought this other company to my attention, guess what I'm about to do to it? Yep, time for another AfD. (By the way, this is not a speedy deletion - that's a separate procedure altogether. This is a regular deltion discussion, which is debated for five days, and is anything but speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: As an editor, it is my understainding that you would provide a critical eye and send feedback to this article and not simply place AfD tags on articles that you see fit. I implore you to make edits to the Junction Solutions page as I again refer to WP: N the concept of notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". I was able to post the current content on the Junction Solutions page from my own research, and isn't {{underconstruction}} a tool to signify that the article is just that, a work in progress? As a new user to Wikipedia, I was unaware that a talk page for discussion existed, and did not monitor the page on a frequent basis as you seem to have the time for. Deleting the warning tags was all I could see to do. I appreciate the deletion process explanation, as it is clearer to me now. Lastly, how, may I ask, is describing a company's background and what it does promotional material? MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should have been automatically notified with a top-of-the-page message by the Wikipedia software when I or anyone else posted a message on your discussion page, where I did provide feedback. You mentioned "your own research" - that in and of itself is a violation of Wikipedia policies against original research. You have not provide references as to where you found the information concerning product line or customers; this information is typically known only to those who have a direct connection to the subject company. If you have such a connection (as I suspect), then you have violated policies against conflicts of interest. And attempts to promote a company (or anything else, for that matter) violates policies against advertising and promotion. I nominated the article for deletion after waiting quite some time, far longer than under normal circumstances, simply because you had the under-construction tag posted. However, this cannot be left up indefinitely, and when it becomes apparent that a subject is not notable no matter what other editing takes place, it's time to mark an article for deletion. An article that is not written in an encyclopedic, dispassionate tone and which tends to cast an overly favorable light on the subject are not acceptable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reference I made to having done my own research was locating and compiling sources to support the material posted on the page. Is there another term more appropriate to use than "research"? You say that I have not provided sources for where I found the information concerning product line or customers and that is incorrect. Please see the references on the Junction Solutions page and you will see where I found that information. Regardless of the time that has passed, you have still yet to edit this article in any capacity, aside from the AfD tag or provide constructive feedback for improving the article. A laundry list of policies that, in your personal opinion, have not been adhered to, is not what I would consider editing. And the {{underconstruction}} tag was not an indefinite place holder, simply to signify that the article is a work in progress as more sources are continually being gathered and it was my hope for others to contribute to an article about a notable company. And yet again, I ask you: how is explaining the history and business model of a company "favorable light on the subject"? I constructed the article after reading and examining the format of other companies, and followed a similar layout. MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 09:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did not edit the page because I did not, and still do not, believe the company is notable enough for its own article, period. There is no rule here that says you must edit an article first before nominating an article for deletion. You continue to argue what I haven't done, when the issue is what you haven't done, and what the company hasn't done to pass notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe in Benjamin Disraeli’s quote "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct". I do not agree with the opinion that this company is not notable. I do agree that this article needs work. As a new user to Wikipedia, I had hoped for more constructive feedback and support from fellow users, most especially editors, than was given. Continually citing rules that you assume have been broken is incredulous. MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, your notion of how Wikipedia works is perhaps more idealistic than it should be, and citing rules that should be followed is only incredulous to those who do not wish to follow them for whatever reason. And you still have not answered the question of whether or not you have some affiliation with the company, as I suspect you do. Your avoidance of this matter makes your motives suspect. We are very diligent about not allowing business to use Wikipedia for advertising or self-promotion. So I ask you: Do you have any personal connection to Junction Solutions? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nope. MaggieRabe (Talk to me) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think the company is notable enough. But the article needs a cleanup of the obvious promotional material and language. None of those external links should be used in the body of an article either, per WP:EL. • Anakin (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, and i really am puzzled why people think otherwise. The thing to do with spam is to remove it, as is finally being done. Edits and articles are to be judged on their merits, not speculation about COI. Some of the above comes rather close to badgering an editor. DGG (talk)
    • Comment: As I've said before, this article has all the signs of a promotional article, if not outright spam. The article was created by an editor with no other edits aside from this article who ignored and deleted all warnings and talk-page comments. When the AfD was posted, the author attempted to turn the tables and make it look like I was to blame, a classic case of avoiding or evading the real issue. The company is not notable, no different from dozens if not hundreds of other similar vetical-market software development companies. Nothing about this company makes it stand out from others, and only two of the sources cited can be verified by a link. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this as spam, the company might be notable, but the entire article is unredeemable. The article will have to wait for a neutral editor to recreate it. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus favors deletion. However, Eastmain (or others) - let me know if you want it userfied to keep working on it or to save in case of election.--Kubigula (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Robertson

Grant Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians in that candidates for political office are not notable unless notable for other reasons. dramatic (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if he gains coverage in reliable third party sources (my googling attempts have so far come up with nothing, but I might not be using the best keywords, either). Note that this lack of prejudice applies even if he is still an unelected candidate at the time of re-creation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the sources found, really only one is significant coverage of him by an independent source (the "Stars in our eyes" one). If anything else can be found about him that includes more than just a passing mention (the fact that he's running for Parliament and/or the fact the he used to be an assistant to Helen Clark), I'll switch. For now I'm just downgrading my delete to weak. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references, a number of which deal with him outside the context of electoral politics. I think he would be notable even if he weren't a candidate. --Eastmain (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks Eastmain, but looking at everything he has done other than standing for parliament, it's just a list of jobs, some more in the public eye than others, but I don't think they are notable either singly or collectively. For some reason the current version makes me want to put on an {{advertisment}} template - and this isn't a political viewpoint, I'm a Labour supporter. My opinion is still to delete, (or redirect to Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate) and recreate the article if he wins. dramatic (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was originally created for Grant robertson. I moved the article to the correct capitalization, Grant Robertson. --Eastmain (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the above discussion and WP:BIO. The quality of the article (besides Verifiability means nothing if the subject is not notable. dramatic (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start select

Start select (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The closest this article comes to passing WP:MUSIC seems to be a trivial one-line note (regarding what seems to be gig listings) in a fourty-page PDF magazine (second reference) and a university campus newspaper (first reference). Booglamay (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn following improvements. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Blair (naval officer)

David Blair (naval officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax -none of the Titanic records that I have reviewed on-line list David Blair as second officer or even a crew member. ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection may not be a hoax (was apparently not a crew member during the fateful voyage), but still unreferenced, and therefore does not comply with WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. – ukexpat (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sott

Sott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently it's a new sport but it does not appear to be notable just yet. Appears to be no coverage other than the one source used as a reference. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real new sport, and there is absolutely no reason that this page should be deleted. the link provided in the article is legitimate, and I have a copy of this very same article in newspaper print. This could be the next Pickleball!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matau (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immersive Education

Immersive Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, has been prod'd before hence the straight-to-afd nomination. The two references provided only mention it in passing and don't provide any kind of detailed study of the subject. Roleplayer (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't part of the WP:CSD. Regular delete quick enough? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was on new page patrol flagging vandals and vanity when I originally typed that. I meant to say Strong Delete, just had speedy on the brain.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the talk page. Shouldn't they be playing in the sandbox?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and entirely lacking reliable secondary sources. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suggest the students mentioned on the talk page read Wikipedia:Your_first_article, especially everything that is said about reliable references. I could go and do the work of finding sources (at least typing the term in google has many results, so I actually think this meets WP:GROUP), but probably better to simply start from scratch, maybe in the next class :) --Minimaki (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never mind that this is apparently a class project; there doesn't seem to be enough coverage in reliable sources here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion/Immersive Education I am a college student, computer information technology is my major. I first learned of Immersive Education through my course of study,through computer classes I have enrolled in at the college I'm attending. My Immersive Education experience thus far has been one that is positive. I find IE to be an invaluable educational tool, one that enables me to contact and communicate with students, educators, and professionals who have experience with virtual reality learning tools all over the world. Though a member of Immersive Education, I am relatively new to the group. I hope to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to learn all I can about Immersive Education. Jerome Gear (talk) 11:55PM, March 20 2008
  • Weak Keep It appears to be notable enough; the article is just overladen with peacock terms and unnecessary text (that should at least be left on the talk page). I'd wait to see what happens, and hopefully soon. Otherwise, recommend copying to userspace and working from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems it is a notable project, at least judging by the distinguished sponsorship. The puffery can be removed easily enough.DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_20&oldid=199526745"