Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 19: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TV networks that air The Amazing Race}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TV networks that air The Amazing Race}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of myNetworkTV affiliates}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of myNetworkTV affiliates}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guests that have appeared on Martha (TV series)}} |
Revision as of 04:08, 19 August 2006
- 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 especially in the context references put forth by User:TruthbringerToronto -- Samir धर्म 06:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article prodded as failing WP:MUSIC, deprodded with claim that it now meets wp:band. I disagree. Nothing links and there is not one indication that it meets the criteria. Ghits are 887. Article also does not meet requirments of WP:RS. Delete. SynergeticMaggot 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Article does not assert anything that would satisfy WP:BAND. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The external link demonstrates the international touring. Google hits are a poor indicator, as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The band is based in Scotland, and they will perform at the Tonder Festival in Tonder, Denmark on August 24. As well, their site indicates that they have performed internationally in the past. They have released two albums, both of which are available through Amazon in the United Kingdom. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would agree that they come close to meeting at least one criteria, which would be this one: Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.. Yet it still fails, due to it not being reported in notable and verifiable sources. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website is a verifiable source. We can verify any of the information there regarding their appearances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website is not a verifiable source, as WP:RS specifically says. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. According to WP:RS, "[m]aterial from self-published sources...may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following: ...relevant to the person's notability..."
- Continuing, "it should also...be subject to verification by other sources."
- So, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So, no. Unless you can verify it from elsewhere, at which point the self-promoting website becomes moot. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes. The website is a-okay according to WP:RS, and we can verify the information in question elsewhere individually - the question of their nobility, which is answered by the website ad thus okay per WP:RS - by, for instance, checking the actual schedules of the festivals, and, if possible, finding reviews. There's no question those exist, so the website is subject to outside verification in this case, and the website is a-okay per WP:RS. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So, no. Unless you can verify it from elsewhere, at which point the self-promoting website becomes moot. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Entirely wrong. Remember the lessons of Aladin (AfD discussion), whose web site contains articles from newspapers that, according to the actual archives of those magazines, never existed and Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), whose web site was a complete fiction (constructed by a reliable source, no less). Uncle G 11:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still holding my ground on this one. Nothing in the article is sourced, and the links can provide a form a self published source (which it still does not meet), but thats all. Its still not notable. SynergeticMaggot 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ground would have been better laid if you had use the phrase "reliable source". It is subjects that are notable, not sources. It is articles that are verifiable, not sources. The relevant properties of sources are their provenance and depth, i.e. who created and published them and whether they are apposite, reliable, and non-trivial. Uncle G 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making my point, actually. I've quoted the relevant text at WP:RS regarding this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. I'm refuting your point. Your argument is that the web site is a reliable source. It isn't, for the reasons given. Subjects' own web sites are simply not reliable sources. TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. Instead of making a fallacious argument, please do what xe is doing and look for similar sources independent of the subject to show that the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we disagree on this one. I'm just reading what's there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy more seriously than simply reading a web site and uncritically beliving what it says. Uncle G 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I again, take it very seriously. My disagreements with your interpretations as to how to handle this do not mean I take it any more or less seriously than you do, and I strongly object to your continued categorization of my beliefs in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply reading a web site and believing uncritically what it says isn't a serious application of our verifiability policy, your objections notwithstanding. Anyone with a modicum of experience with the World Wide Web should know that there is no guarantee that what is published on a vanity web site is true. I pointed to two valuable lessons above. Please learn from them. Uncle G 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My disagreement with you is not an example of "believing uncritically" or a lack of an ability to learn from other situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ability to learn has not come up in this discussion, and is a straw man. Your disagreement (which is with more than one editor, note) is that "The website is a-okay" and that is an example of believing uncritically what it says. As I said before, TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. But you aren't following xyr example. Please follow xyr example, please take our verifiability policy more seriously than simply taking bands' web sites at their face values, and please learn why it is a bad idea to do so from the valuable lessons mentioned above (which are far from being the only such occasions). Uncle G 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your advice, but there's really no need for it. Don't doubt my seriousness about these policies, I know full well what's up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ability to learn has not come up in this discussion, and is a straw man. Your disagreement (which is with more than one editor, note) is that "The website is a-okay" and that is an example of believing uncritically what it says. As I said before, TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. But you aren't following xyr example. Please follow xyr example, please take our verifiability policy more seriously than simply taking bands' web sites at their face values, and please learn why it is a bad idea to do so from the valuable lessons mentioned above (which are far from being the only such occasions). Uncle G 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My disagreement with you is not an example of "believing uncritically" or a lack of an ability to learn from other situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply reading a web site and believing uncritically what it says isn't a serious application of our verifiability policy, your objections notwithstanding. Anyone with a modicum of experience with the World Wide Web should know that there is no guarantee that what is published on a vanity web site is true. I pointed to two valuable lessons above. Please learn from them. Uncle G 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I again, take it very seriously. My disagreements with your interpretations as to how to handle this do not mean I take it any more or less seriously than you do, and I strongly object to your continued categorization of my beliefs in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy more seriously than simply reading a web site and uncritically beliving what it says. Uncle G 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we disagree on this one. I'm just reading what's there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. I'm refuting your point. Your argument is that the web site is a reliable source. It isn't, for the reasons given. Subjects' own web sites are simply not reliable sources. TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. Instead of making a fallacious argument, please do what xe is doing and look for similar sources independent of the subject to show that the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still holding my ground on this one. Nothing in the article is sourced, and the links can provide a form a self published source (which it still does not meet), but thats all. Its still not notable. SynergeticMaggot 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website is not a verifiable source, as WP:RS specifically says. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website is a verifiable source. We can verify any of the information there regarding their appearances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would agree that they come close to meeting at least one criteria, which would be this one: Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.. Yet it still fails, due to it not being reported in notable and verifiable sources. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TRuthbringer(Talk | contribs) . Good work man. Could u expand the article. --Ageo020 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Evidence that the band will perform at the Tønder Festival can be found at the site of the Festival itself: http://www.tf.dk/pages/band.php?set_menu=94&id=584 TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Croft = Cruft. Anomo 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Truthbring Toronto. Silensor 08:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles; also, I suggest that for a band to tour somewhere, it's making several stops around a country. This band's claimed schedule shows one show here, then back in Scottland, another show there, and then back in Scotland. Considering the venues also appear to be music festivals, it appears they have an enterprising agent, rather than international demand. Along these lines, Google only shows to me 218 distinct hits for "croft no. 5"+band; I agree Google is not the final arbiter of notability, but at this level I consider it symptomatic. Also no evidence of charted hits. Tychocat 14:16, 22 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ingenue actress, barely two weeks into her first role. Article was prodded and deleted previously. Recreated, so discussing deletion here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very odd weak delete a Googling confirms the actress and character name on several websites, but she doesn't seem to be in the IMDB just yet. I'd say delete for now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep. I found an ABC publicity picture and listed it as an external link. I think her current role makes her more-or-less notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Serviceable stub of recurring character on makor television show. JChap2007 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Still not a notable actress. No imdb article as well [1] --Ageo020 01:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, has a role in a major television show, soap or not: per WP:BIO, "notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" pass. Crystallina 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "notable actors and.." So first they have to be "notable" and then have been in a well-known production. Doesn't make sense in trying to establish notibility. But I agree, if she has been on well-known films and television productions that makes her somewhat notable. --HResearcher 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, all other current contract cast members have wikipedia pages, including relatively newer actors like Ambyr Childers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeofneighbours (talk • contribs)
- Weak keep per TruthbringerToronto, JChap2007, and Crystallina even as the citation provided doesn't quite make sense. --HResearcher 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. rookie American actress on an afternoon soap with no track record. No hits on abc.com. Ohconfucius 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Current role, major network TV series. Have we started deleted articles on newly notable subjects just because IMDB doesn't update as fast as Wikipedia? VivianDarkbloom
- Delete per nom-Doc 22:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Stilgar135 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:BIO; for not having multiple non-trivial-articles by third parties; she's won no awards, shows no indication of any fan base, nor made any enduring contribution to the historical record of her field. I see no claim that her role is either major or important on the show, either. She's working in a well-known production; lucky her. No indication that she's notable herself yet; at best, this sort of claim to notability by association only belies her own notability. Merge into "All My Children" article, at best. Tychocat 14:31, 22 August 2006 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rapper, appears to fail WP:MUSIC; probably a hoax. Google shows 9 hits for "Shawn Wells" Wordsworth, 3 hits for "Shawn Wells" "Masta Ace" (none of the hits in the second case link to a page with both names together), and 0 hits for "Shawn Wells" "Fantastic 4" (the article said he acted in that movie). Unlike the usual article that fails WP:MUSIC, this one goes one step further and omits even a MySpace link, making it absolutely unverifiable. Kimchi.sg 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to unverifiability -Elmer Clark 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing on IMDB, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 02:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Bucketsofg✐ 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Noting that 24.207's post was removed [2]. I went on Google, things are a bit complicated because there's a football player by the same name. Name gets 631 ghits [3] (of which his Myspace is the top hit, so he does have some claim to the name, it would seem). "'Shawn wells' hip-hop" gets 150 hits [4], and "'Shawn Wells' music" gets 450 [5]. Probably the most credible-looking article I've found about the guy is this: [6]. Definitely not a hoax, though I'm leaning agianst it meeting WP:BIO. Regards, Luna Santin 23:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Subject is not in credits of either "Fantastic 4" or "White Chicks". Mr. Wells may or may not exist, but the article is a hoax, and at least a violation of WP:V. Tychocat 14:40, 22 August 2006 (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 as a subpage of Tachyon. I have not merged due to the argument that it seems to work better as a subpage -- Samir धर्म 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article violates WP:NOR and WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 00:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 00:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*delete per nom. ~ c. tales \\tk// 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Into Tachyons . merge only the more notable sources as trivia. --Ageo020 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per Ageo. ~ c. tales \\tk// 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [after edit conflict] Delete outright. This just...isn't really even interesting enough for a merge. I think Tachyons#Tachyons_in_fiction really covers it well enough; we don't have a big list of fictional uses of plasma, for example. But if others think it would add to the article, go ahead and merge. -Elmer Clark 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 50% original research, 50% List of uses of the word "tachyons" in fiction. --IslaySolomon 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sounds like a vote for cleanup and moving the page to List of instance of tachyons in fiction. hateless 22:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I think that would be a more accurate title, I'm sticking by my delete vote. There's already a tachyons in fiction section in the article tachyons and I really don't think Wikipedia needs yet another obscure fan-list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --IslaySolomon 11:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the 'Tachyons in fiction' section in the main tachyons page was the original location of this list, before it was moved to the current page. [7] The entry currently residing there was copied back to that page by me, to serve as a summary for this article. [8] Mike Peel 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and do not merge. Merging would degrade the quality of the Tachyon article by making the bulk of it a hodge podge list of occurences of the word tachyon. -- Whpq 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bucketsofg✐ 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move — to List of uses of the word 'tachyons' in fiction, although the OR/POV should be cleaned up. This is otherwise a serviceable list. I didn't find it that interesting either, but such things are subjective and not really a reason to delete. JChap2007 19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Tachyons — Some of the points in the article aren't that notable, but most are. Remove non-notable points post/pre-move. Keep the points in a 'Tachyons in fiction' section, not a trivia section (as per WP:TRIVIA). Note that this article was recently (16 August 2006) split from Tachyons by Pjacobi (talk • contribs). Mike Peel 20:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge per Mike Peel. hateless 22:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge as above. Hornplease 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or delete. Do not merge with Tachyon article - this cruft was removed from there recently. It is quite useful practice to put the "popular culture" references into a leaf article so they do not pollute the main article (see Gorilla). Knowing how fast people would infest the Tachyon again I would suggest keep. It makes no harm and kids have convenient place to play. Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 25 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN promotion Clappingsimon talk 00:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Ads or promos should be kept if it is controversial or quite popular.--Ageo020 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge to Marlboro (cigarette) -- Vary | Talk 02:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ageo020. Not remotely encyclopedic. Will anybody actually care about this contest once it has run its course? Resolute 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--PremKudvaTalk 09:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bucketsofg✐ 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I originally posted the page, and now have read more into Wikipedia standards. It should be deleted, and I have no problems with that outcome. SolsticeRG 00:45, 21 August 2006 (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 -- Samir धर्म 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. The article is uncited; the talk page also mentions "the term is not in widespread use". Kimchi.sg 00:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism with no citation. -- Vary | Talk 02:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Aside from being a neologism, the article almost qualifies as patent nonsense. Resolute 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge — to P-Funk mythology. It's only nonsense because it's describing P Funk's fantastical lyrics, and has been around since the 70s, so its not a neologism. JChap2007 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge per JChap. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:26, 19 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another generic blogtool. Despite its alleged popularity, it has no Alexa ranking. Fails WP:WEB. Crystallina 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Still in beta. Fails WP:WEB? SynergeticMaggot 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has just come out of beta.
- 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 CSD G7. I notice the author was careful to remove only the main text of the article in the blanking, which probably means he really wants it gone. Kimchi.sg 09:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails, WP:BIO. No assertion of notability beyond designing a ceiling fan for Eliington. 35 G-hits. Deprodded by creator. Reads like a personal vanity web page, blog or advertisement and is a link farm. Not encyclopedia under WP:NOT. :) Dlohcierekim 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN entity. Dionyseus 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity page -Elmer Clark 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — per nom and above. Page blanked by author here, and reverted by me of course. SynergeticMaggot 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Given that the page creator is basically the only person to have edited the content of the article, wouldnt his blanking of the article qualify it for a speedy-G7? Resolute 06:10, 19 August 2006 (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. I have tagged for neutrality per discussion on talk page -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the article is very POV and I don't consider it an argument for an encyclopedia (it's not an important fact); see more explanations in the talk page piero tasso 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The wall is real, it is controversial, and it deserves an article. If you feel that the article is currently POV, why not make it balanced instead of trying to delete it? Dionyseus 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- that's the matter, I don't think it deserves an article; it's presented like the new Berlin Wall, seems to be important and scandalous, but it's not so --piero tasso 01:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article by the Guardian Unlimited disagrees with you. [9] Dionyseus 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- that's the matter, I don't think it deserves an article; it's presented like the new Berlin Wall, seems to be important and scandalous, but it's not so --piero tasso 01:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to Padua. Wall has received media attention from non-trival publications, so mention of the wall should be given. However, a full article is probably not needed. — NMChico24 02:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually mean reliable publications, yes? Uncle G 10:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In stating non-trivial publications, I was implying reliable as well, of course. — NMChico24 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually mean reliable publications, yes? Uncle G 10:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I added a few references to the article, including the Guardian Unlimited article. There is a lot of coverage but unfortunately it is in foreign language media. If there is an article on the problems of immigrants in Europe on Wikipedia, perhaps it could be merged there. To my thinking, Padua is an example of the problem but the issue is not Padua so it would be inappropriate to merge it with Padua. GBYork 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, we prefer English language sources, for the convenience of editors and readers (although at the same time we prefer originals to translations, in order to eliminate sources of error), but non-English language sources are definitely not excluded. Bear in mind that {{cite news}} has a language parameter. Uncle G 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - irrelevant comment above. Doesn't have to do with topic. STYoto 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: STYoto (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- Keep — Controversial topic covered by major daily newspapers JChap2007 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Padua article. Controversial or not, subject is not large enough to merit a separate article at this time. Lots of topics covered by newspapers do not merit articles. SteveHopson 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BBC News has an article about the wall. [10] TimesOnline has an article about the wall. [11] Sydney Morning Herald has an article about the wall. [12] Certainly there's enough information out there to expand the article, and certainly as time passes there will be more news about the wall. Dionyseus 01:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added those references to the article. Now it has plenty of good references. GBYork 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If I have enough time (it may take more than a month) I should write an article about Via Anelli (not only that wall), I've just to see if I find something really interesting. I'll write in Italian, of course, but then I'll ask someone to translate it for me :-) --piero tasso 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark: I'm admin on de:, and we decided to keep this article (AfD discussion). Sarazyn • TALK • DE 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't understand German so I would like to userfy Via Anelli Wall for myself in case it gets deleted. Is that allowed? NLOleson 12:54, 24 August 2006 (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. (aeropagitica) 23:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable academic who fails WP:PROF. I cannot find from independent sources any biography of him, or anything that suggest that the books he has authored are well-known or significant. Kimchi.sg 01:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dionyseus 02:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Author of at least 4 books [13] one of which is with McGraw-Hill a major publisher. While [14] probably isn't the most independent source, most of it is verifiable from other sources. I can't verify the claim of an article in the Wall St Journal but it seems plausible. Dlyons493 Talk 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no requirement that biographies must be available easily or on the net. Four books is enough, someone should add the ISBN's so we can how widespread the distribution was. Wjhonson 18:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Initially nominated for deletion on 19 August 2006. Relisted here for further consensus. Thanks.-- Samir धर्म 07:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Close enough, might be notable, but not because of book count.-Kmaguir1 08:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep McGraw-Hill is a MAJOR publisher of academic books. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- Keep per above comments, McGraw-Hill is nowhere near being vanity press; this person is notable. RFerreira 06:55, 30 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Khatru2 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Please consider using proposed deletion instead of AfD as a first measure for articles like this. Kimchi.sg 01:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--PremKudvaTalk 09:26, 19 August 2006 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hoax or OR - I've never heard of this or its allegedly notable author, and Google produces nothing except mirrors JQ 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. Dionyseus 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "notable economist Scott Baker" is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article it would seem, and neither is his theory. No evidence of notability given. -Elmer Clark 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — per nom. NN and possible WP:NEO. SynergeticMaggot 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All three editors above are missing the point. The notability of the author is wholly irrelevant. The relevant criteria are mentioned in the first three words of the nomination. The article cites no sources for this purported economic model, and, like John Quiggin, looking I can find no sources. This article is unverifiable. That is the policy per which we delete hoax theories. See WP:HOAX, which explains this. Delete. Uncle G 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:HOAX, some sort of pseudoeconomics nonsense. --Kinu t/c 20:53, 19 August 2006 (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 Spider-Man villains - Bobet 09:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about character who does not have a name and only appears in one context. Article should be deleted; merging would be redundant as this idea is central to the origin of Spider-Man Chris Griswold 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the character reappeared later, I think Amazing Spider-Man #200? And has a daughter, Jessica Carradine. I don't know if that's enough to make him worth a page, but he does have more than one appearance. -HKMARKS 01:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hasn't he appeared in many other issues as well, in flashbacks? wikipediatrix 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes. But as I said, only in one context: The origin of Spider-Man. He is a detail in another character's story; he has not notability otherwise. Nor a name.--Chris Griswold 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge into into Spider-Man. At most he should be a mention in the Spider-Man or Peter Parker articles since there is very little info on him and unlikely to be more in the future. TJ Spyke 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Spider-Man villains would probably be a better merge destination. Spider-Man is a pretty hefty article with a lot of ground to cover. -HKMARKS 05:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Spider-Man villains. This seriously does not require a separate article. Resolute 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he reappeared in #200 (and cameos leading up to it) after he finally got out of prison. He finally died. His daughter Jessica Carradine later got to know Ben Reilly. And yet he was never named. Merge into Spider-Man villains. Doczilla 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Spider-Man villains per HKMARKS -Markeer 13:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. This info deserves to be available somewhere on Wikipedia, even if it doens't deserve its own article. Zagalejo 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. We should not remove the info completly. --Edgelord 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above, but please don't refer to him as the "Burglar" (capital "B"), that's just silly for a no-named character. BTW, I heard he was Joe Chill's cousin. -- Dyslexic agnostic 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we call this consensus to merge? I think we can. -HKMARKS 06:17, 21 August 2006 (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 CSD A1 - no context. Kimchi.sg 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be total nonsense and in any case is unverified Blood red sandman 01:44, 19 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unmaintainable list which violates WP:NOT. Jesus is a bit of a recurring theme. You might as well have a List of songs about love. Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete List of songs about lists. --IslaySolomon 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I doubt the list is complete even, its unmaintainable. Far too common. The list of songs about love analogy works pretty good too. Kevin_b_er 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Far too broad where the criteria are concerned, but anything narrower would end up as a list of religious songs, which would also be a massive list. BigHaz 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. What's next, List of songs which refer to Buddha, List of songs which refer to eggplants, and List of songs which refer to gerbils? wikipediatrix 03:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unmaintanable and potentially huge. KleenupKrew 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, oh boy is this unmaintainable. Gazpacho 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unmaintainable. Every church hymn would have to be included in this list. --Ageo020 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per all of above. Wikipediatrix: You forgot to list Rudolf Hess as well. = P -- Netsnipe (Talk) 05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--PremKudvaTalk 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Far too lengthy if it were to be accurate. Maybe if narrowed down, it could work. --E Asterion u talking to me? 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' per nom. Doczilla 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 20:55, 19 August 2006 (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. Kimchi.sg 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary duplication of the much further expanded Master's degree article. Please see related AFD discussions: Professional Bachelor's degree and Professional doctorate. As with both of these articles, there is little or nothing in this article to merge to Master's degree that isn't already covered there. — NMChico24 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Agent 86 08:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a professional degree is different. There are distinctions made in the academic world. As for the other Afd's the nominator mentioned: the Doctorate was deleted correctly and so was the bachelor's (all three delete votes). Nickieee 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am not convinced that this is an encyclopaedic concept. Further, it is POV as to which degrees are included. BlueValour 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, NMChico24
- Delete per precedent set by other two articles -Elmer Clark 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing here that is not seen in article Master's degree will381796 05:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete listicrufts. List masquerading as an article, but subject matter already exists as indicated by nominator. Ohconfucius 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--PremKudvaTalk 09:28, 19 August 2006 (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. - Bobet 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is wikispam -- a lot of the text is verbatim from the text at [www.trikke.com]. At the very least, this article requires a substantial rewrite; while I can see how the topic might merit an article, as it stands, it's just an ad. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam unless someone can find reliable sources per WP:RS. Crystallina 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but COMPLETELY rewrite, including the external links It is a well-known product. "Trikke" gets 548,000 Google hits, the second of which is a link to TIME Magazine naming it one of the best inventions of 2002. In fact, I seem to recall that the accompanying image was the lead photo for the "Best Inventions" section of that issue. They're also sold by reputable businesses such as Amazon and Modell's. Most of the G-hits I saw related to the product, so the high # of hits (and that 722 of the first 1,000 results are unique) certainly indicate that, at the very least, these things are sold everywhere. -- Kicking222 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Interesting concept, but these things aren't exactly crowding bikes or roller blades off the sidewalks at the present moment. — NMChico24 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It isn't just an ad anymore. Actually searched it here to get more info on just what these are.Sabar 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There aren't many of these about either, but they're notable enough for an article. Tonywalton | Talk 11:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep something named invention of the year by Time is good enough for a keep. -- Whpq 14:10, 19 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No claims of notability have been provided in the page. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. It was tagged for speedy deletion (although that was invalid), and nominated, and deleted, via prod; some days later, the original author came back and contested the prod by recreating the page, so, I'm taking it to AfD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Softpedia is thataway. Kimchi.sg 02:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Igotnothintosay 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) What's wrong with the page???[reply]
- It fails WP:SOFTWARE like the nom said, Delete. Shinhan 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable software. plus copyright problems on using the name of NCIS on the software. --Ageo020 05:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete — Not noteable
Betacommand 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that subject meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu t/c 20:56, 19 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about future convention. Not notable. 1000 g-hits. Reads like an advertisement. :) Dlohcierekim
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 02:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dionyseus 02:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, crystal ball. — NMChico24 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per above. Dennette 05:00, 21 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? This is in no way, shape or form an encyclopedia article. I can't even begin to say just what it is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also see related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowclone (2nd nomination) — NMChico24 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:HOLE completely sums up my views on this one. And yes, WP:HOLE is generally used for biographies, but the point is that I have no clue in hell what anything in this article is saying. -- Kicking222 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonsense. Dionyseus 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnecessary list. Doesn't make much sense. — NMChico24 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Patent nonsense -Elmer Clark 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looked like nonsense at first to me also, but then I finally wrapped my head around it: it's a neologism to describe common phrases that often get variations made of them, like "Does the Pope (blank) in the woods?". However, by rendering the list in faux-algebraic format, and ordering the examples in chronological order throughout history, the author of the article makes it extremely and unnecessarily hard to read. Having said all that, I still say Delete. wikipediatrix 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Vast list of OR. Crufty danishes and melted gummy worms. SynergeticMaggot 03:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the best to Snowclone and delete the rest. The existance of this page didn't do much to help Snowclone's case I don't think. Irongargoyle 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]- delete double you tea eff. See above. will381796 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - the examples of snowclone in the list are neither "patent nonsense" nor a "hole in the ground" -- just because a subject is unfamiliar to some readers does not invalidate it. This list article has been referenced in numerous places across the Internet. Please see, for example: Literal minded blog; Tlogmer's Wikipedia blog; Crayz.org; Cheek blog; Aidan McGlynn blog. See also the extensive discussion of the term's origin at the UPenn linguist's Language Log It would not be appropriate to (re)merge into snowclone, as this article was, in fact, split off from there precisely because it had grown too long. Obliga-note: I was the one who reorganised this list into its present chronology; this was intended to present its information in a more encylopaedically accessible form, by allowing it to be verified and found more easily. Another option, organising by source or media (i.e. print, film, TV, advertising, music, etc.), was not attempted because at the time, there were far fewer entries. Chronology makes sense to show (1) longevity of certain elements; (2) development over time; (3) connection to historical (pop)culture. I've attempted to regularly prune the less notable examples, but likely it could do with a bit more trimming, and clearer explanation of the term snowclone at the head.--LeflymanTalk 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are not very compelling sources, especially when one of them is a Wikipedia blog. wikipediatrix 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, providing Snowclone survives its own current AfD nomination. If there is to be an article on snowclones, it makes sense to provide a list of them for illustrative and explanatory purposes. The list shouldn't be (or try to be) exhaustive, and it should be sourced as much as possible (which would in practice limit it to only the most notable examples), but it does seem to me worth having. I admit the list could be merged with Snowclone, but that seems like an unnecessary combination of two different types of article to me. (Disclaimer: I've added one or two to this list myself.) Terraxos 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Per Leflyman and Terraxos. The Strength of the arguments for keeping both this list and the associated Snowclone article are quite persuasive in both cases and have changed my mind. Irongargoyle 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Leflyman and Terraxos, assuming that Snowclone passes AfD. —Aristotle 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are serious problems with the list as it stands, but it is certainly not "nonsense." I don't even see how someone could mistake it for nonsense. --Iustinus 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, merging whatever is salvageable. Deltabeignet 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I read the Snowclones article, came here, read the list, understood at once what was going on. The algebraic format is perfectly comprehensible. The list is far from perfect (eg., off the top of my head I can add "See A B" from the old "See Dick Run" story books; and "Can you say X?" from the Mr. Rogers TV show) but the concept is appropriate.Network20 22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 13:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep also as the two above. It makes an excellent companion to the snowclone article.
- Keep per above. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Eyu100 23:05, 24 August 2006 (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.
Dictdef of a neologism. And I for one welcome our new * overlords is either not something we need to keep, or, at best, can be folded into Slashdot. RickK 05:27, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete "overlords" at least. There's already a page for nearly every character on the Simpsons, which I guess we can deal with, but Simpsons quotes? Really gotta put my foot down here, regardess of what group has usurped it. -R. fiend 06:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I recognize the "I for one" meme from fark.com. Didn't realize it was originally from Slashdot, so I guess I learned something. Delete anyway. Isomorphic 06:11, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Can't vote, clown'll eat me. Oh, okay. Kill 'em both. Bearcat 06:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both articles immediately. The first is a lame little neologism with 91 Google hits, and the second is an unencyclopedic Simpsons quote that happens to already be covered in Slashdot subculture#Welcoming our overlords. --Ardonik 09:19, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: "Why does life have to be so hard." "Get revenge on stupid world." The "I for one" thing is originally Kent Brockman on The Simpsons. (Poor Snowball IV) Geogre 13:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I for one welcome our new deletion overlords. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Subwayguy 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Local news broadcast of little note outside its local area. — NMChico24 02:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to WTXF-TV per the above. —Whomp t/c 03:57, 19 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
advertising for nonnotable business NawlinWiki 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN real estate company. Fan-1967 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete...is that Spam I taste? Akradecki 02:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam. Possible violation of WP:AUTO. — NMChico24 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — per the smell of spam. SynergeticMaggot 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Discuss. I am going to write the use of internet technology in hong kong property market. And It is the first one who has won the Hong Kong Productivity Council award. Or how should we edit it so that it does not look like an advertisement?Frankycho 11:35, 19 August 2006 (HKT)
- Comment Editing will not help. Wikipedia only has articles (not advertising, which clearly this is) on notable companies per Standards for notability of corporations. Clearly this company does not qualify. Fan-1967 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Delete it. The company gives no indication it passes WP:CORP, so no real grounds for an article. Ohconfucius 07:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--PremKudvaTalk 09:28, 19 August 2006 (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no discussion about the mall's notability. It's just a run of the mill mall. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral or Weak Delete Not too sure how to go with this one. Many malls have articles, including some in my city which are I do not think could be considered unique or important (North Star Mall). I would delete, but there seems to be a precendent to include malls. will381796 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, unless comeone can come up with a good reason why this mall is so special. There are hundreds of malls in every town and city these days. Ohconfucius 07:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Malls do not come under the purview of CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Troy, Michigan. It's probably quite a significant place in that town but probably doesn't need a separate article based on the article's current contents. JYolkowski // talk 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, or at least merge with Troy, Michigan. I think sizeable indoor shopping malls are borderline notable, given the important roles they play in their communities. Zagalejo 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks to be a fairly large mall in the Detroit area. Malls of significant size are notable enough as important community landmarks. Needs expansion desperately though. Kirjtc2 23:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A mall is a significant place of employment and community activity. If a redirect was given from Oakland to Troy, Michigan, that may be okay. Nlsanand 18:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So is a Wal-Mart. Should we have an article on every one of those? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wal-Marts are all pretty much the same, but each indoor shopping mall has its own distinctive architecture and ambience. Also, the larger shopping malls often play host to mini-concerts, celebrity appearances, and assorted games and tournaments, so they tend to be more versatile than the standard big-box stores. Just my two cents. Zagalejo 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So is a Wal-Mart. Should we have an article on every one of those? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Malls are businesses that rent space to retail stores, the way office towers rent space to companies needing an office. There is no evidence of this mall meeting the standards at WP:CORP. GRBerry
- Keep. After looking at Category:Shopping malls in Michigan, I think this needs to stay. A project-wide consensus on all these articles needs to be reached, not the deletion of this one article. Rmhermen 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge but do not keep. There is nothing notable asserted in the article. Vegaswikian 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is a very notable mall in the metro Detroit area that has been around since the 1960s. --musicpvm 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please it is notable in the detroit metro area we need project wide consensus first Yuckfoo 22:09, 28 August 2006 (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 (A1 & A7) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn Companies, Spam? Ilyong 03:11, 19 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His present position is an appointment and he has not been elected to a state-wide body. Plainly a meritorius individual but has not achieved enough, yet, to gain notability. Delete. BlueValour 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete holds a minor political position, and gets only 32 unique Google hits. -Elmer Clark 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks promising, maybe up-and-coming, but not there yet. Fan-1967 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I nominated it for a speedy delete after it was created, and I stand by my original reasons. Not that he doesn't sound like a great guy, just he's not notable. -GamblinMonkey 17:55, 21 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable slang Dsreyn 03:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kim Possible, where the term is most often heard. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The claim in the article is that it's an invention of Jawbone Radio. Dsreyn 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — NEO. SynergeticMaggot 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Outright in Kim Possible , the saying is What's the sitch. this slang hasn't reached public minds and is not as notable as May the force be with you. --Ageo020 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There's a whiff of WP:VAIN here, too. Danny Lilithborne 07:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Not related to Kim Possible, agree with WP:NEO--Kisai 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my prod, which stated: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page regarding nominating [multiple] articles for deletion that are already prodded.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom -- Whpq 14:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom -- Dennette 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How can you have a prod and an Afd? The term form Kim Possible is What's the Sitch, so no redirect. WP:NOT for something made up in school one day and ripped off of a tv show. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 22:34, 22 August 2006 (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 keep. BlueValour 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another article submitted as an obit. A worthwhile career with a number of achievements but none sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 03:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was chairman of the management committee of Goldman Sachs, "one of the world's most prestigous global investment banks," for fourteen years [15]. I've added that citation to the article as well. -Elmer Clark 06:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: investment banker and chairman/senior partner in a leading firm, director of several important corporations, and a trustee of Princeton University and a large university hospital in NY, has endowed and given his name to an academic research center at the University of Delaware. Google also discovers a "John L. Weinberg Professor of Economics and Business Policy" at Princeton University. He seems to have been considered important in the real world, outside Wikipedia. up+l+and 07:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the University position was one that he endowed not one he held. BlueValour 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my point (as should be clear from the punctuation).up+l+and 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - nomination withdrawn - the fact that he chaired the Goldman Sachs management committee is enough. Also, I have cleaned up the article. BlueValour 08:24, 19 August 2006 (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 template'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. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has already been PRODed, no need to take it here. -Elmer Clark 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the prod tag - it is better to get a consensus for deletion through AfD. I have cautioned Dsreyn not to AfD uncontested prods in future. Kimchi.sg 09:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry, the PROD and AfD policies seemed to suggest that this was an allowable course of action. Dsreyn 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per WP:NEO. Ohconfucius 07:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my prod, which stated: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An Ardeltion (which is a neologism coined by me 15 seconds ago meaning "article for deletion"). Tonywalton | Talk 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom -- Whpq 14:13, 19 August 2006 (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. Socks/meats and SPAs aside, vanity press publications are not reliable sources, nor are nonexistant or one-line entries in magazines. RasputinAXP 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Nomination also includes near duplicate HOT ROD SURF.
Started as potential vanity page. Very little asserted notability and none established. Was prodded and supported by another editor but contested and removed. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hot Rod Surf has been featured numerous times in the internationally renound Hot Rod Magazine BURN OUT from Japan, local San Diego press including Gernade Magazine, and Revolt. Hot Rod Surf is known to almost every younger hot rodder and greaser as well as universally hated by older fake hot roddres who don't built, drive or own 1930's steel hot rods but wish they did. There is a 150 page book just on HOT ROD SURF coiming out this next month which is availble around the world. Wickpedia is for counter culture definitions people should know about if they want to—like what’s HOT ROD SURF! (Jmcrownpoint 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, CSD A7. Non-notable motorcycle club/shop/brand. wikipediatrix 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: go look at what Hot Rod Surf is and has done for the living kustom kulture and then try and label it 'non-notable'! If someone wants to know what HOT ROD SURF is they should be able to find out at Wikipedia. To deny HOT ROD SURF is to deny the reality of the hot rods and the lifestyle that are very real and contemporary.(Jmcrownpoint 2:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Why is it that when some one dosen't know about something they claim it's not notable or not established. The fun of wikipedia to find out what things mean that you didn't know about. Clearly in this case it is Hot Rod Surf. Keep Hot Rod Surf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Despite the fact that this is really original research and theory, Wikipedia operates on a burden of positive proof system. Not everything deserves inclusion. And the burden of proof is on the authors of the pages to show that it should be included. This is also why we have Articles for Deletion instead of Articles for Inclusion. As well as a speedy deletion criteria that says, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." We don't just go around yelling yee-haw while we nominate stuff for deletion. We take the time to investigate, using many resources. And, searches all say that it's just not notable. If you think it's notable, prove it. If something is notable, there will be plenty of independent verifiable proof out there that can be cited and presented. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, put another way: Please cite sources to demonstrate that this shop satisfies the criteria for inclusion laid out in WP:CORP. (The 150 page book that is being published "next month" does not count, by the way.) Please cite the newspaper feature articles that you claim exist. Uncle G 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The majority of User:Jmcrownpoint's edits have been to add external links to this Hot Rod Surf site to other articles, not all Hot Rod related. Google search shows that many of the hits for "Hot Rod Surf" do not refer to this particular commercial enterprise (for example, it seems to be the name of a music style). -- Infrogmation 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Being a real counter-culture phenomenon Hot Rod Surf has not courted any mainstream news outlets. In many ways MWM believed that this was a waste of time of explaining instead of living. It’s time to bring the truth to light. The book HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine ISBN 0-9786756-0-6, and the second book by MWM about pinstriping is ISBN 0-9786756-1-4 who ever doubts the books should go and order them and can do hours of ‘verification’. The Blue Dream 1931 Ford roadster built by MWM and dripping with the HOT ROD SURF style is featured with a pin-up in “SDMUSIC MATTERS”reliable source ‘local music for local culture,’ June/July 2004 pages 22-24 (four full pages). Look at the rod in the magazine and on the official Hot Rod Surf website. HOT ROD SURF is featured in “Revolt In Style”reliable source magazine September 2002 (p.12), “Car Culture Deluxe”reliable source magazine, issue #9 year 2003, (page 71), one of the Hot Rod Surf parties is mentioned in “Revolt In Style,” November 2001. HOT ROD SURF was also featured in “Grenade Magazine”reliable source (since changed it’s name to Krown mag) Vol. 1 Issue 1, Spring 2003 with a ‘san diego Kustom Car Kulture’ full article (page4) featuring the Hot Rod Surf parties and the HOT ROD SURF hot rods and style. Hot Rod Surf has also been featured in BurnOut reliable sourcemagazine numerous times (check the news and events on www.hotrodsurf.com) there is a picture of the founder and publisher of Burnout. Contact legendary counter culture artists Marco Almera reliable source, or Nash’s BurnOut blog verify with them about HOT ROD SURF.(hotrodsurf 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC))— Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- No books with those ISBNs are listed on any of the book sources that I checked. Please check that you gave the correct ISBNs. Uncle G 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ISBN 0978675606 - HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine (Published by HOT ROD SURF PUBLISHING)
- ISBN 0978675614 - Basic Hot Rod Pinstriping Techniques with Hot Rod Surf (Published by ?, Written by Mark Whitney Mehran of Hot Rod Surf)
- These DO NOT meet verifiability criteria of reliable and reputable sources. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No books with those ISBNs are listed on any of the book sources that I checked. Please check that you gave the correct ISBNs. Uncle G 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: GO CLICK ON YOUR OWN LINK to the books and you will find them! The books are are real as the original article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs)
- I did, and they weren't there. I notice that Amazon now has the book listed. Investigating this, I find that the listing is solely because a seller has put up the book for sale second-hand. Investigating who the seller is, I find that xyr Amazon name is "hotrodsurf", a new seller as of the 20th of August 2006, the day after I wrote the above. Uncle G 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The books are on the first edition and printing, it takes some time for them to show up in the data bases. The first edition is officially released for distributors and reviews September 1st. To further ‘verify’ try and contact 'Harley' the lead singer of the band Deadbolt . Deadbolt has played numerous shop parties and Harley owns and drives a genuine Hot Rod Surf hot rod built by MWM. Next we will hear Deadbolt and Voodoobilly doesn’t exist despite their 8 plus full length original albums and world tours?! Harley has seen an advanced copy of the HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine book, his band and hot rod are in it. (hotrodsurf 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — A self-published book still is not a reliable source. None of the other articles that are mentioned above appear to discuss the shop, but just its cars, so HRS is not the subject of those articles. JChap2007 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the articles discuss the shop, the style, and fully support the definition of HOT ROD SURF as described in the original article. (hotrodsurf 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: An importantpart of the Hot Rod Surf phenomenon is the true DIY spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep: 'appear'! Go find the articles and contact the proper people and obtain the articles. All of the articles support the definition presented to Wikipedia. Go to BurnOut magazine or find a copy of the original Grenade magazine. Better talk to some one like Harley from Deadbolt or Marco Almera. Yes, the Hot Rod Surf hot rods and choppers are a very important part of Hot Rod Surf. The beauty of the HOT ROD SURF hot rods and choppers are that they are undeniably in physical REALITY and are driving all around the United Stated and the world. Unlike, text, articles, or comments which are just that text.(hotrodsurf 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Note: All 3 of the above votes, in addition to an earlier one above, by User:Hotrodsurf. -- Infrogmation 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, they "appear" to be so per your summaries of them, mate. JChap2007 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThis is great all sorts of people are learning about what Hot Rod Surf really is! (hotrodsurf 1:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep: Non-notable?! In who's opinion? I and many others I've known have found the cars and motorcycles built by HOT ROD SURF and appearing for the last couple of years upon their web site, dvd's, and in various car culture magazines to be inspirational and an influence upon the lifestyle that I and others live. Non-notable? Hardly. By removing HOT ROD SURF, wikipedia displays it's arrogance, it's limited vision and thereby makes itself Non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bham Greaser (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Bham Greaser (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Note: above vote is user's only edit. -- Infrogmation 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Hot Rod Surf has been featured in BurnOut Magazine on numerous occasions including issue #10, 2001 (pages 16-17), and issue #13, September 2002 (page 38). HOT ROD SURF has also been featured in the Japanese car culture magazine Cal Magazine in the 15th Anniversary edition, April 2002 #4 (page 87-88), as well as the German magazine Street Car & Bike issue Nov./Dec. 2005 pages (18-19). (Jmcrownpoint 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- The preceding comment was added by 72.130.148.120. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:To be more specific the #10 issue of BurnOut is also called the Makato Issue vol.3, no.4 and has HOT ROD SURF BBQ listed on the cover as a feature article. (Jmcrownpoint 2:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- The preceding comment was added by 72.130.148.120. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hot Rod Surf is a lifestyle for me and my friends and it should be included in Wikipedia. It represents the contemporary beach and hot rod scene here in Southern CA. I’ve been to there parties and seen them featured in some mags and zines. (hotrodjohn 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Hotrodjohn (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- Above vote is user's first edit. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThis article is a good start for something that means alot to myself and means alot to buddies of mine, and there's alot of us. Hot Rodding, Kustoms and Surfing are things that have been passed down to guys and gals alike for many of years now. These are all things that we hold close to our hearts, tradition is something that you dont throw to the waste side, and articles like this one are showing that we are out there and we do care about more than just the fashion show and fashion cars side of things, and hot rod surf is now part of that tradition for alot of us from so cal and beyond. I Thank you for your time. Jimmy Von Surf
- Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. --Satori Son 03:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As a result of multiple consistencies of habits, voting, and usernames in this AfD, a complaint has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is clear that the 'User talk: JJJJust' has a pattern of selecting articles and marking then “unverifiable” and then when the verification comes 'User talk: JJJJustuses'uses more technical earmarkings like ‘sock puppets’ to try and disregard the verification of a Reality which he first complained and reported. Notice how 'User talk: JJJJust'never really talks about the articles he marks and files complaints against. Articles and text should be about the article and definition in question for Wikipedia not a technical game of ratting.(Jmcrownpoint11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: More technicalities... Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Read it. And you're right, I do have a pattern of selecting articles and marking them unverified. It's called New Page Patrol. But, the thing is that, when I do that, and bring articles such as this one to Articles for deletion, a large majority of independent users with no connections to the articles whatsoever agree with me and concur with my findings. Oh, and the second and third sentences on this page, are about the article(s) of which I complained and reported. Once I've said it once, I really don't say it again, unless something like this happens. And, yes, I don't have much to say about the text of the articles. Mainly because the articles I forward here do not have problems with the text, they may be factual and nicely written, but, have other policy problems. I'm not really a front line guy, I'm a back room worker. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the sources that discuss this seem reliable, but the article should be written with those in mind, not how it's currently written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are you referring to, and how can you say they "seem reliable" without having read them? Or do you mean to say that you have actually read their self-published book or the articles from obscure magazines that allegedly mention them?? Also, their suggestion that personally asking the guy from Deadbolt for "verification" obviously fails WP:RS as well. wikipediatrix 13:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically speaking, we'd use published sources as sources in articles without much question. This seems entirely reasonable in this case, and I think we're letting the sock parade blind our ability to objectively look at this subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy a lot more seriously. A book that magically appears for sale on Amazon, by an Amazon seller named "hodrodsurf", the day after I mention that I couldn't find it listed, that is autobiographical according to the prior discussion (Please actually read the prior discussion.) and that hasn't been published yet (Please actually read the Barnes & Noble listing given above.) is nowhere near being a reliable source. It isn't even a source at all, because it hasn't been published yet. As for the magazines, I conclude that the answer that you didn't give to Wikipediatrix's question above is actually "No, I haven't actually read any of them.". I conclude this because I have made attempts to check these sources. The only magazine that I've been able to even find so far, Revolt In Style, doesn't have an accessible archive of back issues where I can check what was in the September 2002 edition. Uncle G 14:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it very seriously, actually. Whether the book "magically" appeared at Amazon during this discussion isn't really all that relevant. We're still talking about a published book that no one would ever question anywhere else. There are a number of sources we use in articles all over the place that I simply have not read, either. I'm not going to start removing books willy-nilly because I haven't read them, I'm going to assume good faith that the books are being sourced properly. Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that? Finally, I have a pile of books in the next room over that are technically "not published." While there are certainly some vanity issues we need to deal with on the editor side, his ability to have a prerelease version of something doesn't automatically eliminate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the books and only the books, they both were written and published by the corporation in question. That makes them unusable as sources as they cannot be used to establish notability, which is what they were being used for and notability and verifiability are probably the largest sticking points here. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From where you linked: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following." It meets "the following," so they're fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two operative words that you are repeatedly overlooking: "published" and "notability". The notability criteria in WP:CORP specifically exclude published works that are not independent of the subject. This non-published book is an autobiography, as was explained by User:Hotrodsurf above. Please pay closer attention to the discussion. Uncle G 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more bothered that WP:CORP is being used to trump WP:V in this case. If it comes down to a disconnect between a notability guideline and a verifability policy, I'm going with the latter. This isn't me not paying attention, it's making a value judgement on the sources and the article's worth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The set of things that are notable is a subset of the things that are verifiable, so yes notability criteria are more restrictive than simple verifiability. (There is a patch of unremarkable grassland next to my house that is verifiable.) Your acceptance of an unpublished autobiography as a source is not a "value judgement". It is simply not applying any form of judgement at all, and not taking verifiability seriously. Uncle G 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more bothered that WP:CORP is being used to trump WP:V in this case. If it comes down to a disconnect between a notability guideline and a verifability policy, I'm going with the latter. This isn't me not paying attention, it's making a value judgement on the sources and the article's worth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two operative words that you are repeatedly overlooking: "published" and "notability". The notability criteria in WP:CORP specifically exclude published works that are not independent of the subject. This non-published book is an autobiography, as was explained by User:Hotrodsurf above. Please pay closer attention to the discussion. Uncle G 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From where you linked: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following." It meets "the following," so they're fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "We're still talking about a published book" — No, we are not. This was stated right at the top of this discussion, is stated in the Barnes & Noble listing, and was stated by me in the very text that you are replying to. Please take our verifiability policy more seriously, and please pay closer attention to the discussion.
"I'm going to assume good faith" — This is not a question of assuming good faith. This is a question of an application of our verifiability policy that is so lax that it includes books that haven't been published.
"Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that?" — Once again: This book has not been published. It is not a published source. Uncle G 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, our disagreement on these issues is not me taking WP:V at a different level of seriousness - we disagree on the sourcing, and we disagree on the application. We're both longtime, reasonable people, and can disagree on this one. I hear what you're saying, I simply disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not taking verifiability seriously, because the fundamental point of verifiability is that readers can check articles for themselves. Clearly, a book that has not been published isn't a way for readers to do that. It is a simple rejection of the entire basis of the policy to argue that such a book is a source. It is a complete mischaracterization to state that this is a disagreement on how verifiability is applied. What it is is not applying verifiability at all, in any form. Uncle G 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, we disagree. Your continued assertions that I fail to take WP:V seriously are without merit, so please cease it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not taking verifiability seriously, because the fundamental point of verifiability is that readers can check articles for themselves. Clearly, a book that has not been published isn't a way for readers to do that. It is a simple rejection of the entire basis of the policy to argue that such a book is a source. It is a complete mischaracterization to state that this is a disagreement on how verifiability is applied. What it is is not applying verifiability at all, in any form. Uncle G 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, our disagreement on these issues is not me taking WP:V at a different level of seriousness - we disagree on the sourcing, and we disagree on the application. We're both longtime, reasonable people, and can disagree on this one. I hear what you're saying, I simply disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the books and only the books, they both were written and published by the corporation in question. That makes them unusable as sources as they cannot be used to establish notability, which is what they were being used for and notability and verifiability are probably the largest sticking points here. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it very seriously, actually. Whether the book "magically" appeared at Amazon during this discussion isn't really all that relevant. We're still talking about a published book that no one would ever question anywhere else. There are a number of sources we use in articles all over the place that I simply have not read, either. I'm not going to start removing books willy-nilly because I haven't read them, I'm going to assume good faith that the books are being sourced properly. Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that? Finally, I have a pile of books in the next room over that are technically "not published." While there are certainly some vanity issues we need to deal with on the editor side, his ability to have a prerelease version of something doesn't automatically eliminate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy a lot more seriously. A book that magically appears for sale on Amazon, by an Amazon seller named "hodrodsurf", the day after I mention that I couldn't find it listed, that is autobiographical according to the prior discussion (Please actually read the prior discussion.) and that hasn't been published yet (Please actually read the Barnes & Noble listing given above.) is nowhere near being a reliable source. It isn't even a source at all, because it hasn't been published yet. As for the magazines, I conclude that the answer that you didn't give to Wikipediatrix's question above is actually "No, I haven't actually read any of them.". I conclude this because I have made attempts to check these sources. The only magazine that I've been able to even find so far, Revolt In Style, doesn't have an accessible archive of back issues where I can check what was in the September 2002 edition. Uncle G 14:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically speaking, we'd use published sources as sources in articles without much question. This seems entirely reasonable in this case, and I think we're letting the sock parade blind our ability to objectively look at this subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are you referring to, and how can you say they "seem reliable" without having read them? Or do you mean to say that you have actually read their self-published book or the articles from obscure magazines that allegedly mention them?? Also, their suggestion that personally asking the guy from Deadbolt for "verification" obviously fails WP:RS as well. wikipediatrix 13:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the basis of nearly every "Keep" vote on this page is either a repeat, or an unestablished user; or, on the basis that the article is in such bad shape from a Wikipedia standpoint, it deserves another try at another time by an editor who understands NPOV and notability. -- MyWikiBiz 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn per WP:CORP. Self-published books don't count for notability. Moreover, the page content is not encyclopedic in style. Han-Kwang 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hot Rod Surf has proven they have valid sources outside of the books, Just two easy examples are Burnout Magazine and Krown magazine both can be found on their websites. The source are valid. These magazines are completely unrelated with each other or Hot Rod Surf. Hot Rod Surf is proven to be recognized by published media. Hot Rod Surf is a unique part of Hot Rod culture and should be include in wikipedia. Sources:
- User:HunterIrrigation 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: HunterIrrigation (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
- Actually, the purported articles cannot be found on their web sites. Krown magazine just has a gallery of its magazine covers on its web site, as does Burnout magazine. But at least you've told us where the magazines are to be found, now, which is better. Jalopnik has its article on its web site, but the amount of information in that article amounts to no more than 1 sentence: "Hot Rod Surf of San Diego builds old-skool hotrods.". This is Wikipedia, not the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. We need more than "mostly harmless". Where are the sources for all of the other content of the article? Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Hello, I am new to Wikipedia but not to the Kustom Culture, Chopper and Hot Rod scene. I am here because the Kustom Culture scene is misrepresented and not understood by many people. It is a rising movement in American history and is recorded in many of today’s popular media. The modern era of Kustom Culture is changing rapidly with many independent press only covering accurate accounts. I am happy to see many other Kustom Culture stars on here such as Robert Williams, Juxtapoz, Jesse James, Von Dutch and so many more. This is an encyclopedia to stay onto of the current definitions. The outside sources of magazines, books and website clearly follow the WP:CORP definition for a company deserving inclusion. I would like to work on making the write up to standard and not deleting this company since this these type entits along with the above mentioned stars are what someone looking up hot rods, lowbrow art, rat rod, choppers or custom culture want to learn about. Give us critique on the description of Hot Rod Surf not trying to delete. Thanks to all the editors who care to contribute not delete this great site of important relevant information.(HunterIrrigation 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep per badlydrawnjeff. It takes upwards of 3-4 weeks for Amazon to approve and list a book for sale on their website, and I say this as a self-published author. Silensor 08:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not accurate. Check out the link: [16]. It is not actually being sold by Amazon, but only listed by Amazon Marketplace as being for sale by hotrodsurf. This type of listing, and its Product Detail Page, can be completed immediately, and does not take the usual 3-4 weeks. Amazon.com says, "Once you submit the product information, Amazon will create the product page right away so that you can list your Marketplace copy on the newly created page." --Satori Son 13:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, having two books with and ISBN number is not an overnight activity and I find it extremely disturbing that an long time editor of Wiki would discount independent books or act as if books are created out of nowhere. The books are not the only sources you keep leaving out the other sources they have provided. Magazines and news sources provided they have clearly made an accurate case to be included according to the WP:CORP.(HunterIrrigation 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Please do not misstate my position. I do not "discount" these two vanity press publications, I just do not believe they qualify as "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V, and thus are not a valid reason for a "keep" opinion from Silensor as he/she states above. --Satori Son 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello once again the other third party sources are being ignored the magazines Burnout, Krown, Reviewer, Revolt in Style, Street Car & Bike and Jalpinx. There are three links above where you can find the magazines and you can find past issues at selected counter culture newstands. I personaly have mulitple BurnOut mag with Hot Rod Surf included from back in 2001, 2003 and in the current issue 2006. I am a long time subscriber of BurnOut mag publsihed in Japan and distributed world wide heavly in Europe and America. These thrid party mags completely follow inline with the WP:CORP. This is a noticalble company that people into Hot Rod, Choppers and Kustom Culture want to know about. They are well documented in Hot Rod magazines. Why is it people who don’t follow the major current builders in the Hot Rod scene are trying to delete Hot Rod Surf after third party evidence has been delivered? (HunterIrrigation 22:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- They aren't being ignored, for the simple reason that you aren't actually citing them in the first place. We need more than just a laundry list of magazine names. How are editors and readers to find the articles that you claim exist from just that? See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the page can be cleaned up and a lot of the POV terms removed I might be tempted to change my mind, but for now delete. Wildthing61476 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepHi all! I have gone over the page and worked on the writing to make it in encyclopedic style. I have also got rid of all POV. As suggested by Wildthing61476 and Han-KwangI would like to have a side picture of one of the radical hot rods included on this page but don’t wait to take their photos without permission. This page has now proven to be ready for inclusion, cited sources and no POV. It should now be taken off the articles for deletion. HunterIrrigation 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources cited in the article. What's the source for the information given in the article's third paragraph, for example? Neither this discussion nor the article gives any clue. Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello User:Uncle G, Hi the cited source were in the talk section but a mister User:MER-C deleted them. I would like to understand why someone would delete vailid source instead of adding to disscusion. It looks like a personal attack on this page. I did put them back for you to see. Thanks for the input. HunterIrrigation 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are in the Hot Rod Surf talk page not this discussion talk page. Since learning that I have added to this discussion talk page. HunterIrrigation 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Thank you. I'll have a look. Uncle G 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are in the Hot Rod Surf talk page not this discussion talk page. Since learning that I have added to this discussion talk page. HunterIrrigation 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello User:Uncle G, Hi the cited source were in the talk section but a mister User:MER-C deleted them. I would like to understand why someone would delete vailid source instead of adding to disscusion. It looks like a personal attack on this page. I did put them back for you to see. Thanks for the input. HunterIrrigation 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources, no notability established and it's still an ad, even after the rewrite from this new, single-purpose account. JChap2007 12:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:JChap2007 please state why it is still an ad, if you gave me something to work with I would like gladly take your comment serious. Multiple 3rd party sources have been mention from magazine dating back 6 years ago, to website to book listed at Barnes and Nobles. At this point I think your are not paying attention to what has been mentioned before or adding any new contributions. HunterIrrigation 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources cited in the article. What's the source for the information given in the article's third paragraph, for example? Neither this discussion nor the article gives any clue. Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It seems a bit crazy that there is all of this back and forth about Hot Rod Surf which should be a good, positive, fun and legitimate gateway article about the reality of the contemporary hot rod and kustom kulture scene. Each and every detractor and skeptic of the original posted article has not helped define, or add any original text to the expansion of the ‘hot rod’, ‘kustom kulture’, or ‘Hot Rod Surf’ articles? Let’s keep it positive with informative contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.223.154 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 66.74.223.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Hello Satori Son, I have added all my own contributions to this page signed. I have no control over the post above or what any other fan of hot rod surf does. Please ask me any question or contribute to this post. It seems as a personal attack to be call a stock puppet after working so hard to contribute and listen to other responses. Feel free to contact me or post a vaild wikipedia agrument.HunterIrrigation 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For those interested, please see my talk page for response and sockpuppet discussion. --Satori Son 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, and maybe even WP:OR. A self-published website is considered a primary source, and hence doesn't fill the V problem - visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline for this being precident, and then the Deletion Review reaffirming this judgement. The rest a results of this. Daniel.Bryant 13:33, 26 August 2006 (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. Yeah, I know... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — NEO. SynergeticMaggot 03:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has already been PRODed, no need to take it here. -Elmer Clark 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the prod tag - it is better to get a consensus for deletion through AfD. I have cautioned Dsreyn not to AfD uncontested prods in future. Kimchi.sg 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry, the PROD and AfD policies seemed to suggest that this was an allowable course of action. Dsreyn 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my prod, which stated: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — neo JChap2007 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom with a whiff of WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 20:16, 19 August 2006 (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 Marc Morrone, no reason not to mention it there. - Bobet 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More a trailer than an encyclopaedic article on a notable programme. Delete. BlueValour 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article definitely has the potential for a scholarly article. Alex 07:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I don't see how Alex can say that with a straight-face. Rangek 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's an article Marc Morrone where the information could be posted - no need for a separate article. Camillus (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - with Marc Morrone. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2006 (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 CSD A7 - no assertion of subject's notability. Kimchi.sg 08:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
stated purpose of the article is to be a profile of a business for purposes of his clients, also the page has been deleted once and recreated Bookgrrl 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have said "page has been nominated for deletion once" and the author (who is also the subject of the article) removed the flag. --Bookgrrl 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no free web host. Gazpacho 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete blatant misuse of Wikipedia -Elmer Clark 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. If the user is desperate to have his information out there, it can't hurt to have it on his userpage. BigHaz 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 03:49, 19 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides insufficient context. The majority of the information in this article has not been verified and is not reliable. No sources have been cited to the article which leads to suspicion of being Original Research. -- 3:16 03:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Low Google hittage, and he was only an event promoter. wikipediatrix 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a train wreck. Daniel Case 03:59, 19 August 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn game. The website has no alexa rank or information at all. There are zero google hits for "Subpoena Power, Save the Republic" and only 28 hits for 'Subpoena Power" "Save the Republic" game'. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sounds like a joke. Daniel Case 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 11:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per above, and possibly WP:HOAX doktorb wordsdeeds 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 08:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Send to BJAODN. Ace of Sevens 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:17, 21 August 2006 (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, it was templatefied by Reinoutr and is probably better served in that fashion. The article's text concentrated on the individual players, not the family itself. The history isn't necessary to keep since the only thing in the template is a family tree branch. - Bobet 10:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information is certainly noteworthy, but not in its own article. It's also rather improper (IMO) to title an article something as general as "Allen family" and be so specific, since there are clearly more Allen families than just the one that the article refers to. fuzzy510 03:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the info seems important (and I know how those football fans are!) then perhaps a rename to "Allen family footballers" or "Allens (Reading Football Club)" ? Or a merge with Reading Football League ? --Bookgrrl 04:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd certainly back renaming it along the lines of Allen family footballers. I created the article and the reason for it was to include the family tree and to avoid replicating the information on each of the separate player pages. To my knowledge, no other family in English football comes close to having so many members play at a professional level, let alone represent thier country --Bedders 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Bedders 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither renaming nor merging requires listing this on AFD. Talk:Allen family is still a red link. May I suggest withdrawing the nomination and discussing this there? up+l+and 07:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion Make a template and put it in all the biographies. Catchpole 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this suggestion. —Michael Hays 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see why this can't simply be on the players pages. As Catchpole suggests, a template would be good. JPD (talk)
- Delete and comment; I have created a template containing the family tree and added it to all family member articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:44, 28 August 2006 (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 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch. BryanG(talk) 05:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Author's only contrib. Author disputes claim that this is an advertisement, but even if it isn't, it's a neologism, it's not notable, it's not encyclopedic, it's largely original research and not verifiable, and it's also not neutral POV. Are these divas really invited to "everything, everywhere, all of the time?" How much money is "too much" to spend on shoes and clothes, and what constitutes a "fabulous" night out? Delete with extreme prejudice. VoiceOfReason 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as promo. Daniel Case 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed deleted as blatant link spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:02, 19 August 2006 (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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's cute joke AFAICT. Doesn't even cut it as a dicdef (I was hoping this would be a band, as it would be a cool name). Probable BJAODN. Daniel Case 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — or Merge to Non-alcoholic beverages so long as its verified. SynergeticMaggot 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think with some things you just know they're not going to be verified ... but there are about 866 hits out there; however most seem to be forum posts. Daniel Case 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Keeping would be like us going to the article for water and saying that it is also known as an aqueous martini if you put an olive in it and serve it in a coctail glass. Obvious neologism or joke. will381796 05:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious joke -Elmer Clark 05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Water, with Adam's ale as precedent. Tonywalton | Talk 11:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of fictional beverages, where it should be pointed out that the Aqueous Martini is a joke in The Ersatz Elevator. Confusing Manifestation 05:03, 20 August 2006 (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, therefore kept. - Bobet 10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for this "article to even exist". The information should be part of the article about The Amazing Race and not an out of context list. I placed the information from this list in the main article where it belongs. This article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Displaced Brit 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom: the involved networks could be included in a subcategory of Category:The Amazing Race. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete if this were kept it would generate a horrible precedent to spawn thousands of nonsensical lists Anlace 05:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge most american sitcoms or serial's articles do have the network in which it is aired in foreign countries.--Ageo020 05:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Amazing Race, purely for GFDL reasons as the list was merged into that article, where it probably belongs. BryanG(talk) 05:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into The Amazing Race in prose form. (For example, it shouldn't take seven separate lines to list all the places where AXN airs this program.) --Metropolitan90 06:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No need to merge contents into the main article; its inclusion exceeds recommendations from Wikipedia:Article size. Note that other television shows and televised events also have a separate article on international broadcasters (Broadcasting of The Simpsons, List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases, Live 8 broadcasters, etc. --Madchester 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above reasoning. --CFIF ☎ 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as proposed. Broadcasting of The Simpsons is a prose article, not a list. I'll be glad to nominate the Smallville list. Gazpacho 22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or failing that, merge into The Amazing Race. A list of foreign airings of a US TV show is enyclopedic. Kirjtc2 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete outright, no merge, no redirect. If someone wants to include the info in the main article, go crazy. If there's not enough room, then the article was too fracking big to begin with and should be trimmed. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the main TV series article, which appears to be the general rule of thumb for this type of list. 23skidoo 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is separate from The Amazing Race for pure size reasons. Please look at the article you're proposing to merge it into - there's not much room! Radagast 15:59, 21 August 2006 (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 keep per A1. SynergeticMaggot 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another list article that has no reason to exist. The information should be part of the article about MyNetworkTV and not an out of context list. The information from this list belongs in the main MyNetworkTV article and the indivdual television stations belong article in a category. This article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Displaced Brit 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep useful and sourced. I'm not allowed to say anything else or this user will harrass and stalk me. --CFIF ☎ 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per CFIF. If you delete this, several more articles go with it. Though a category exists as well, this also includes ownership and digital subchannel items. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This list is highly useful and all sources are cited. This list is the work of a hundred editors who worked hard to compile a credible list of affiliates. Every item on this list has been confirmed by B&C magazine and other reputable sources, and contrary to user:Displaced Brit's earlier nominations, this list does not have a brief introduction; there is clear context. Additionally, D.B's claims that the items in this list belong in the main article make no sense, as the items in this list would cause the page to exceed the recommended page size. This nomination is a clear violation of WP:POINT, judging from nominator's background (check out user:Displaced Brit's talk page for details).--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ignoring what appears to be an ongoing conflict, my gut says to merge this into the MyNetworkTV article, and I was going to suggest this as it seems to touch on some of the major points of why the network was created in the first place. I need to sleep on this to come up with a solution to suggest. This is really a tough call and needs some thought, despite what may or may not be a spiteful nomination. TV Newser 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. If you deleted that you would have to delete List of CBS affiliates, List of NBC affiliates, List of FOX affiliates, List of ABC affiliates, etc. TJ Spyke 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This is a perfect example of where a list can do more than a category, and it's way too big to merge anywhere. BryanG(talk) 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per above. --Daniel Olsen 05:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and Speedy Keep per above — SterlingNorth 06:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- further comment to my vote above -- I remember a quote from somewhere: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I also remember a rule that says to ignore all rules. There are 155 stations in this list. That means this list spans 9 pages on its own. Merging it into the MyNetworkTV article would make that article unwieldy. This page is handy for reference as the stations are listed by market, rather than by alphabet which is useless for seeking out stations where the letters may not mean anything at all (and every station begins with either a K, a W, or an X), which is how it would be listed if it was left to the category system. Furthermore, it has information which would be harder to find if the proposal to delete is approved. Many of these stations are either secondariry affiliated with MyNetTV or are placing it on a digital subchannel. This list easily gives that information -- the category doesn't. And lastly, it's actually easier to use this list to aide in checking the accuracy of the individual articles and categories, by fact it provides a brief description of each MyNetTV station (call letters, market, owner, type of affiliation, etc.) This table has helped me correct a number of mistakes in individual articles that may have gone uncorrected. SterlingNorth 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- one additional comment -- from Displaced Brit's link on what Wikipedia is not contains this statement: "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." I believe this article constitutes a "reference table" which is allowed here. — SterlingNorth 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong & Speedy Keep - Sources are correct for all stations, list is comprehensive and #1 Google search under the term 'my network tv affiliates' (which will be very important come the week the network starts and thereafter), and would way be too unwieldy to merge within the main MyNet article. This article has been up for months and has strict quality control, and I think this and List of CW affiliates are great examples of what happens when multiple editors work to create a great list that many people will find of interest to them. Nate 09:59, 19 August 2006 (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. - Bobet 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another blloody list related to American telvision! This one lists guests on Martha (TV series) and most likely should be merged in with the meagre article about the programme. As with the majority of these lists, it violates both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Displaced Brit 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: if this were around for a while, the list would go on. It is TVcruft. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom Anlace 05:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Park3r 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I really don't see how this is a directory in any way. It's a list relating to a notable entry. If you don't believe this should be in its own article and should be merged, then AfD is not the right place. It seems you have a vendetta against lists (see User:Displaced Brit) and against those who oppose you (see User talk:CFIF). Lists are not all directories, if you have an issue with them then you should discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Lists, and not just nominate lots and lots of lists for deletion. --Daniel Olsen 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Weak Keep Would it be possible to use this list to create a article catagory? ex: "Person who has appeared on Martha (TV Series)" Alex 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a list would be better to link to from the Martha article. If concensus goes toward deletion however, someone should hurry and do what you suggested. --Daniel Olsen 08:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would be considered crufty as well; we had Category:Celebrities who have starred in an episode of Tom Goes to the Mayor on CFD the other week. Guest appearances are a dime a dozen, and not really category-worthy IMO. -- nae'blis 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one for Ellen (TV series), Category:Ellen (TV_series) guest stars Alex 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding that. Nominating on CFD now. -- nae'blis 03:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one for Ellen (TV series), Category:Ellen (TV_series) guest stars Alex 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would be considered crufty as well; we had Category:Celebrities who have starred in an episode of Tom Goes to the Mayor on CFD the other week. Guest appearances are a dime a dozen, and not really category-worthy IMO. -- nae'blis 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a list would be better to link to from the Martha article. If concensus goes toward deletion however, someone should hurry and do what you suggested. --Daniel Olsen 08:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is crufty and would set a bad precedent for other similar articles. For my domain, Live with Regis and Kelly, a list of guest co-hosts is notable because viewers of the show usually expect Regis and Kelly to co-host the show, and a guest co-host can sometimes generate a lot of attention. If this article is kept, I could write an article called List of guests that have appeared on Live with Regis and Kelly, which I am not inclined to do at this point. Tinlinkin 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, in case my comments above weren't clear enough. -- nae'blis 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, well we just kept List of one-time characters from The Simpsons, so how could this (and others) be far behind. Either we put together a well-reasoned approach to these "minor characters" and "guest appearances" lists or we'll look like a popularity contest rather than the collective authors of an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 20:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Martha is a talk show. Many guests who appear on a talk show are part of a circuit that takes them to other talk shows to promote their latest project (at least in recent trends, I don't know the whole history of this). Therefore, many guests who appear on a talk show are not worth noting. Categories would also probably be inappropriate and unencyclopedic (imagine an actor, say Samuel L. Jackson, to have categories for appearing on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Live with Regis and Kelly, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, The Daily Show, etc.). However, mentioning the most frequent guests or guests that made a big impact in the talk show would be notable in the talk show's article.
- With game shows, people are not usually going to be notable if they haven't won big in the game show's history (at least in my view of the current consensus). For example, I have raised Craig Westphal for deletion because he's just not notable at this point in time.
- As for other TV series, if the minor characters or guest stars were integral to the series' storylines, I think that's a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. But that may be subjective to the popularity or the coverage of the series, which may be systemic bias. That's something I don't want to live with. Tinlinkin 07:19, 25 August 2006 (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.