Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 12: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:


<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronics Engineering Services}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smurf Conspiracy Theories}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smurf Conspiracy Theories}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanjore Diary}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanjore Diary}}

Revision as of 12:17, 12 May 2008

< May 11 May 13 >

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 delete.  Sandstein  21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics Engineering Services

Electronics Engineering Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per WP:CRYSTAL and it doesn't explain the topic. Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a second keep vote by User:Manavbhardwaj. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A weird mixture of an WP:OR essay, a how-to manual, with a strong wiff of WP:ADVERT. The subject of the article is not well-defined. No sources cited, per WP:RS. Nothing to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A Delete vote of Smerdis of Tlön has been changed to Keep by User:Manavbhardwaj. Here is the diff proving it: [1]. Such actions are unacceptable! I have changed the vote back to the original Delete. Nsk92 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I may have deleted something here as i did not know how and what to do here. I was only correcting my own comments though in that case i might hv repeated too as indicated above. I deeply regret if i did something against the rules.--User:Manavbhardwaj Can this article be considered for merger? or improvement? Please suggest.
  • Since you didn't change the actual explanation of what I said, I'm inclined to assume that it was only a case of unfamiliarity with the format of these discussions and the editing software.

    On the other hand, Wikipedia is generally not the place to propose new business models or plans. Our requirements of "notability" and "reliable sources" are jargon here; but what they seek to guarantee is that article subjects not be new ideas, but pre-existing ideas that are well established enough to be noticed by disinterested third parties. This makes it difficult to suggest places where this might be merged, and I am not familiar enough with electronics engineering as a business to suggest some other place where your text might be more welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. but this is not a new model or a concept, if you search google with this title, you will see many resources available to this on the net already. User:Manavbhardwaj


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.  Sandstein  21:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smurf Conspiracy Theories

Smurf Conspiracy Theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established; no reliable sources used, and none seem to be available in searches.  Frank  |  talk  11:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete It is one of those fringe theories that have lots of coverage within the fringe, but I cannot find any notable independent references to it. As such, it should be deleted. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete might be worth, perhaps, a brief mention in an article about conspiracy theories rather than about the Smurfs, but not as a stand-alone article. Original research that falls in the same category as the joke about the Cartwrights on Bonanza being a Jewish family, and I suspect that the original conspiracy theorists are actually joking about conspiracy theories in general. If you think Papa Smurf's beard looks like that of Karl Marx, you've probably seen one without seeing the other. I'm more worried about the possible communist ties of a guy with a red hat, Karl Marx beard, and a philosophy that manufactured products should be distributed equally throughout the world. HO HO HO!!! Merry... oh, never mind. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They're eeevil, I tell you! EEEEEEVIL! But this strikes me as original research that might be hard to find reliable sources for. Yes, the Smurfs bribed me for this opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These theories seem to have currency on message boards and blogs and such, but that's it. I'd like to point out that, of the three links in the article, two are dead and the third explicitly calls itself "a parody" and "fiction." Red flags went up for me when I realized it refers to them as Communists, Nazis (who were fanatically anti-Communist), and capitalist fat cats in the same article. And Mandsford's right about the beard. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources cited, a dose of WP:OR. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment National Public Radio did a recent segment of In Character on the Smurfs, I recall a brief discussion on the communism and smurfs content. Additionally, a question on the NPR quiz show Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me! this past year dealt with the smurfs and communism. Even with these sources, it's likely the article wouldn't stand. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Wait... is certainly not a source...it's a comedic game show based on the news. Great show, very entertaining...but not a source.  Frank  |  talk  18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of these theories has any assertion of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've heard this stuff before, so there might just be sources floating around. The best way to go about this is to merge the content into The Smurfs article, put up [citation needed] next to unsourced claims. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know I created the article so I am biased for keeping it, but one of the links (that is unfortunately now dead) was a rather long essay explaining the similarities, and most certainly not a parody. If we merge this with The Smurfs, K'm concerned that it will just end up creating a trivia section, against Wikipedia policy. {{Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 14 May 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. This doesn't look like a real article, and the editors in this discussion had a variety of different ideas for how to fix it. I will make the article text available to anyone who wants to work on it in their own user space. WP:NOT suggests to me that the material may not be appropriate anywhere, but with a lot of work, someone might be able to create normal article content. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjore Diary

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

The page was speedy-deleted once (by User:Ganeshk), and Template:Prod was added to it before but removed later by the page creator (User talk:Arunvats). I've gone through the article briefly, compared it with Thanjavur, and here's what I get:

  • It's obvious that the lead section is a complete copy from Thanjavur, the exact place this article talks about.
  • The article MAY have a bit of useful information, but it's rather poorly referenced (because there isn't a single footnote, not to mention it's a messed up article needing cleanup/wikify.
  • The "Thanjavur Diary" section is completely edited by the same editor (the main contributor/creator), so it can be assumed that other editors aren't aware of this article.
  • After Googling "tanjore diary" or "thanjavur diary", results show no websites implying notability.

As a conclusion, I'm suggesting either merge (somehow) into Thanjavur or delete. — Yurei-eggtart 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the deal with the "Tanjore Diary" naming?? What I;d suggest doing is merging with the Thanjavur article ir moving to a Economy of Thanjavur sub articles and formatting some of the more useful information properly in a table. On quick glance some of the info in this article looks like it should be filtered down but I doubt anybody should be removing material which gives information on the economy and facilities of the villages. Technically it is an encyclopedic article which just needs a lot of work reformatting and representing to standards and splitting appropriately in the relevant articles. SOme of the info might be converted to text. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge" to Thanjavur district you mean...? — Yurei-eggtart 08:04, 17 May 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 Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diorenzi villatito

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

Possible speedy delete A1 candidate. The only thing I can find on the subject of the article is this which ranks them at 157 on a list on under 14 Philippines tennis players. This does not indicate the level of reliable sourcing required to meet the primary notability criteria or the specific criteria for people Guest9999 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete So why didn't you tag it speedy? That would save work for AfD reviewers... However, as it does identify him as a tennis player, a WP:PROD might be more appropriate.
  • He is at most 14 years old => not professional => NN
  • He is not ranked well within his division of the "Southern Tagalog CALABARZON Athletic Association" => double NN
  • What is there to discuss? Potatoswatter (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to tag as a speedy go ahead I do not think that this discussion prevents that, I wasn't sure and thought it best to err on the side of caution (incidentally Martina Hingis became a Wimbledon champion at 15). Guest9999 (talk) 12:19, 12 May 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 to Deep Zone Project. Notability, for being at Eurovision Contest, is not for each of the subjets, but for their collaboration. Also all the info about DJ Balthazar is currently already at the taget. Naturally with no prejudice for a later split, should new info arise. - Nabla (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Balthazar

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 Speedy Delete per CSD:G3 (Hoax). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin berton

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

This article claims notability, but I have never heard of Colin berton or the Sydney Sand-devils. It may not be a hoax, but the claim to notability seems to be greatly overstated Grahame (talk) 08:07, 12 May 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 to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bari Imam

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

The current article lacks a clear assertion of notability and has no reliable sourcing. I am not familiar enough with the subject to determine if it is a salvageable topic or not, but currently it's largely a coatrack for the various Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi fanatics that have been trying to spread the word via Wikipedia. (Article creator, Asikhi (talk · contribs), is the "Press & Information Secretary" for Shahi's organization.) — Scientizzle 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but... I did a quick google and this person and his shrine are clearly notable. However, the article as written is mere pseudohistory, Sunday-school pietism. Is there some way to put an article on probation? To say to the people who posted it: You have X amount of time to make this objective and get some footnotes to reliable sources, or it will be deleted. It is simply not right for sects to post their favorite saint stories on Wikipedia.Elan26 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[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 to delete, default to keep. Even after discounting several single purpose accounts, we do not have a consensus to delete. Any POV and sourcing problems the article might have can be remedied by editing, renaming or merging it, all of which do not require deletion. These problems (if any) do not appear to be so fundamental as to require outright deletion despite the lack of a consensus for deletion. If the TV programme is perceived to be more notable than the event itself, the article can be rewritten to focus on the programme.  Sandstein  08:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killings at Coolacrease

Killings at Coolacrease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unsalvageable mish-mish of an article, a pile of original research, synthesis and POV-pushing about an obscure incident near the end of the Irish War of Independence whose only claim to notability is that it was the subject of a controversial TV programme produced and broadcast late last year by RTÉ. I think that there are good grounds for believing that the TV program itself is notable — there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources, including articles in most of Ireland's major national newspapers.

However, the article was created as an article about the historical event, and there are insufficient reliable secondary sources to support such an article. The sources available consist of two memoirs by people whose families were involved in different sides of the conflict, one transcript of any indymedia debate led by Pat Muldowney (of whom more anon), and a pile of primary sources published on indymedia. At no stage in the discussions on the article's talk pages has anyone offered any evidence that there exists any impartial, scholarly account of the events; all that we have is the pile of material generated by the protagonists, and suggestions that something more solid may be forthcoming in the future.

The existence of this article are completely bound up in the debate over the TV programme, and it is being used a battleground by at least one of the protagonists in that controversy. The programme provoked a heated debate in Ireland, not least from two individuals (Paddy Heaney and Pat Muldowney), who claimed that the program was biased, and lodged unsuccessful complaints with Ireland's Broadcasting Complaints Commission.[5] Muldowney also engaged in the public debate in the press, and wrote extensively about the TV programme on indymedia, strongly opposing the programme and setting out what he believed was a more accurate presentation of the history.

So far so good; there's nothing at all wrong with anyone participating passionately in a public debate. However, the wikipedia problems began when Pat Muldowney (talk · contribs) began to summarise his views in a wikipedia article. It is to Muldowney's credit that he registered in his own name, but as a vocal protagonist in the public controversy, he had a clear conflict of interest and should have refrained from editing the article. Unfortunately, repeated requests for him to do so have been unsuccessful, and after the article was substantially revised by others he removed most of the additions.

Muldowney may not be the only editor here with an outside involvement with this issue. Other contributions, largely supporting Muldowney, have been made by Knockanore (talk · contribs), only one of whose 15 contributions is not to this article or its talk page. Yet another single-purpose account is User:Feint, who has made substantial edits to the article but not participated in any discussions, and there is also Spleen&ideal (talk · contribs). I don't think that I have ever seen so many single-purpose accounts at work on an article.

I tried myself to add some balance to the article, but apart from the difficulties involved in discussion with editors apparently uninterested in wikipedia policies, I eventually concluded that there not enough sources to allow an article on anything other than the TV programme.

As above, I think that there is a theoretical possibility that a properly-sourced article could be written on the TV program. However, the latest edits have removed nearly all coverage of the TV program, leaving this version, which is an appalling mishmash of original research and synthesis primarily written by an editor with a huge COI, and relying in large part on indymedia sources and on the accounts Alan Stanley and Paddy Heaney (neither of whom is a professional historian, both of whom is writing about their own relatives).

It may be that in future there will be sufficient published scholarship to allow a properly-sourced article to be written about the historical event, but as of now, there isn't. What we have here is a travesty of many wikipedia policies, and it should be deleted. If kept, it will continue to be abused as a vehicle for various POV-pushers with vested interests to promote the original research on which this article is founded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion, No Gagging. I've checked through the article again to see if there is any valid reason for deletion. I just can't see it. The basic historical facts on which all sources agree are given and cited. Areas of disagreement are listed and appropriate sources for each side cited, without any indication of editorial preference that I can detect.

The sources cited are good. One of the main sources is the academic work of Philip McConway which is published by the highly regarded Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society, and is readable off their website. The cited work of Paddy Heaney is published by the same society and its affiliates.

The main sources for the opposing case are Alan Stanley's 2005 book (cited in the original article), and Eoghan Harris's October 9 2005 Sunday Independent article. Maybe the Harris article is a more WP-appropriate citation than Alan Stanley's book. But Harris's article is just a resumé of Stanley's book, and I think the latter should also be cited.

The list of citations in the article includes documents in the public domain (Public Records Office etc) which are selectively quoted in most discussions about the 1921 incidents. These sources are cited in the article without drawing any conclusions or implications from them – no analysis.

These sources have been placed in the public domain by the authority of two states – the Irish and British. It is reasonable to quote from them provided the quotes are accurate and balanced. One of the merits of the article was that, in effect, it quoted them in full (by means of hyperlinks) but without drawing conclusions from them. It is a mistake to remove those links, in my opinion.

There has been far too much ad hominem argument here. Knockanore (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Knockanore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

ReplyKnockanore, one of the reason that new editors are cautioned against participating in deletions debates is that new editors lack familiarity with the policies and guidelines on which such decisions are made. Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. What a wikipedia article needs is reliable secondary sources ... and the only source offered so far which comes anywhere close to meeting that test is a two-part article in the local newspaper in County Offaly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Knockanore, you claim that the Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society is "highly regarded". Any evidence in reliable sources for that assertion, or that its publications are the subject of the professional peer review and fact-checking discussed in Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←If you read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion, you will see that it says clearly that "relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin". You have offered no facts or evidence; all you have offered is an unfounded allegation of a political agenda on the part of an established editor.

The main purpose of a deletion debate is to assess whether an article complies with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is a problem that your replies here do not address the lack of reliable sources on the incident itself, and consequent failure to meet the notability guidelines. Instead of addressing those issues, you have chosen to claim (without any evidence) that I have some political ideology which is being brought to bear on the debate.
In terms of reliable secondary sources for the event, the closet we have anything which would meet WP:N is two articles in a low-circulation local newspaper:

  • Philip McConway (7 November 2007). "The Pearsons of Coolacrease, pt. 1". Tullamore Tribune.
  • Philip McConway (14 November 2007). "The Pearsons of Coolacrease, pt. 2". Tullamore Tribune.

That's it. There is nothing else to establish the notability of the 1921 events, apart from primary sources and a bunch of unreliable sources

... but to establish the notability of the TV documentary we have:

  1. David Adams (9 November 2007). "Diehards reveal true colours". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
  2. Eoghan Harris (9 October 2005). "This tree has rotten roots and bitter fruit". Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
  3. Niamh Sammon (25 November 2005). "Unfounded claims about killings". Letters column, The Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
    *Eoghan Harris (11 November 2005). "Why bodies buried deep in the green bog must be raised". Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
    * David Adams (9 November 2007). "Diehards reveal true colours". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
  4. Niamh Sammon (25 November 2005). "Unfounded claims about killings". Letters column, The Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
  5. History Ireland, January-February 2008
  6. More coverage in the Irish Independent
  7. "'Time for truth on murders'". Belfast Newsletter. 14 November 2007. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
  8. "Can we learn the lessons of history?". The Western People. 31 October 2007. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
  9. Lots more coverage in the Irish Times
  10. Lynne Kelleher (21 October 2007). "30 IRA men shot two farm brothers in the groin and left them to". Sunday Mirror. Retrieved 2008-04-24.

Plus less reliable sources such as:

... plus the fact that on 18 April 2008, the television documentary The Killings at Coolacrease won an International Hugo Television Award (Gold Plaque in the Documentary: History and Biography category), run as part of the 44th Chicago International Film Festival (see RTE (18 April 2008). "RTÉ Wins International Hugo Awards". RTE. Retrieved 2008-04-28.)

Despite all this evidence, you and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable, but the event is? Please, if you are going to reply, do take some time to read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYN and then the notability guidelines at WP:N. That way you might have something to say about the deletion criteria rather than making inaccurate guesses about my alleged "political ideology". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable - Where? 82.36.178.185 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You above, others on the article's talk page. OH, and BTW, don't edit other contributors' comments. (see WP:TPG). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is for trivia, stuff like pop-groups no one has heard of.--GwydionM (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Trivia is only one of many possible grounds for deletions: see some of the others listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article should be deleted for all the reasons mentioned above by BrownHairedGirl. A new article should first give brief outline of event (as there are very little secondary sources) and then the bulk of the article should be based around the subsequent debate. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this (the debate) is how an unknown story came to a wider audience - Anybody doing a Wiki search on the subject would almost certainly be aware of the documentary and media coverage.
    ...also a point made in the discussion that has cause for concern. It was said that one contributing historian to the documentary was unhappy with it while "none of the other professional historians has publicly defended it". There is an inference that because they haven't defended it, they are distancing themselves from it. It would be a mistake to come to this conclusion. Feint (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Feint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I should stress that the quality of the TV documentary is not relevant to its notability. Whether it is a brilliant piece of research or a pile of tendentious nonsense, what matters is its notability, which is established though the copious refs on the subsequent controversy. I would argue strongly against any suggestion that TV documentary be regarded as a reliable source on matters of history, other than in exceptional circumstances ... and in this case the notability of the programme stems in large part from the controversy over its reliability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is important enough to induce, on a quick count, ten history professionals to involve themselves publicly in it. Two of them have published on the subject. (Regarding the separate issue of the TV programme, no history professional that I know of has defended it publicly, and five that I know of have publicly declared it to have no merit as history.) Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Pat Muldowney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply Pat, it's interesting to see you still continuing to use wikipedia to promote your campaign against the TV programme, but it's disappointing that you still appear not to have read any of the wikipedia guidelines on which this nomination is based. The involvement of history professionals does not establish notability; what does establish notability is substantial coverage in reliable sources. The event has only one piece of coverage which comes close to being a reliable source; whereas has the TV programme has lots of coverage in reliable sources (which is a different issue from whether the programme itself is reliable).
After covering the article you created with refs to unreliable sources and to your own self-published work, you are still at it: you claim that five historians have publicly denounced the TV programme, but offer no evidence for that assertion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBHG please read How to avoid being a "biter". You state You are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns; then when a newbie endeavours to follow this, you wholesale revert with ad hominen attacks. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The edit of mine to which you link is the boilerplate AFD notice, and it does not override COI issues. The edit which I reverted did not address those concerns, it reinserted copious references to partisan and unreliable sources. If you are concerned about helping new editors, then you may want to take some time to try explaining to Muldowney about wikipedia policies; I have already tried at great length, as you would see if you read the article talk page. There is nothing "ad hominem" about drawing attention to the fact that an edit breaches wikipedia policies has been made in pursuit an acknowledged conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You posted the boilerplate plate - if it meant jackshit to you in this particular instance, a personal note disclaiming it could have been left. A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. You well know the Sword of Damocles is above this article. Your aim, as shown here, is to have this article removed. What motivation have you to allow improvements? Can you not see that any edit you make to this article while it is under AfD is conflicting with your interests. If you desist from editing the article while the AfD is open I will endeavour to assist Pat to the best of my abilities. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. It is not my aim to have this article removed; my aim is to remove the use on unreliable sources, original research and synthesis to create an article in pursuit of a POV. I believe that deletion is the best way to resolve that, but while deletion is being discussed, the article continues to use unreliable sources because you just reinstated them without addressing their unreliability, and those sources should be removed to avoid misleading anyone who reads the article now. I don't know what sort of help you intend to give Pat, but if your idea of help consists of reinstating unreliable sources into an article, don't expect me to think that your help is beneficial to wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The suggestion that this page should be deleted is demonstrably absurd. Why is BrownHairedGirl carrying on a one girl campaign against this subject. It is somewhat obsessional. If she is so keen to celebrate a television programme, why not go off and start a page on the subject. I suggest she will have it all to herself - happy days for everyone, no need for this censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomath (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Rather than making claims of censorship, why not address some some of the relevant policy points? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Because you are a policy pedant, searching for procedures that justify censorship. Is there a policy or procedure to describe that? I have better things to do than consider such nonsense. BTW, if this is Pat Muldowney's first venture into Wikipedia (people have to start somewhere), I doubt that he is getting much encouragement to persevere, given your obsession. What is your beef? Please go away for a while and let the page develop and then settle down. Maybe you have given up your foolish campaign. I see you are back editing the page. Hardly logical if you want it deleted. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please. My beef is that wikipedia is being abused by a high-profile protagonist in a public controversy to push his POV, using unreliable sources and original research to create an article on a non-notable subject, using the title of a topic which is notable. And indeed, I have edited the page, to remove more of the unreliable sources on which the article is based. If you think that upholding the need for reliable sources is censorship, then you are free to go and try to have the fundamental policy WP:V changed or abolished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I hope I am not being uncivil when I now term you an entirely inconsistent policy pedant. You have just deleted a couple of references from the Sunday Independent, while you have left in others. The difference is, presumably, that you approve of the ones you have left in, and disagree with the ones you have censored. You deleted a reference I put in to a review of your celebrated television programme, and then reinserted it. Thank you so much. How about now reinserting the Sunday Independent refs as well. Have you got something against Mr Muldowney.? Do you know him? Have you a special desire to make life a misery for people who are trying to do their best. Or perhaps you have your own pet point of view, which you are hiding behind your professed policy wonk concern for procedure and acronyms. Maybe you are a low profile protagonist. I hope you don't consider this uncivil. Maybe I should be banned too. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Nomath, please can you comment on the comments, not on the contributors, and refrain from personal attacks. After removing a whole load of references to an unreliable source (Heaney's book), I noticed that in the process a ref to a reliable source had been removed, so I reinstated it. Why do you have a problem with that?
As to Muldowney, I object strongly to any conduct, from whatever POV, which amounts to using wikipedia as a campaigning tool, as Muldowney has down. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is distressing than some editors are usning the article for POV pushing, that is not a ground for deletion. The article is well sourced and the comments from other posters in this debate show additonal sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question Can you explain more by what you mean by "well-sourced"? As explained above, the article sources consist of several references for tangential points (such as the results of the 1918 election), a bunch of primary sources, a two-part article in a local newspaper, and copious references to a book by Pat Heaney, a local man one of who claims that one of his family was shot by the Pearsons. To me, that looks like the only remotely reliable secondary source is the two-part newspaper article, and nobody has suggested any other reliable secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it happened & was significant we can write an article. NPOV might be best served if the people now involved in it stepped back a little. DGG (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a question as to whether the events described occurred or not. The RTE programme failed to meet basic standards of accuracy and fairness, leaving hundreds of thousands of people with an inaccurate view of history. This was done deliberately with a view to distorting, not clarifying what happened. Apparently, very lax or even non-existent standards of research ethics were applied in this programme. Now BHG wants to apply impossibly high standards to a well-researched and balanced entry that sets the record straight and attempts undo some of the harm done by that ill-advised programme, while condoning those that were applied in the RTE programme. It seems to have been forgotten by BHG that an encyclopaedia entry should strive as far as possible for the truth. The evidence and arguments for this entry are far superior to anything that has been attempted by the supporters of the RTE programme. An outsider can only wonder that some Irish citizens should be so concerned to conceal the truth about an event at a key point in their country's history that they should go to such lengths as this. This is a blatant attempt at censorship with the intention, one suspects of preventing the utter discrediting of the RTE programme and any subsequent attempts to revive it or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) — Ukobserver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Reply. Wow, yet another single-purpose account pitching in here. Ukobserver is not a new editor, so he/she is probably unaware of wikipedia policies, which is why every one of the arguments made by Ukobserver directly opposes wikipedia policies.
      Firstly, wikipedia's a standard is not truth, it's verifiability (see WP:V). "Setting the record straight" by "discrediting of the RTE programme" is a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. Finally, you may or may or may be right that the RTE programme was a pile of nonsense, but it's not up to you or me use to use original research to prove or disprove that point; wikipedia is a tertiary source, and it reports the analyses which have already been published in secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. It astonishes me BHG, that you cannot see that your attacks on Muldowney constitutes one large personal attack - sauce for goose and gander I am afraid. You argue incessantly against his efforts to the point of absurdity - your reference above to removing what you construe as an 'unreliable source' is high handedness of a breath taking quality. You are a one girl band. I have checked today: Muldowney was writing on this subject long before there was a television programme or any mention of one. The point is that you and he have a different point of view, but you are masking yours through acts of procedural superiority, sarcasm and editorial obsession. Why not just accept it, and attempt a rapprochement with the good Doctor. I'm sure you can work it out. Please do, for all our sakes. I take it that the campaign of censorship is now over, as you have been editing the offending page?? Please say yes. Nomath (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Nomath, you are having great fun accusing me of all sorts of things ... but in the midst of your tirades, you have not once addressed wikipedia's policies other than to dismiss them. Wikipedia is not a blog or a web-hosting service, nor is it indymedia. It is an encyclopedia, with policies covering content and sources. There is no censorship in insisting that wikipedia articles are referenced to reliable sources, and that it is not used by Mukdowney or anyone else as a vehicle for publishing their original research. At no point in this discussion have you addressed any of the issues wrt to policy, and you seem to have not slightest problem with Uk2censor specifically praising this as supporting the aim of "utter discrediting of the RTE programme". You may not have a problem with such blatant and deliberate misuse of wikipedia for propaganda purposes, but I do; now, if you think I'm wrong, please address policy and guidelines rather than yet another dose of vitriol at me. As one example, rather than accusing me of "high handedness of a breath taking quality", please explain in what sense Heaney's book meet WP:V#Reliable_sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Muldowney carnival has finally rolled into Wiki-town convinced that they can hijack what might be the last credible place for them to rewrite the story as they see it. They've done it in less credible places like indymedia, censoring comments that differed from theirs (the freedom of the internet). Muldowney/Aubane/IPR/Indymedia were laughed off the stage by the Irish media; they feel a bit sore, because their complaints were rejected by the Broadcasting Complaints Committee and recently have got a right kick in the groin (or is it genitals? Does it matter?) because the programme they had a complete hissy fit about has just picked up an international award. Any version of the story of the Pearsons that includes contributions from any of the above should carry a severe health warning. Feint (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet more pedantry from BHG. One cannot claim truth without providing verifiability. BHG is setting absurdly high standards of verifiability. Apparently RTE is much less demanding. The authors of this entry are not trying to censor anyone. The truth, supported by reliable evidence, is not a point of view. Or perhaps BHG you are some kind of postmodernist who does not believe that there is such a thing as truth, only whatever kind of plausible story you try to concoct? Do you, for example, believe that it is ok to interview the dead as one prominent historian of modern Ireland has done? Or distort what an informant says because you think he was mistaken?

It is proper to ask for as much of a degree of verifiability as the subject demands. If we met the standard that you are trying to maintain for this entry, there would not be much history - we certainly wouldn't be publishing some of the much celebrated heroes of modern Irish history whose standards fall so far below those of Pat Muldowney one wonders if they are historians rather than fantasists. I cannot see the slightest reason why this entry should be removed other than your desire to suppress knowledge of what actually happened at Coolacrease. If informing people of the facts of the matter is not one of the jobs of an encyclopaedia, I don't know what is.**** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver (talk • contribs) 09:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: I think we need more discussion by uninvolved, established editors about this. Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to keep, but overall the article needs a lot of help. I think I'm uninvolved. I certainly think the article could be improved in any number of ways, but I don't think deletion is the answer here. The incident has been made somewhat notable by the TV show, but other sources do seem to exist. That being said, the article is far from perfect, and it could require a lot of work to cut out the OR from the appropriate information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, "This page is 40 kilobytes long." If you want new reviewers to be uninvolved, maybe it would be better to close this AfD and start from scratch. Far as I can tell, article has plenty sources. As for reliability, history ain't perfect. A lot of ugly things could be erased if "unreliable" witnesses were dismissed! Nom appears to be fighting a scholastic battle against clear notability. That will probably not succeed here at WP where reality occasionally takes a back seat. So why not spend the same energy explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers, rather than to us? Surely people will come here after seeing the TV special, expecting WP to be more NPOV than RTE, and they should get your input too. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Potatoswatter, please take another look at the article. The list looks impressive, because it includes lots of references to trivial points (in sources which are highly unlikely to menton these killings at all). When it comes to the core of the story, the only source which comes anywhere close to being a reliable secondary sources is the articles in the local paper by Philip McConway, who is a postgraduate student[6]. An article by a postgrad in a low-circulation local newspaper is not the sort of peer-reviewed publication that fits the best standard of reliable source, per WP:V.
      Beyond that, we have lots of primary sources (irrelevant to notability), and two books by involved parties; that hardly amounts to notability per WP:NOTE.
      As to your suggestion that I should be "explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers" ... are you serious? You appear to be asking me to write a WP:ESSAY of original commentary, in flagrant breach of WP:NOR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP has lots of articles on things that aren't true. If you believe it to be an urban legend, then you should say why it is. Legends often lie in the grey area of unverifiability, yet popular belief or mere repetition leads to WP:N. As for whether pointing out the lack of sources constitutes OR, since nobody else in the literature has pointed out the lack of sources, well in that case you've done actual research right here. How does using OR as a bludgeon to delete an article trump putting same OR in the article? Potatoswatter (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply. I am not saying that nothing happened there, just that there are inadequate reliable sources to support an article. The rest of your comment is bizarre; if pointing out a lack of reliable secondary sources was itself original research, then WP:V would be a meaningless policy. Please read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, which clearly says that it is the responsibility of editors adding material to demonstrate that it is properly sourced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it belongs to an encyclopedia, but from what I've read it needs an enormous overhaul. Unfortunately it is one of those articles which has to include different views and sources, and is a good example of how our history gets mangled by everyone.Red Hurley (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any article attracting this many socks and anons gives me a very strong presumption of non-notability. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep remove any content tht is not adhering to NPOV. BigDuncTalk 12:18, 15 May 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. I note that there are some sources for the track listings of CD-1, CD-2, and CD-3, at Amazon.com. But no mention to the said track. Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" kept, but I edited it accordingly and tagged for notability anyway - Nabla (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Religion's Love

My Religion's Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability listed in the article, or existing in reality TheHYPO (talk) 07:07, 12 May 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse (Club Penguin)

Lighthouse (Club Penguin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In my opinion, this article should be deleted because it does not have any references and may contain original research. Also, other rooms in Club Penguin do not have their own Wikipedia article. Vinni3 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 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. Only citations are from blogs and other user-generated content. Also has COI issues and appears to veer dangerously close to advertising. Black Kite 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Possible IRL

Not Possible IRL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost added a speedy tag for non-notable web, but couldn't quite be sure. All google hits seem to be blogs. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - Advertising, and per nom. asenine say what? 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep well known in second life, obviously less cited on the web, but with several secondary sources cited including scholarly journals, this art group page meets notability. it could be expanded, and I'm sure it will be expanded over time as more is published. the afd, it seems to me, is a bit of a 'oh something newish, can't be notable' job, which usually is true, alas here, it is not. here we have people doing real work that is being recognized. --Buridan (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The journal sources do discuss art in Second Life, but neither contain the term "NPIRL" or the words "not possible" or the name of the creator listed here, Bettina Tizzy (who is also the author of the article). Perhaps this should be moved to "Art in Second Life," but right now I can't seem to find any citing of this group outside of blogs. I guess "I didn't speedy it" may not sound like I'm giving it the highest consideration, but there is really no claim of notability in this article, and I did look through the sources and try to find others before making the nom. If I'm missing something, please indicate. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
still keep I think those citations actually add to this page. I think the improvements mentioned below still sustain notability. I think more verifiable sources have been found. One of the issues we have here is that SL in world activities are ephemeral, so it will take some time to develop more secondary verifiability--Buridan (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
still keep - I have just been pointed to a citation from HBO documentaries that mentions the group and I have added that to the article. I have been doing some digging and it appears there may be more of this type of citation forthcoming over the next couple of weeks. Is it possible to have a stay on this AfD for 30days, or is the 5-day rule set in stone?BcRIPster (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has changed a lot (for the better) in the past day, so some of the first few comments may no longer be applicable. The journal articles are all gone, for example. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to challenge verifiability policy/reliable sources in the context of the subject matter. The majority of journalists who report on Second Life and other virtual world related news, publish exclusively via the WWW and frequently via a blog format. Take for instance James Au Wagner who is a former writer for Wired and has written for other mainstream news outlets. He current runs a regular feature about Second Life related news, but it is only available from a blog he publishes like a newsletter. His publication is strongly considered to be a reliable source in the virtual worlds community.BcRIPster (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With the notable exception of Reuters, "virtual world journalists" = bloggers. WillOakland (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment disagree, bloggers are bloggers and journalists are journalists. The two overlap when a professional journalist has a blog, that is journalism so long as the author maintains the professional standing on that blog. now you are welcome to your opinion, of course, but perhaps reading some of the research of Axel Bruns and others would change your opinion.--Buridan (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd also like to challenge that vote based on the poster being uninformed with their statement. There are literally dozens of publications within Second Life that replicate their content externally via blogs, that have editorial processes and content controls for their writers, and this isn't just English based. Some are Japanese, Russian, and German that I know of, and I'm sure there are more, and only a few of them republish externally via PDF, etc... many use blogs.BcRIPster (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to convincingly establish notability. Biruitorul (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've taken this issue of "bloggers vs reporters" up on the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources discussion page.BcRIPster (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although this group is somewhat notable on Flickr, it is not well known by almost the entire community of Second Life, and therefore does not have any sources to cite and use. (On Flickr it is notable because it is a Flickr Group.) -Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 16:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've misjudged the community, and i'm deeply sorry about my overstatement. I am a teen grid Second Life resident, so I don't know ALL aspects of Second Life. After reviewing the web for sources and knowledge of it, I have decided to change my vote to keep. Deeply sorry again. -Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Not Possible in Real Life group is absolutely essential for the world to know about. Bettina has carefully assembled this group out of some of the most creative artists in the world of Second Life. The best news about second life comes from groups and people inside Second Life. People who live in the world are best able to present information and news and this takes a blog format in 98% of cases in order to be shared with the 2D side of the internet. If anything, this page simply needs some love and more information to properly frame the importance of this group to the future of virtual world technology and Art.Earth Primbee (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC) — Primbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Not notable, only group of users of virtual world. --Jklamo (talk) 17:26, 19 May 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 Speedily kept. Nomination withdrawn with no delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Interaction via MMORPGs

Social Interaction via MMORPGs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a lot more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry, and I cannot think of how this could be rephrased to be suitable. Also, there are quite a lot of advertising statements and WP:OR/unreferenced claims - also lots of neologisms like 'Power Gamer' and 'Hotshot'. Very good intentions, it would seem, but it certainly does not fulfil inclusion criteria. asenine say what? 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per discussion. asenine say what? 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or failing that, move to user space. This was actually fairly interesting to read. And it may not really be original research: the problem is mostly one of formatting, since the ending of the text contains a fairly extensive list of resources consulted, and actually dares to discuss their relevance: it's not inline citations, but IMO it's better than inline citations. The author ought to receive every encouragement to work on this.
    I assume this is not a copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Cleanup - This article hasn't been tagged with maintenance tags or prodded but gone straight to AfD barely ten minutes after creation. I feel that the document *can* be reworked, with useful dialogue with the article's creator, in order to create a valuable and integrated article. I would humbly suggest that the AfD is placed either on hold or withdrawn while this work takes place, as per this discussion on the AfD talk page. As for the reference to neologisms, I respectfully disagree with the nominator that these are an issue as they are used in common parlance within the videogaming community and to a reasonable extent outside. This is a well researched article with a large amount of meaningful information written by a contributor new to wikipedia - we should be doing everything we can to cleanup and encourage, not WP:BITEing through an instentaneous AfD. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize and merge - After summarizing this article, it should be merged into the MMORPG article. Otherwise, this is pretty much an essay and looks like it has a lot of original research, opinion, and speculation around a few reliable statements. This article shouldn't stand on its own. Randomran (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like something written by an academic who doesn't know Wikipedia standards. User:Krator (t c) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. Weird. Krator has it right: This is far from a typical newbie's article, but as we so often forget some people have lives before they join Wikipedia. The sentiment seems to be that a feasible attempt to fix the article can be made once we agree on what should be fixed and why. Disproving this would be quite a feat as the article was AfD'd a full twelve minutes after its creation, before improvement could be attempted. If the nominator would be so kind as to say he withdraws the nomination, it would free our hands to close this AfD as a speedy keep and let the improvement effort get to it. --Kizor 13:41, 13 May 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 Speedy delete per CSD:G3. Deliberate hoaxes are vandalism. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Sueno del Siempre

El Sueno del Siempre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about author's made up soap opera. After numerous warnings about posting about his soap opera stuff among the reference desks and making vanity articles, he still persists on doing it. Here's another article made with similar circumstances. --Ouzo (talk) 05:45, 12 May 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. Appears to meet WP:LIST, and would be less useful as a category; this is the correct way to present the material. It's quite well researched and written, could do with some citations though. Black Kite 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums containing a hidden track

Keep, how would I know where to look if I want to know which albums have hidden tracks without this article? Not all of the albums on this page have pages of their own. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums containing a hidden track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A very broad, essentially endless list. Many albums have hidden tracks, so it's not particularly special. This could perhaps be turned into a category. Spellcast (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate you on a new reason for deletion: "too long". Next up: "too much material" and then "too informative", followed by "too notable"? </justified sarcasim> — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 11:50, 14 May 2008
Yeah a hidden track is a non-defining and trivial part of an album. I can't see how it's significantly more special than a skit or interlude. Spellcast (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good point Lugnuts. I was just about to mention that if it was converted to a category, someone would probably just come along and nominate it for deletion. Though the article does very little for me personally, I "could possibly" see where it might be useful to collectors. As for the rationale, I guess the same thing could be said for "lists of guitarists" or "lists of drummers"... etc. I'm not voting on this issue though, just sharing my thoughts. -- WikHead (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a good article and meets WP:List Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Ijanderson977. I think this could become a good article with a little cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This topic is viable and certainly not likely to be an "endless list" (a rationale I often use myself for deleting list articles, I might add). In this case, also, the albums themselves serve to be the source for the purposes of verification, so confirming the existence of these tracks is easy. The lead should be rewritten a bit so that it doesn't come off as a "manual." 23skidoo (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The albums themselves can't be used to source this because they're hidden tracks. If the album credited these songs in the liner notes, it wouldn't be a hidden track. Spellcast (talk) 15:47, 19 May 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.  Sandstein  07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Pakistan

List of songs about Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tried to get this deleted before on an en-mass AFD, but it managed to sneak by as part of the group. PRODing apparently isn't allowed now, so lets just rid of it once and for all. Note there has been no improvement to this article or its sub-articles for a year since it was saved. Bulldog123 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 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 --JForget 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farming change in Britain

Farming change in Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another OR Essay. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:00, 12 May 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 is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Be A Tourist

Don't Be A Tourist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence for encyclopedic notability (see WP:COMPANY). The article spends a lot of time praising the virtues of this young company, but fails to mention any "hard facts" like the number of employees, revenue or profits. High on a tree (talk) 03:47, 12 May 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 merge to List of Strawberry Shortcake characters. The List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies claims a close connection between each filly and each character, so there is a benefit to the reader if these articles are merged. Wikipedia:Article_size#Technical_issues says the 32K limit, while strongly recommended, is no longer a hard and fast rule so this should not be an obstacle to merging. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies

List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of non-notable characters in the Strawberry Shortcake series. Sources aren't all that hot, and I doubt any good ones exist. I'm tempted to call this fancruft, even. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:32, 12 May 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 --JForget 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Woods

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

This article is about a fictional character that appears only in one film and is not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. The article lacks any reliable secondary sources (it references only the film itself), and it is unlikely that any suitable secondary sources could be found to support an independent article about this character or indicate the character's notability. The article consists mainly of a direct copy of the "Plot" section from Alien vs. Predator (film), and all the significant information about the character is already covered in that article and in List of characters in the Alien vs. Predator series. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I felt a redirect, though a simpler solution, was unnecessary because nearly all the articles that link to this one do so only through a template (Template:Alien), therefore it would be easy to eliminate these links if the article was deleted. Basically the article was split off from Alien vs. Predator (film) when it never should have been, so I thought deletion rather than redirection was the better option. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:37, 12 May 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 speedily deleted by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (G11: Blatant advertising) at 03:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The artists formally known as vince

The artists formally known as vince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't seem find any reliable references for this organization to verify the information in it, or to establish notability. There is this, but I'm not sure if they're talking about the same group. Plus, they don't look reliable. Weakly do I nominate this article, and would withdraw if I could find any reliable sources. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:15, 12 May 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 is that these lists are redundant to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, which provides an appropriate level of coverage in view of the lack of secondary sources about the characters at issue.  Sandstein  07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters

AfDs for this article:
List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Let's put it this way: There has been many mentions of the usefulness of this article, and whether or not it should exist, so I figured nominating it for deletion would attract some attention, since deletion is basically what these discussions are about. Here is the problem: This is an article that devotes three or more paragraphs to secondary characters in a TV Show, some of which have only appeared once or twice. These characters are already described in List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, and do not deserve pages upon pages of useless information about them. In addition, this is literally the ONLY "major secondary characters" article in existence. Every other TV show article has one list of characters and sometimes separate articles for the main characters. The list is non-notable, is completely in-universe, and is sure to have a little bit of POV in there too. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender secondary recurring characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep, Mai, Ty Lee, Roku, Ozai, Zhao, and Suki are very, very important characters in the story arch. What's with all of the Avatar article hating these days anyway? (12 May 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.15.170 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid the time has come that the numerous Avatar articles condense into only a few. The reason is because a lot of the information is useless. In fact, when it comes to characters, most television series only have one article for characters, while Avatar has three. The only articles that other shows have that Avatar does not are the episode articles, and that is because other shows have published production information for each episode, where Avatar does not. If the show's creators had some more interviews and gave us some more info, then we might be able to expand. For now, though, we must cleanup the excess articles and get rid of the pages of useless plot summaries and speculation. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that it doesn't appear to be much different than the article that was kept by consensus during the last AFD 6 months ago, and that an article like this is preferable to having separate articles on each character. The fact this is a clear spin-off of another article is irrelevant, and since we're not supposed to use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as an argument for keeping, it follows that the opposite OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST is likewise not a good rationale. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST is not the rationale for deletion, it is just a point I made (if it seems otherwise, I apologize). The rationale for deletion is that most of the information does not comply with WP:PLOT or WP:WAF, two very important policies for this article. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and verfiable list associated with notable franchise; title even says "major" in it). Plus, clear consensus to keep a few months ago and "cruft" is never a valid reason to delete anything. Also, consistent per Firt pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but for that statement from WP:Lists to apply, it has to be, as you said, "discriminate". This article pages upon pages of indiscriminate character summaries. There is a point when the summary is not put on this article, but then it is just dumped onto the other article I nominated. In addition, I would think that WP:PLOT would take precedence over WP:Lists (WP:PLOT is a policy and WP:Lists is a guideline). This article has almost no secondary sources at all (let alone reliable). If you could find me good, informational secondary reliable sources that can significantly change this article from plot summary to out-of-universe, be my guest. But since there very few sources that are out there for even the protagonists of this TV Series, I highly doubt you will get very far. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you consider sites like avatar-manga.com or absoluteanime.com reliable sources, then you have something. Unfortunately, I highly doubt those could be considered reliable. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, perhaps quickly summarizing this information and incorporating it into another Avatar:... article. This is clearly a violation of WP:GAMETRIVIA by going into vivid detail about unencyclopedic fiction about a few game characters. One tell-tale sign is that almost all the references come from transcripts of the subject matter itself. That information can be used to fill in the gaps in an otherwise notable article, but cannot alone establish notability. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say it was harsh, but necessary. In-depth discussion of it would be irrelevant to the topic at hand, though, so drop me a line of my talk page if you want to do so. --Kizor 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I am, theoretically, a big fan of blanket nominations because they are the best tool to remove stuff like this that clearly doesn't belong on 'pedia. They sometimes, however, make swift deletion impossible when they fail. For the sake of speeding this process up, delete all per WP:FICT. User:Krator (t c) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article cannot fail WP:GAMETRIVIA, because it concerns characters from a franchise that is NOT solely a game. Moreover, it can't really fail WP:FICT, because that shortcut outright states at its top: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".". Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I would be pretty much ready to bang my head on a wall if somebody used WP:FICT as a source. Hopefully consensus will be established soon and AfDs like these can pass smoother. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not the "major secondary" and "recurring" articles are excessive, the large and complex cast of characters in this - character-centric - work looks like it could not be even adequately represented in the simple list. Something more is necessary for our coverage. But by all means, clean up if you wish. --Kizor 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you do not get the point. It is made clear in WP:PLOT and WP:V that an article MUST have reliable third-party sources. The characters in this article do not have these sources. In fact, not even the main characters have that many sourcing. If the creators had more interviews where they discussed these characters, then there would be sources, but there are not. This whole article is literally plot summaries. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here's my comment: First off, it is not entirely true that they are just plot summaries. It is also possible to at least start rectifying the whole no third party sources thing. There are a few interviews that come to mind. But I suppose an even more thorough trimming is in order until the decision to delete the page is probably made. I started it but never finished. Got busy, I guess. Some examples of possible third party sources that could be used are for at least some stuff relating to the Major Secondary Characters (but more the Main Characters and show, I'll admit) would be:

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Not sure if this counts for much, if at all, but that's what a small amount of digging found me. I say that if this page is deleted, then a small amount of detail should be added on the character list page such as: "Long Feng was the head of Ba Sing Se's Dai Li force. He frequently antagonized the group during their stay in Ba Sing Se by preventing them from speaking to the king or rescuing Appa, as well as killing Jet. He eventually makes a deal with Azula that causes the take over of Ba Sing Se and at this point surrenders to her and loses control of the Dai Li." Not as short as I would like, but better than the current page. Any thoughts? SkepticBanner (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, the last four sources are from ASN, which has been deemed unreliable. The 3rd link has one mention on the cabbage merchant, but it is short. I did not have time to look fully over the sixth link, but I think there are only a few mentions of any secondary characters. As for the rest: nothing. Unless I missed something, in total there are only two sources from the links you gave, one containing only a mention of one secondary character and the other only might contain information useful for the article. As you can see, any attempts to find sources are in vain. There are no secondary sources. I spent months looking for sources for the Aang article. Even though Aang was a primary protagonist, the article still did not have enough info to have a stable structure. (If you look, the article is a bit on the short side.) When you move from protagonist of the show to secondary characters that appear in five episodes at most, there is literally absolutely nothing. And I do not exaggerate. I will even put it in bold and italics: There are NO SECONDARY RELIABLE SOURCES that could expand this article to a decent size WITHOUT filling it with useless plot summaries.Sorry if that seems uncivil, but there really is nothing. If somebody could prove me wrong, please do. But I highly doubt anybody will find anything. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I do agree that small descriptions of each character should be added to the main list. I think that was how it was originally until these articles were created. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Assuming the citations are valid sources, then I believe they satisfy the basic conditions for notability. The nominator's other reasons appear to boil down to "I don't like it". The lack of other articles about major secondary characters seems irrelevant; the existence of similar pages isn't allowed for arguments to retain an article, so why should they be considered for favoring a deletion? If the length is a problem, then the article can be trimmed and merged.—RJH (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just gave up with arguing for ASN. I have heard argument like: "Its a fansite", "Since it does not respect US copyright, how could it be considered reliable", etc. Personally, what I think they are trying to say is that the source fails WP:V in the following way: It says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." But there is a footnote that says, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability." What I think they are trying to argue is that there has been nothing to establish the creator and publisher's reliability, and therefore the source itself is unreliable. Personally, I sort of agree. ASN has not been known to be reliable because they have not proven so (there is no reason for them to be reliable, they are a fansite, etc.). In fact, the owners of the website do not even give use their full names. We know very little, if anything at all, about the people who create and publish the site, and that is why the source is not considered reliable. Take a reliable source as an example, such as the NY Times. We know exactly who the creator and publisher of the work is and that they have both been known to be reliable, as well as knowing the material itself to be reliable (being a newspaper and all). Do you see where I am going with this? — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm pretty much positive this doesn't matter, does it make a difference that the creators recommended it in the Nick magazine? Yes, I do see where you are going with this. Also, the NY times has become less and less reliable in my eyes because of it being blatantly wrong in some stuff. SkepticBanner (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can get a source of where the creators recommended it, maybe we could consider it. As for the NY Times, I have noticed that too. Of course, I was just using it as an example. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep combination lists like this are the best way to do it. Otherwise we'll be inundated with articles on each of them individually. These are a good compromise. DGG (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anybody even evaluating the article. There are no sources for any of the information on the page other than the show. The only possibility other than deletion is to merge it into the main list. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO to Deletion: These characters have contributed a lot to the series and deserve their own separate page. The deletion of this page will cause information gaps in the other articles, and it is better to have this page for further references. I insist that this page be preserved.76.24.145.157 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of independent, reliable sources -> fails notability -> should be deleted. Wikipedia is a work in progress; a deleted article can be rewritten and recreated if more material is found later. Graevemoore (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nobody seems to be reading through the discussion before making comments. (By this, I mean people who have made no attempt to argue their decision with relation to the current objections, such as the IP address two comments up.) — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of accounts actually do that, i.e. just vote and don't discuss. I have seen many "per nom" style votes in AfDs sometimes multiple ones in under a minute, i.e. so fast that there's no conceivable way those "voting" could have actually reads all those AfDs under discussion, looked for sources, and checked over the articles in question. AfD is incredibly frustrating. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Collectonian and Graevemoore. They have stated all points that I would make, so there is no need for me to formulate my own version of the same opinion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their arguments have been effectively refuted, however. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, that's just unproductive. You disagree, that doesn't automatically make you right. The same is true for me, but I have not proclaimed you the loser of our arguments, simply that I disagree. Graevemoore (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per so and so votes are unproductive as they don't add anything to a discussion. If those count for anything, then so should the fact that all the people who edited the article in good faith most therefore also believe it passes our policies and should be kept even if they don't post here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a different discussion. I disagree there, as well, but AfD isn't the place to hash that out. Graevemoore (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Stop harassing users that utilize this argument. The closing administrator determines its value, not you, and most of the time, they simply confirm that a certain view has more support. Arbitrarily declaring it refuted isn't conducive towards civil discussion either. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nor is making assumptions of bad faith or inaccurate assessments of editors' comments and reasons for commenting. Attempting to encourage real discussion rather than just repetitive votes is how we reach real consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um...claiming that someone's argument was "refuted" is arbitrary and bad faith. Your definition of "real" discussion is also arbitrary. Many editors hold the same opinions. They don't have to rephrase the state opinion if they don't want to. I never see you complain that people comment "per Le Grand" or to the same effect. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I hope that the many nice editors who agree with me also elaborate on their reasonings and help to find sources. Just think of how many articles we'd be improving or how easier it would be if all of us actually did work together to find sources or at least focused on sourcing and imporving those articles we do individually care about. In any event, in discussions, editors hold each other's arguments to account, just as surely as anyone is welcome to criticize my arguments and engage me in a manner that produces as mutually agrreable of an outcome as is possible. Please do distract from the disucssions by focusing on the editors rather than the arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Engaging someone in argument is fine, but it's the content of the argument I'm commenting on, not the fact you argued. You're getting away from the fact that you asserted that their arguments were arbitrarily "refuted," which you haven't substantiated, and is a bit hypocritical, considering that you wish for a sublime collaborative environment where everyone works together, which is indeed fantastic, but ultimately unrealistic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And as much as I hate to interfere, this is still an AfD, not a centralized discussion. This is really not the place to argue this, and I do not care what rationale you may have; it is simply not the place or time. I'll have everybody know that while you think voting may be "evil" (which it is to some extent), it is one of the closest things we can get to consensus. If somebody agrees with another party, let them say Delete as per Whatever. It just means they agree with somebody's argument, refuted or not. In addition, this article has been crying for sources for more than half a year. I can almost guarantee you that there is absolutely nothing out there. You can look if you want but I can almost confirm that by the end of this AfD, you are not going to have much. As a closing statement, let's remain civil (if I get out of hand feel free to tell me). BTW Sephiroth, even though Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's comment was slightly in bad faith (controversial statement, let's not argue it), the comment you made back could be considered uncivil. Remember we are discussing the deletion of two Avatar articles and not much else. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Getting back to the article in question, it still passes our list policies by being discriminate (concerns characters from a specific franchise) and notable (major secondary charcters) that appear in a variety of media. The article has a rather profound interest for our readers and editors ("List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_major_secondary_characters has been viewed 64368 times in 200804"), is verifiable, and is actively being worked in. I see no reason to doubt that the article isn't being improved or that it won't continue to be improved. Now in terms of sources, what about video game magazines, magazines that concern Nickelodeon shows, or trading card magazines? Frequently in video game magazines, which I do have subscriptions to, I see whole articles on specific characters. I have added references from these published magazines that do not always have online versions of the articles to many articles on Wikipedia, some of which did indeed exist for months without adequate citations, but then I came along and added them. It's not out of the question that even my back issues have sources that could be added here, but to be fair, for a volunteer project, it would be unrealistic to expect me or anyone to drop everything and go through magazine after magazine in so brief a time. What I see in this case is clear potential. I do not see hopelesslness or any other serious issue that would outright require deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I am not even going to continue to explain how redundant your argument is. I am telling you that I have searched all over the Internet as well as almost every magazine I could get my hand on. I, along with multiple other users (I'm sure Rau J has looked around too), have spent months looking for sources and found NOTHING. As for your claims, the article is not verifiable. The references section only references to the show and to one outside website. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parent5446, I found where the site is endorsed: [18]. Is it my imagination or is nobody actually discussing the deletion anymore? My argument rests above. If I have anything new to add, I might get around to doing so. SkepticBanner (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid users will still have their buts and ifs about this source either way. Don't concern youself though. There is not much on ASN for this article or even the main Avatar article itself. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - "Major secondary characters" is a very elaborate way of saying there is no notability or encyclopedic value. If there is no information on the characters creation or fan or critical reaction, then it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:16, 16 May 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 speedily deleted per A7 by Ohnoitsjamie. asenine say what? 06:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tritt

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Polly (Parrot) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative professional is the category in which Mr. Tritt does qualify, refereence the duely noted and listed critical acclaim in the article as it currently exists. Unless you intend to hide behind an interpretation of the definition of the word 'significant.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.137.232 (talk)


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.  Sandstein  07:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham University Revival Gospel Choir

Nottingham University Revival Gospel Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence for encyclopedic notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (music)). Congratulations on receiving the "Bronze SU STARS award", but it has to be pointed out that it shares this honor with more than 140 other student societies at the same university. High on a tree (talk) 02:40, 12 May 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 --JForget 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular given names for twins in the United States

List of most popular given names for twins in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this really notable? It's just basically a clone of this page, just written slightly differently: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/twins.html. If somebody really wants to see this information, they can just go to the original source rather than look at a reproduction of it on Wikipedia.

Plus, it's just not encyclopedic. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 02:31, 12 May 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.  Sandstein  07:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1090 Official (song)

1090 Official (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines of notability. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:01, 12 May 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.  Sandstein  21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nahte

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

Non-notable. ZimZalaBim talk 01:43, 12 May 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.  Sandstein  07:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flopsweat

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

This article belongs in a dictionary, not on WP Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 12 May 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. The article was significantly improved beginning on 17:37, 12 May 2008; the earlier "delete" opinions would seem to no longer apply.  Sandstein  07:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Scotsman

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

Nonsense, original research, an essay. You call it. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK now this is my first article so may I be forgiven for being a little over protctive? The fact that so many google hits lead to 'No True Scotsman Fallacy' was what prompted me to create this article because as a Scot, the usage I am much more familiar with is the the one I've written about. Most editors seem to be saying OR, that's fair enough, if I can't get some decent references into it, I will not object to it's deletion. Re:Nonsense; I can't see how this applies; I've read the criteria for deletion:patent nonsense, and unless the quality of my writing is WAY below what I think, this criteria is being mis-appliedJmackaerospace (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N It needs reliable sources. To avoid deletion, add some in.Bridies (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "No true Scotsman" fallacy has, in fact, nothing to do with "true Scotsmen". It's simply a way of redefining criteria to include and exclude what the speaker wants to. JIP | Talk 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A couple of sources have been added.Bridies (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, at best this merits a sentence in kilt. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely needs to be wikified in refs, tone and polished though. Sure the tone and other stuff has been silly-ish, but it's an interesting article that could be referenced better and introduces a cultural saying and another issue (of traditionally wearing a kilt). [The kilt article is nice, but reads like an historical costume store.] Why keep? Because I can think of worse and pointless articles that are still in wikipedia and fiercely defended. As a contributor who is learning to restrain his wacky scottish humour, who now knows the purpose of a sandbox, this user might be best encouraged afaik, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment subbed the article with links, cleanup and delisting among other wkfying things. Now adding tag requesting in-text citations if anyone wants to follow up. Does it need a "hang on" tag? A Scottish culture or military culture cat? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS added cats and "intext citations needed" tag. Within the delete box there's something about deciding to "keep" -- is this the case? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I will create intext references as soon as I'm home from work and I teach myself how. There may be some parts that cannot be backed up by reliable sources, although as an uberGoogler I can say that there are plenty of 'weak' and context based sources out there, which are of course, not acceptable here, but I did make sure that that the phrase was out there in that context before I made the article. Anything I can't properly back up, I'll remove.Jmackaerospace (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC) ps. I keep forgetting to sign comments, chalk it up to excitementJmackaerospace (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whenever someone asks me if I am a true Scotsman, I ask them if they are a true pervert... By the way, the popular culture section never mentioned Carry On up the Khyber - what's with that? Scotland's moved beyond this stage in the past decade. Our culture is not just there as the butt of vulgar and thread worn crappy jokes.-- MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Can't believe I'd forgotton Khyber; although there is no mention of the term 'true scotsman' in the film. On a more serious note, do you think a section on how some object to the question is needed? I've never objected to the question if for no other reason than that it is far better than the minority that let actions speak louder than words.81.131.12.61 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)and for some reason I'd logged ot when I wrote thatJmackaerospace (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article needs some work (particularly citations, I don't think it can be classed as nonsense and I'm keen to see what justification Corvus cornix and Alexius08 can come up with for their comments. Give it some time and see what the contributor can make of it. Gordonjcp (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there seems to be misunderstanding (such as redirecting to the unrelated No True Scotsman article, and not wanting Scotland to look silly) and some snobbery about being ridiculous. I found it helpful to know the history and source of the saying which raised it above ridicule imo. If it has a basis to exist, that's fact, it's well-known, and even being the butt of ridicule is fact -- these validate it imo. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This page has no relation to the 'No true Scotsman' article whatsoever. I'm sure there will be enough citation out there to support what is written here, as anyone who has ever worn a kilt in one of Scotland's built-up areas is highly likey to have been posed the question 'Are you a True Scotsman?'. I would also add that, in the area of Edinburgh at least, being asked this question is not considered inherantly offensive or lewd, but intended to be a bit of fun. The article could use some work, but I for one was pleased to see a link to it when reading about the kilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.173.218 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm done referencing and citing and all that jazz (unless someone can point out something else that needs doing; I'm too close) from now it should stand on it's own merit.Jmackaerospace (talk) 19:42, 15 May 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.  Sandstein  07:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Building, Buffalo

Federal Building, Buffalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable office building Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 12 May 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 weak consensus for keep. Appears to satisfy the letter of WP:BIO. Rividian may be right that the subject may slip into obscurity, but for now it can be kept. --Selket Talk 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Singh

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

The article is about a non notable hopeful politician. GBVrallyCI (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, please note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Singh was apparently for an unrelated person who shares the same name. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly non notable --GBVrallyCI (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article has received significant local and national press. If he does not survive the primary this article can be rethought, but currently his notability is hard to question. Shii (tock) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Shii. Just a glance at those sources shows multiple third-party coverage from Washington post and other political newspeople. That establishes notability. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For this district, the Washington Post is a local paper, so it is not surprising that they covered his candidacy. He is a candidate in the primary, not even the party's nominee for the seat, and although his district has quite a few "local" papers and he's appeared in all of them, he does not appear to be a candidate with a national profile. There is no coverage in the New York Times, for example, which would be the case if his candidacy had attracted anything but local interest. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:POLITICIAN. Being a candidate does not confer enough notability to a subject. The sources cited though many, and reliable, does not constitute "significant coverage" as its merely reporting of the candidate campaign during the election cycle. We can recreate this article if Singh is elected. KTC (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete - Per KTC. asenine say what? 06:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bear in mind, the article for this man's primary opponent was deleted. It had the same qualifications such as links from local newspapers and local coverage, but it was deleted as per policy. --GBVrallyCI (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the primary opponent's article most recently (speedily) deleted sourced only one of its statements--the obvious one that he is running in the primary. The rest of the statements, including many plainly opinionated ones like "His dedication and service to the community has had an immense impact on families" had no sources, and was copied verbatim from his campaign website. In contrast, every statement in this article is reliably sourced, and it contains no fawning statements. This is irrelevant to whether the topics belong in Wikipedia, but this article and the article deleted (both the version recently speedied, as well the one deleted in discussion two years ago) are vastly different. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the primary is over. I don't think losing a primary is enough notability to justify an article... it's just that this guy hasn't actually lost yet. nevertheless, the article is written so we might as well keep it on the chance he wins the primary. If he loses then we can delete. --Rividian (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plus, the fact is that he's most likely to be searched for right now. We should consider that we're trying to inform people -- this is one of the most important times to have an article like this. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWe must remember other articles in this situation which have been deleted. His primary opponent who has received significant press coverage, if not more, had his article deleted on the grounds of not winning the primary. Double standard? --GBVrallyCI (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The primary in this case has not yet occurred, so the Mark Ellmore article was not in the same situation as when it was originally deleted. Regardless, that article was significantly different: it read like a fawning vanity piece copied from the campaign website, and was completely unsourced. As topics, currently both persons either warrant or do not warrant articles, unless there are other reasons like one is considered some perennial also-ran who has no chance of winning or one is more notable because he founded an organization not related to the election. —Centrx→talk • 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteunless elected. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia isn't paper. This guy is also known, not only in the district that he is running in, but also in various internet communities. This is why he raised 17 thousand dollars online in one day just a few days ago. Does that sound like somebody who nobody knows about? --StormCommander (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may be worth revisitting the issue if he fails to be elected and has no other notability, but he's currently still in the race and the amount of media coverage seems to justify keeping the article at this time. 71.61.66.195 (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Primary, Delete if he loses 98.194.110.160 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Primary, Delete if he loses The IP above has the right idea. For now, he's a viable candidate and has some notability. If he loses, he will just have been a news item and we can delete it. By the way, this is not the second nomination of this article's deletion. The first deletion was of a completely different subject. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable sources thus meeting the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • note Ron Paul supporters may flood this article with keeps. See [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was the one who posted this. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Encouraging people to get involved with the discussion is fine. With more people discussing this we will have more things shown to help us make a decission. Also, while we are talking about supporters, is the following statement true? - You are a supporter of Mark Ellmore. You proposed to have Ellmore's opponent's article deleted. Why not just work to get Ellmore's article back instead of bring the other candidate off of Wikipedia too? --StormCommander (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep American Conservative, Washington Post, NPR, and a broad range of other media have covered his campaign. This is considered one of the most exciting races this year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.182.45 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition, Reason Magazine Online has had an article and India Abroad has had a print article about him. His YouTube videos also have an agragate amount of views approaching 10 thousand. This race is interesting because the two primary contenders represent two different wings of the Republican party and this battle is a microchosm of the larger struggle occuring whithin the party. It would be harmful to the flow of information and the democratic process to remove this article from this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.79.81 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 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 to delete, default to keep. It's never been made very clear which article this is supposed to be a content fork of. Inappropriate spinouts can be merged back without an AfD.  Sandstein  07:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in the Bahá'í Faith

Faith in the Bahá'í Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to repeat information in the existing articles relating to Baha'i. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The word "faith" is used in two different senses. Borock (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Faith already has a section on the Baha'i view which refers readers to this article for more info. Borock (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I think the article is a WP:content fork for Bahá'í Faith which already deals with the subject to a substantial degree. It might be appropriate to extend the Beliefs section of Bahá'í Faith and put some extra material there. But as things stand now, this article appears to be a clear content fork, whose very title is a bit of a tautology. Nsk92 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article is clearly not a tautology.
  2. Neither is it a content fork. Article spinouts are normal.
  3. GeoSwan's observations are quite apropos,
  4. as are Soundofmusicals. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:25, 14 May 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.  Sandstein  07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Squares in New Orleans

Famous Squares in New Orleans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Even those who subscribe to the notion of laissez les bon temps roulez will have problems with this this highly subjective list. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 12 May 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 - consensus to keep although the article is currently very poor - Peripitus (Talk) 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Management Studies, BHU

Faculty of Management Studies, BHU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article reads like an advertisement; notability is not established in the current text. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:04, 12 May 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 to delete, default to keep. Several poor reasons to keep or delete were given on either side.  Sandstein  21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ExxonMobil in Indonesia

ExxonMobil in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This may warrant merging into the ExxonMobil article, but I am not certain it is notable enough to warrant its own WP article Ecoleetage (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I don't think every multinational company's operations in every country are notable, ExxonMobil's operations in Indonesia, particularly Aceh, have received significant attention to where this is a notable subtopic. Yes, this is a controversial topic, and it is not just ExxonMobil that has been implicated, but the cases shown do relate to the company and have received coverage. The article may need a WP:NPOV cleanup, but bias is not by itself a reason for deletion. It certainly does not fall under the category of coatrack, although it may violate undue weight. A retitle could fix that more easily than a rewrite to be a business gazetteer profile, but both alternatives may be considered. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 21 May 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tova Traesnaes

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

Not notable enough to deserve her own article. If anything, redirect to Ernest Borgnine. Anthony Rupert (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tova Borgnine, wife of actor Ernest Borgnine, has created a niche in the beauty industry and gained a following on QVC.[20]
  • Allen Burke, director of cosmetics at QVC ... said sales of Tova Borgnine's Tova fragrance -- now 10 years old -- has surpassed last year's volume. Borgnine has been a steady presence at QVC and its biggest fragrance vendor.Women's Wear Daily
  • Mrs. Borgnine, who built a beauty products business bearing her name into a multimillion-dollar companyNYT
May seem like a cheap sort of fame because it's QVC, but it's fame nonetheless. Also, move to Tova Borgnine, which per Google has a 250:1 advantage in common usage. --Dhartung | Talk 06:18, 12 May 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. The references appear trivial for the most part. She was present when the station was converted from over-the-air to online but she is not portrayed as the instigator or planner of that transition. WP:BIO is fairly strict about the requirements for someone in the entertainment business to have an article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sandler

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

Fails WP:BIO. Lacks 3rd party references to significant coverage of this local radio personality. No mention of notable awards or widespread recognition for industry contributions. Appears to be just another local DJ, PD, etc. Rtphokie (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't know how to respond to other people in here but I think this should be kept. A news reporter of 10TV aka WBNS of Columbus, Ohio doesn't have.. any notable awards and widespread recognition, but she is notable by those who watch the news. Some would want to look her up for more information about her. Same with Nicole Sandler. She's not all that famous. Those who listen to her on the radio where she is DJing will know her. Those who are curious and want information would want to go to Wikipedia for information just like many other people do for information and they won't get jack squat. So I request Keep.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Notable for being in charge of converting first radio station from on air to online operation. Citations in New York Times, Wired Magazine. This shows cites in other national newspapers (outside the areas where she worked in), which asserts notability. Calwatch (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Per Calwatch and Xxhopingtearsxx. asenine say what? 06:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Being well known in her local area makes her notable in that area, working for several newspapers nationwide doesn't really help either. However, coverage in a national magazine and nationally distributed newspaper does amount to significant 3rd party coverage and does speak to notoriety in her field. Those references need to be added and the article reworked a bit to make it clear why she is notable. As it stands, it still paints her as a morning radio DJ which, base on the above, sells her short.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Non notable. This article is only a collection of some very weak references collected from around the web - (one ref on her having adopted a child. One ref on her running her own buisness. One ref that only mentions her name in comments on a news story by "anonymous" and "greg". One ref mentioning she is "is recovering from double pneumonia in Miami"). Though a few references mention that she does indeed work in the radio business. Anyways, there is no evidence that this person is notable compared to the countless others who work in her field.--Celtus (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Non notable. All references are trivial, no significant coverage of the article subject. --Jklamo (talk) 17:34, 19 May 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 --JForget 01:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in saints row

List of gangs in saints row (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm very familiar with the game, and the gangs of the game are themselves non-notable; furthermore, there is very little information on the gangs themselves from primary sources that doesn't amount to basic retelling of the plot, that otherwise cannot be contained within the main articles on the games themselves. The article was PRODed but removed, so this is to formalize the request for removal. MASEM 00:45, 12 May 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 speedy deleted as spam.. DGG (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity Sofas

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

WP:SPAM KurtRaschke (talk) 00:44, 12 May 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 per WP:SNOW --JForget 01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Time Greatest Hits (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)

All Time Greatest Hits (Lynyrd Skynyrd album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of songs. No references and no info about it. Macy (Review me!) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it went platinum I would say keep, but I have a hard time believing a compilation released in 2000 of a 1970s band did so. Looking at Amazon I see different compilations from this band released in 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000 (2 different ones), 2002 (2 different ones), 2003, 2006, and 2007. All interchangable product. But if one of them somehow went platinum and it can be verified, so be it, keep the article. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:41, 12 May 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. I'm somewhat perplexed with some of the arguments regarding policy consensus: WP:PLOT is currently part of WP:NOT, a policy. It seems to be applicable, too, as the article consists entirely of plot summary.  Sandstein  07:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Anor

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is an in-universe repetition of the plot section of the New Jedi Order book series articles. It is therefore repetitive and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WP:V is not disputed, and needs to be followed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and everything that occurs in the books is verifiable by consulting the books. --Pixelface (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence for notability in the sense of Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Elements_of_fiction. The text in its present form miserably fails the requirements of WP:WAF. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, plot summary without outside sources. Pixelface may want to read User:Uncle G/On notability, as there seems to be some confusion about just what notability is. It certainly has nothing to do with the question of whether the writer used the word "notable". --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should I read a userspace essay? Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. The only way to assert a subject is notable like the nominator says, is by citing a reliable source that calls the subject notable, and even then, you are only attributing a claim of notability to a particular person. To assert a subject is notable when a source does not say the subject is notable, is to make a conclusion the source did not make. It's a claim unsupported by the source. It's like saying "Well they wouldn't write about it if the subject wasn't cool! So it must be cool because they wrote about it!" A person might as well say that Nom Anor is worthy of notice because you're here discussing it. --Pixelface (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to have misconceptions about notability. It has nothing to do with somebody claiming the subject notable. Notability is established by the amount of substantial coverage a topic receives from reliable sources independent of the subject. The sources' conclusions are irrelevant, the coverage is what matters. Hypothetically speaking, if a few reliable sources all devoted significant coverage to topic and declared that it was unimportant, Wikipedia would still have an article about that topic simply to describe how unimportant it is. Despite that you are were trying to prove the opposite, your statement about what's "cool" is, in a roundabout way, actually a fairly accurate description of notability guidelines here if you replace "cool" with "notable" - just read the nutshell of WP:N. By the way, this AFD debate wouldn't count for notability because we are not reliable sources. The link Dhartung provided is a nice supplement to WP:N, which would probably help to explain notability better than I did here. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now how does coverage make something worthy of notice? How does coverage = notability? And I know my statement about what's "cool" is an accurate description of WP:N. You could replace the word "cool" with anything: "lame", "stupid", "funny", "awesome", whatever. You're saying coverage means a subject is...whatever...and using coverage as some kind of "proof" of that. It doesn't add up. To say that people writing about a topic means it's worthy of notice, means that everyone here, writing about the topic, means the topic is worthy of notice. WP:N is a mess. And I glanced at that user essay. Is it "notability" that stops Encyclopedia Brittanica from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopedia? The essay says "If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable." That doesn't follow. They might as well have gone to the effort of writing about the subject because they have a mortgage payment. That essay also says "Notability is not subjective" but whether or not a subject is worthy of notice, worthy of someone's attention can only be subjective, there is nothing objective about "notability." I suppose you could say "coverage" is objective, but "notability" cannot be objective. --Pixelface (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pixelface, it's up to you whether you want to read what in my opinion is the best and fairest interpretation of our notability guideline on the site. In the end it doesn't matter, though, because as a guideline it does have broad consensus as a basis for deletion. You may have your own approach to notability, but I do recommend you at least understand the community's definition better if you wish to debate it (and here is not the place). --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've glanced over the essay and it's full of clearly false statements. And I understand the supposed "community's definition" and Judgesurreal777 has clearly misinterpreted WP:N, which says notability can only be presumed. It isn't something you can assert. The essay is wrong when it says "Notability is not subjective" and WP:N is wrong when it says "Notability requires objective evidence." Whether or not something is worthy of attention is a subjective opinion, there's nothing objective about it. Something that one person finds worthy of their attention, another person may not. Notability is not some worldwide binary variable. --Pixelface (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:WAF and WP:FICT. asenine say what? 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Asenine.--Berig (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as WP:FICT lacks consensus, and the article is consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters or Star Wars of which exists many published volumes, such as this one. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreferenced, non-notable. --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article does have some references, but calls to reference it further should be addressed per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Notability on Wikipedia is relatively subjective per WP:JNN. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you see my contention is that no "fixing" can be done, as there is no real world coverage of this topic. And since there isn't anything here but plot information, it can't be fixed by improvment, only be deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Major publications on Star Wars just keep coming out and so if anything Star Wars articles can increasingly be fixed by improvement. Only hoaxes, libel, and copy vios need be deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:27, 14 May 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 --JForget 01:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Magicians' Guild

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

Appears to be non-notable organization. No luck finding WP:RS, nothing in the article to indicate notability. Previously deleted via PROD, so brought here for discussion. --Kinu t/c 00:06, 12 May 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. Despite the influx of "keep" votes (and I mean 'votes', not '!votes'), the issues raised by the comments supporting deletion--specifically, that there are not a sufficient number of independent sources to confirm notability--are not addressed. Anyone confused about this should have a look through Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --jonny-mt 04:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colemak

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

This article on a new keyboard layout was re-created following a deletion review in which the consensus was "Deletion endorsed; however, article unprotected to permit sourced rewrite." The arguments proposed in the review for re-creation were that if sources could not be found, it should be re-considered for deletion.

Now while at first sight the article appears to cite plenty of sources, out of these, no more than two at most meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable, secondary sources, and even then coverage is hardly "non-trivial" as Wikipedia's notability criteria require. The only academic study cited is an undergraduate dissertation that has not been peer reviewed; the Caps Off award was an obscure affair run by a private individual that, despite being advertised as a "million dollar" competition, raised less than 200 euros in the end; and inclusion in X11 and Ubuntu seems almost completely undocumented, apart from some comments in various Ubuntu forums and IRC chats. The only other sources cited are the article's own previous deletion debate here on Wikipedia and a blog entry by a Microsoft developer stating that they would not be including Colemak in Windows precisely because it is non-notable. Vquex (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup isn't the issue here -- it's admittedly fairly tidy -- the issue is that the sources don't conform to Wikipedia policy. Vquex (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- *Delete what random gibberish feature ISN'T included in x number of linux distros? Saying "this feature is supported by PurpleShoe Linux" is not useful or notable. Numbers of users is. Miami33139 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't supported just by "PurpleShoe Linux", it is supported by _all_ Linux distributions and _all_ BSDs that come with X.Org (i.e. practically all of them). It's not a feature that needs to downloaded and installed. it's something that comes preinstalled with the core operating system. It's displayed as option every time you install the operating system. Besides Dvorak, it's the only alternative keyboard layout to be included with any mainstream operating system.--201.88.71.199 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that supposed to address the issue of insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources? Vquex (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Windows comes with US-101 layouts for each of dozens of languages it supports. Windows comes with half-a-dozen alternate US layouts, and three versions of Dvorak. The statement, "Besides Dvorak, it's the only alternative keyboard layout to be included with any mainstream operating system." is wrong. Desktop Linux is not a mainstream operating system. An obscure layout on an obscure OS is not notable. Show the sources. Miami33139 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again). No, no, no! Citing a previous deletion discussion as a source is not OK! (Incidentally, inclusion in Ubuntu and other Linux distributions is entirely a result of inclusion in X11. You don't get to count every distribution separately like that.) Zetawoof(ζ) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides Dvorak, it's the only keyboard layout to gain a significant amount of users. In fact, the Colemak forum is the most active community to discuss alternative keyboard layouts in general. Independent research from several sources has found it at least as good as Dvorak. The Colemak article is referenced from dozens of articles, and across multiple languages of Wikipedia. Coming as a built-in option in all operating systems with X.Org now and into the foreseeable future means it's not going to fade away anytime soon.--201.88.71.199 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the number of users is irrelevant. (See WP:BIG). What goes on on the Colemak forums is also irrelevant, as that is a primary source and linking to forums is generally to be avoided anyway. (See WP:EL#AVOID point 10). As for independent research from several sources is concerned, perhaps you could enlighten us to what these sources are so that we can evaluate them? As I said, the paper by David Piepgrass is not suitable as it is a self-publised undergraduate dissertation that has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, and blogs are not suitable either for the same reason. (See WP:SPS).
Now let's get another thing straight. X11. As User:Miami33139 said, a lot of random cruft finds its way into every Linux distro going. The chances are that getting Colemak included in X11 was not all that difficult. Any competent developer could easily submit a patch for it, and provided that it doesn't break anything the chances are that it will be included. I don't know what X11's criteria for inclusion are, but Wikipedia is not X11. The inclusion of Colemak in X11 is officialy undocumented -- I couldn't even find it in the X11 changelogs -- and the only discussion about it anywhere is on forums and IRC chat archives -- see my point re forums above.
My contention still stands, that there is insufficient coverage of Colemak in independent, reliable secondary sources, and since this is the case, it is not possible to construct an article on it that is larger than a stub without violating Wikipedia's policy on no original research. Vquex (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the CVS repository. I'm talking about the list on the X11 website of what's new. Even if it was listed there it still wouldn't count for anything because the X11 site is an open wiki and wikis don't count for anything in deletion debates (see WP:SPS). The issue at stake is that the sources cited do not meet the Wikipedia verifiability criteria. Nibbling at the edges of the points I have made does not answer anything. I want to see substantial coverage in the press, or in ergonomics/HCI literature, or in other sources that conform to wiki policy, otherwise this article will contain original research. Vquex (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a technicality, but please note the 'holds relevant Changelog there' fragment. The changelog was commited to CVS repository (and not a wiki) by one of X.org developrs, as the CVS is not writeable to the public. Since the X.org X11 is very modular, keybyard layouts are part of 'xkeyboard-config' package and related changes may not be listed in core X11 servers' changelog. 217.153.136.62 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but this still doesn't address my problem. Even if we did accept that that is a reliable secondary source, coverage is trivial. Vquex (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I understand the need to keep vanity pages off WP, I'm not quite sure if this is a good example of an evil abuse of WP, or that it deserves the strenuous argumentation you are giving it. You apparently have made only a tiny handful of contributions yourself, apart from this debate on a deletion. Presumably this is a secondary account -- may I ask what your other accounts are? Xanthoxyl (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith -- I did have another account once upon a time, but I lost the password for it ages ago, and I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet of any of the other "delete" votes. Look, I'm not saying this is an evil abuse of Wikipedia by any means. I'm just asking whether or not the community thinks that the sources are sufficient to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, or whether it all counts as original research, or even whether there is a consensus in the first place. Perhaps you'd care to comment on that particular question? Vquex (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Vquex (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm a Dvorak Simplified Keyboard typist, and this article was a timely addition to my search for efficiency. The WP vision is to capture all the world's knowledge in encyclopedic format. This article clearly contributes to that end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.67.50 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the referencing needs to be seriously improved, the novelty and inclusion in a broadly-distributed piece of software indicates that it has at least the potential to gain more mainstream citation in future, and there doesn't appear to be a suitable topic article that this one could be subsumed into for the time being (ergonomic keyboard layout or the like). Keeping this on my radar to see if I can improve it, having originally found it from a random Interweb posting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "broadly-distributed"? Does that include all 1600 downloads, who may never use it, or the 272 registered users of an internet forum, who also may be reading the forum, but not using the layout? If 1600 downloads gets you a Wikipedia article, download.com has a few million pieces of freeware to start articles about. Miami33139 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources. Inclusion in X.org is not significant; the us xkb file contains several alternative layouts, only one of which (Dvorak) has a large body of independently published criticism and review. Number of users is irrelevant; only published third-party documentation is relevant. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reliable third-party source: The Caps Lock Key -- Love it or Hate it? Barry Abisch, Worldnow. Qwfp (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only one I've seen -- it seems to be a duplicate of the only reliable source referenced in the article. Are there any others, that's what I'm asking? Vquex (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been established that these meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, nor has it been established that coverage is significant. Vquex (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The hundreds of other layouts included in Windows are either minor European variants of Qwerty, different scripts (Asian languages, Arabic), or Dvorak. Colemak being included in a major OS makes it notable. (Miami33139, Linux is a major operating system, not an obscure one. Virtually all scientific computing occurs in Linux these days. Google have even released Google Desktop, Picasa, and Google Earth for Linux.) There's tons of Wikipedia article that require cleanup and "real" sources, but deleting them is not the answer. As Colemak gains prominence, more people will find this article and hopefully improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnuneziglesias (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that this deletion debate has been discussed on the Colemak forms. [22] Vquex (talk) 02:27, 21 May 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_May_12&oldid=211855423"