Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 12: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudiu Popa}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudiu Popa}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Possamai}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Possamai}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Richman}} |
Revision as of 13:50, 12 November 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: Speedily deleted - no content, duplicates Template:Certainty. - Mike Rosoft 11:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is nothing but an article form of {{certainty}}, and was linked from there. Was tempted to speedy, but decided against. Circeus 03:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Content is vague and unencyclopedic. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Delete per nomination. Doesn't make sense as an article - it's just a list of vague definitions of certain topics, put under "Legends". I wonder why. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete due to lack of context. So tagged. MER-C 03:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has no encyclopedic context. Atlantis Hawk 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom. In fact, none of the list are actually 'legends'.SkierRMH 07:09, 12 November 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 as no support for deletion and nomination is lukewarm. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band in question is sometimes difficult to perform notability searches on, and its popularity has only been weakly asserted in its article. The notability of the band has been argued according to four criteria:
- A Google search using the search terms "milemarker", "music", and the requirement of having at least one of the band's past record labels in the results (excluding the badly-searched label name "Eyeball"). This gave me about 44,800 results as of September 1, 2006 and 39,000 as of November 11.
- The Alexa ranking for their Jade Tree Records label, whose website's ranking was 273,376 as of November 11, 2006.
- Milemarker has toured nationally and internationally [1], which may mean they pass according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Musicians and ensembles bullet #3.
- Lastly, label notability. Jade Tree Records has an established mainspace article that asserts notability and has notable artists signed. By extension, it was asserted that Milemarker should be acceptable as per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Musicians and ensembles bullet #4:
“ | Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). | ” |
- Another Milemarker label, Eyeball Records, "have released albums by artists such as Thursday, My Chemical Romance and Murder by Death" (according to the label's article).
Does the community feel any of these assertions are under-supported or insufficient in proving notability? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would keep this article, Milemaker has toured and played major venues throughout the world. They might not be MTV material, but they are very well known within the indepedent music community, and media. Missvain 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If they pass the policy for bands, then we have to keep it. Atlantis Hawk 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notability has definitely been established. Ben W Bell talk 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep according to AllMusicGuide's listing (not a perfect source, but moderately reliable, and a much better resource than ghits), they've "toured Europe and the U.S. (twice)". I'd call that independent confirmation; they're notable enough for us. Xtifr tälk 10:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable. verifiable. Tulkolahten 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since nom effectively abstained, and opinion seems unanimous, this may qualify for speedy-keep. Xtifr tälk 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep WP:SK 1, notability is obvious ST47Talk 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It meets the policy for bands and is notable. Bakilas 00:06, 13 November 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 Speedily deleted as a {{db-repost}} of material taken from [2]. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 4 refers. (aeropagitica) 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I know I said that I hate nominating for AFD right away, but sometimes it's obvious. This page is an obvious violation of WP:NOT a game guide. That's what the page is though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. -- IslaySolomon | talk 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I want to point out that it is a full text dump from www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rlid=73844&rid=68256 (plus a header). That is why I think it could be speedy deleted due G12 (even if it is questionable that these walkthroughs can be copyrighted). Also, note that the user created two pages, Final fantasy x 2 secrets and Final Fantasy x-2 secrets. -- ReyBrujo 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What the... ? Why is this still here? ... discospinster talk 00:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have also directed the article Final Fantasy x-2 secrets here, as it is the same text. ... discospinster talk 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The editor has over-ridden what is, I feel, a fully valid {{speedy}} tag.--Anthony.bradbury 00:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Nice ASCII art, but belongs on the game's numerous fansites - not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a game manual. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:53, 12 November 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. DS 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A single server in a minor web-based RPG. This isn't even done for World of Warcraft: Realm (World of Warcraft) lists WOW servers, but doesn't go into any further detail. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete — Game servers do not deserve their own Wikipedia article. Shouldn't this deserve a {{speedy}} tag? –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would if there were any applicable criteria. I don't think there are, though, so it might as well go through a quick AfD. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per above. MER-C 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. James086 Talk | Contribs 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 03:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It dosen't seem notable enough. Atlantis Hawk 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as per nom. nn, etc. SkierRMH 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that this can be speedied, there are no applicable criteria at WP:CSD ST47Talk 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I suppose A7 applies ST47Talk 12:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that this can be speedied, there are no applicable criteria at WP:CSD ST47Talk 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable per all ST47Talk 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I cannot believe someone thinks a single game server is notable. --Nehwyn 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. —The Great Llama talk 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable.---ॐ Seadog ॐ 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Non-notable and an ad. Spinach Dip 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:28, 13 November 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. --Coredesat 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film made by college students. It's not even finished yet, according to the article's author. No sources can be found to vouch for it. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MER-C 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Not completed - not even a link to show a clip of it. Vague plot line, and no indication of notability that will make this stand out among the millions of amateur videos out there. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. --Ixfd64 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The main problem of this article is that it is unverifiable. Thus, it fails to meet one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. A google search proves to be unhelpful as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If it has a budget of 1 Euro and hasn't sold a copy or been shown in a professional theatre, it can't be notable.Atlantis Hawk 04:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Meets "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" criteria standards, as well as nn, and others as above
- Delete per nom. —The Great Llama talk 14:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteper nominator. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, an ad, and contains little to no real information. Spinach Dip 20:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Siva1979. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 8:04 Am ET Nov 13 2006
- Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 14 November 2006
- 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. DS 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, no other references to this organisation on the Internet. Cordless Larry 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 6 ghits, all of which are on one website. Unverifiable. MER-C 01:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Seems like something made up on a whim by some "activists" in Bergen. An organization established only a week ago, too. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uff da! Searching on the Norwegian name gets exactly 1 ghit: the Wikipedia article. I understand that Bergeners are suffering under the oppressive thumb of the local lutefisk barons, but I can't see them launching an armed rebellion, at least not yet. Stryke ut Tubezone 01:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. --Ixfd64 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and as possible hoax. --Dennisthe2 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, not even a good Joke Page candidate SkierRMH 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ridiculous, WP:NFT. Punkmorten 08:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, what is this? —The Great Llama talk 14:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stryk den met all hast. Something created on 2 November this year and impossible to verify. Either it's a complete hoax or completely non-notable. Created by "CheBuevara" (well, at least now we know the meaning of the B). Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As non-notable, unverifiable, and possible hoax. Spinach Dip 20:44, 12 November 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 as a vandal AfD nomination by Railer 654, impersonating an editor of good standing. (aeropagitica) 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We all live through this day on a weekly basis. I find no need for valuable resource space to be wasted here. --Sango123 (e) 01:55, 12 November 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. DS 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sources or links for this band. The information may appear to be false. Peter O. (Talk) 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a {{hoax}} about a non-notable band. Strawberry picking contest indeed. (aeropagitica) 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThis article is NOT false. The death of a former band member was from a bar fight and it is not certain what the fight originated from. The two rivaled each other in every sense and the murder was not just over a strawberry picking contest. Death is nothing to joke around with and we would not do such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery dragon (talk • contribs)
- Delete — Delete as a hoax, and even if it wasn't one, it'd be non-notable. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not so much as a hoax, but as pure teenage-boy silliness. Band, please check out the guideline: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. After reviewing the myspace page,
maybe preteen silliness?Hard to tell. Darkspots 03:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take back my accusation of "preteen silliness." That was churlish, and I apologize. I stand by the rest of my comment, in light of the photographs of extremely thin young men on the band's myspace page. Darkspots 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhite Thunder is not a story made up in school one day. If this band was imaginary how would we have recorded songs? White Thunder is a real band, and a real story. The history of the band is quite interesting and the band is fairly well-known regionaly. This is an example of racism toward hispanics and death metal in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery dragon (talk • contribs)
KeepSo because they are "extremly thin" means they can not participate in legitimate bands? I will admit I can understand why you may be concerned abou the seriousness of the band, the bands age has gotten younder considerably, avereage age being 16. The band has also taken a less serious route to music, but how does that exempt them from being a legit artist? Ever hear of Tenacious D? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery dragon (talk • contribs)- Comment you can only give one keep, delete, etc vote in any one discussion. You can change your mind, though. (aeropagitica) 10:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverified original research. Almost certainly made up in school one day. The band's been around since 1988, but the average age of its members is 16... interesting. The single worst attempt at sock puppetry ever (above), hasn't really helped. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - and note that the only Keep votes are from the creator of the article! Not even a creative WP:SOCK; also fits categories of WP:NFT, WP:V and WP:NFT
- Delete - It might be real, but that doesn't make it notable. Also note that it is impossible to be racist toward death metal, because death metal is not a race. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 07:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out--I don't feel particularly racist about anyone or anything. I'm definitely not racist about death metal. Darkspots 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable teen band (if it even exists). Block user for amazingly incompetent sockpuppetry. --Charlene 08:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Burn, burn with fire, lots of it. Delete, obviously. Moreschi 09:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete AMG's got nothing, and AMG has listings for bands so obscure that their mothers have barely heard of them! But don't block the user. Single-account "sock-puppetry" deserves an appropriate punishment—limit him to one account from now on. :) Xtifr tälk 10:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Given Mystery dragon's comments above it may be a violation of WP:AUTO as well. Hut 8.5 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because I'm racist towards bea- I mean Latinos. Danny Lilithborne 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. And I would remind the author that a false accusation of racism is racist in itself. Resolute 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This could probably have been speedy-deleted, IMO. It's an obvious hoax - and even if we assumed that everything here was true, by the article's own terms this band fails WP:Band. --TheOtherBob 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant hoax. Worst attempt at sockpuppetry and vote cheating EVER! MartinDK 12:14, 13 November 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. --Coredesat 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smells like original research to me --Xorkl000 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research if sources and references cannot be provided. Only Ghit was to this article. (aeropagitica) 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It reads exactly like a scientific paper. Unreferenced. MER-C 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete delete as original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Make sure the original post has a hardcopy, so this research isn't lost. 2:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Delete per above. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-write and Merge Could possibly be re-written and merged as subpage to Newton's Second Law, but needs further references to add there.SkierRMH 07:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Totally WP:OR. --Nehwyn 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original Research. Spinach Dip 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Someone should make a Wikisciencejournal for the constant OR articles like this. -Amarkov blahedits 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Probably original research, That info may be as true as me saying air is green in other galaxies. Possible, but highly unlikely. -- → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 8:01 am ET, November 18, 2006
- Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 14 November 2006
- Delete per the nomination. Certainly reads like original research, and it is unreferenced. Verkhovensky 20:02, 15 November 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. I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits should be the primary reason we include an article, but whatever. Based on the numbers there is no consensus to delete, thankfully arguments other than the google hits were presented, and per JJay's argument and evidence there does seem to be reliable information written about this topic. I suggest actually citing it in the article, which is about 0.02% as long as this AfD. W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Newport University (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? Created by Drsalleh (talk · contribs), who's only made 3 article edits. Approved by California's consumer department (NOT education), thus must pass WP:CORP. Possible diploma mill.[3] Arbusto 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per well summarized nomination. JoshuaZ 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Do not mismatch stub with delete candidate. Tulkolahten 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Accredited or not, this school brings in over 385,000 relevant Google hits. What are the requirements for obtaining an .edu domain name, does anyone know? Silensor 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It depends very much how and when you got it. I know someone who technically owns Miskatonic.edu (see Miskatonic University). My impression is that it has gotten harder in the last few years. JoshuaZ 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see relevant hits. Wikipedia and mirrors, and the Chronicle for Higher Education talks about "Christopher Newport University." Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unaccredited colleges should not have articles. They are nothing more than non-notable corporations. --- RockMFR 04:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Silensor. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Silensor, it seems to have gained some notoriety. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it pass WP:CORP? How many students attend? Does it have a campus? The only place that knows of this is a divison of California Department of Consumer Affairs NOT any academic accreditor nor the Department of Education. Arbusto 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a school. Just because it is a private company does not mean it is not a school. Unacredited is not the same a not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Schools which are unaccredited are in many ways only schools in so far as they claim to be schools. It isn't clear to me why they shouldn't be treated a corporations. JoshuaZ 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Acreddited simply means officially recognized. While unaccredited may mean it is not notable, it really only means it is not officially recognized, by whatever officials happen to be in charge of accrediting, not that it is neccesarily not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that unaccredited doens't mean not-notable. Bob Jones University is an obvious counterexample. However, it does make it reasonable to apply WP:CORP. This university seems to fail it. JoshuaZ 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article does not need to meet every notability requirement it may fall under, only one(unless I am wrong). My stance is that while it may be a CORP, it is still a SCHOOL, and if it meets one of them, as opposed to all of them, it is fine. Yes, it is a CORP, but it is still a SCHOOL. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but we have a consensus about corporations. We have no consensus abotu schools. So it maybe makes sense to differ to the one we have an actual consensus on? JoshuaZ 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think so, because that consensus was not neccesarily made with schools in mind. To be frank, it seems like a bit of a stretch to apply CORP to a school simply because it is not accredited. After all, acredited schools can be private corperations aswell, I don't see the connection. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This place is for-profit, see policies on WP:CORP. And thus, is much different a public high school. It lacks sources and notability. Arbusto 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a school. Just because it is a private company does not mean it is not a school. Unacredited is not the same a not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Article needs to be expanded. We seem to have an arbitrary distinction between accredited and unaccredited schools that seems to have no factual basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Newport U. would seem to be no different from any other non-public university or school. Alansohn 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A public institution must have accreditation implies notability. Unaccredited schools like Bob Jones University have established notability with the number of students and articles, etc. Do have nothing like that here? Any articles for notability? Any statistics IF ANYONE ATTENDS? Arbusto 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, concur with nomination. Nothing here suggesting notability. It apparently exists, is located in Newport, and is unaccredited. Wikipedia is not a directory. —ptk✰fgs 06:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per Silensor. --ManiF 07:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This place is "for profit" in this link that comes up as the top ten ghits supplied by Silensor. Can anyone explain how this meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before, it is still a school, even if they make profit. Most major schools profit. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, most private schools are non-profit (all public are non-profit by definition), which gives them different tax stuctures and incentives. Moreover, its an unaccredited school that we can't verfiy academics nor do we have any WP:RS to write an article with. Please supply some WP:RS if you wish to expand this instead of keeping it as a two sentence stub. You can't even answer my basic question: HOW MNY STUDENTS CLAIM TO ATTEND? Arbusto 02:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before, it is still a school, even if they make profit. Most major schools profit. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Silensor. Notable Google hit count and commenters above suggest that our readers will look to Wikipedia for neutral coverage of this educational institution regardless of its accreditations or lack thereof. Yamaguchi先生 06:04, 9 November 2006
- What are some of these links that cover this subject? Post them here. We have NOTHING to write an article with. Arbusto 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Silensor, there is significant Google coverage here... I think a strong argument can therefore be made regarding its notability. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You "think an argument can be made"? Of that ghit count what are some WP:RS we can write an article with? I see forums, ads, and a bunch of other places with the "Newport University" not tied to this. Also how does this meet WP:CORP? Arbusto 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for all those "per Silensor" keeps: most of the Google hits returned are not about the Newport University on Newport Beach at all, but about the Cristopher Newport University. When you search for "NEwport University" California -"Christopher Newport", you already drop to 13,500 Ghits[4]. Many of those are still false positives, but you get the idea. As for the number of students: they seem to have had a grand total of 8 graduates in 1993[5], and are not listed in the COOL database[6]. As far as I can see, it is an unaccredited correspondence law school with some 10 to 15 students each year[7]. Since OCtober 2004, only two first years students passed the "Baby Bar"[8]. Apart from their own website and such statistics which prove existence (although with a very limited number of correspondence students), I am unable to find any reviews, discussions, or other WP:V sources to show any notability. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my above comment and per nom. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, but this is because of concerns over sources that indicate notability. --SunStar Net 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. First, the school is registered with California for the bar exam [9]. It is also my understanding that Newport students can take the California licensing exam in clinical psychology and family counseling. Second, there are reliable sources available for the school, for example the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah (pay site) [10]. Third, whatever you may think of these types of schools, people are getting degrees from Newport and sometimes working in positions of authority. That can cause controversy. Stanley Blondek, an expert witness and California prison youth counselor who claimed a masters and PhD from Newport (but repeatedly failed the California licensing exam) is an example (pay site) [11]. Fourth, Wikipedia is meant to be a comprehensive reference work. We should be doing articles on all schools, accredited and unaccredited. Our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning is a very limited start but provides no real information and is unsourced (but does include Newport). We need articles on the underlying institutions. --JJay 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Registered with the bar examin means what? According to that page, "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools." So your link means the bar has heard of this place before, but it doesn't know if its reilable.
- You seem not particularly well informed of the requirements for admission to the bar in the state of California. Schools must fully adhere to bar exam rule XIX related to law study in unaccredited shools [12]. This requires state licensing, inspection, a qualified faculty, classroom study, library, etc. The requirements are not easy to meet. --JJay 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Review [13] and feel free to provide [WP:RS]] for each criteria. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What??? California sets standards for allowing students from various institutions to sit for the bar exam and in the case of unaccredited schools, bar exam rule XIX is applicable (as indicated in my previous post). It is not up to me to "provide WP:RS for each criteria". The school is listed on the California bar exam website, meaning they have passed inspection and adhere to the clauses of rule XIX. Pretty simple really. If you believe that is not the case please enlighten us. --JJay 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, people can walk in and take the test. Does American Bar Association accredit law schools: YES. Does Newport have accreditation: NO. Has this been called a diploma mill: YES. Can the California Bar Association say this provides an good/quality education: NO. Does this place meet the standards for the California Bar Accreditation[14]: NO. Does California of Bar Examiners approve or accredit correspondence schools: NO.[15] Have you given any reason why this for-profit place meets WP:CORP: NO. Arbusto 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one claimed the school is accredited. That is not at issue. Your statement that "people can walk in and take the test" is false. The school has to be inspected and must adhere to a series of requirements. That is why few schools are on the list. Your comment that the school has been called a "diploma mill" is completely unproven. Provide proof of that statement. The California Bar's non-opinion of unaccredited schools is not the issue here either. Finally, WP/Corp is a guideline that should not apply to schools for obvious reasons. The interest of these types of articles is to have background information on institutions of higher learning that are awarding degrees to people that sometimes achieve positions of authority (in this case potential lawyers, social workers, psychologists). That is inherently notable and supercedes WP/Corp and its fixation on stock prices. --JJay 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We have two sources that question its academics, and no one disputes its for-profit nature. 1) Here. 2) In an article in South China Morning Post Stella Lee's article "Overseas university under investigation in Hong Kong" states "The Newport University of California which is not accredited by the American education authorities, started offering courses ... through distance learning courses." This was in relation to Newport's "classes" which "are not in the form of instruction, we just ask the students to raise their questions and discuss them with experts." This again is a trival mention in the paper, but leads use to question Newport's seriousness as a "school"
- You still haven't offered any sources as to how this business meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You cearly haven't read the first source, which never calls the school a diploma mill. Nor does the second source, apparently. The only person making that claim is you, but without proof. If you question Newport's "seriousness" take it up with the Bar association of California. --JJay 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) Your insisting we keep an article for a ten year old Salt Lake newspaper that calls this place a diploma mill is more of a reason to delete. That is, no one has provided any criticism in the article about its ppor quality of instruction. Thus, your link makes us more skeptical about the article meeting WP:V. The article says nothing about criticism, which is very misleading per your one article. Readers, right now, get the false impression that is place's academics aren't questionable per the one source you mentioned.
- 3) Lastly, as you have been told just because I added this to the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean we keep it. We kept WP:V and notable unaccredited schools. One article from ten years ago does not prove notablity. Arbusto 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) While the school is not accredited, the fact that several state bodies do provide some level of recognition to the school is not only evidence of verifiability, it also goes a long way to establishing notability in the context of a university. 2) The source is independent, reliable and verifiable. There is simply no criteria that the source must be recent OR that it must be positive. "Non-trivial coverage" is timeless. As the source is provided, readers can make their own impression of the article's characterization. 3) A reminder that a school's presence on the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean it should be deleted. 4) The time has come to address the evidence of notability and get past the fact that it is unaccredited. There is simply no standard whatsoever that makes an accredited school notable OR makes an unaccredited school a non-notable target for deletion. Alansohn 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Its on a list for california's consumer division with 1800 of other unaccrediteds; hardly notable. Review WP:CORP. 2) You have one article from ten years ago. Review WP:CORP. 3) Yes. No one said otherwise. 4) Yes, notability is important. How does it pass WP:CORP? Arbusto 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the arguments and research provided by Fram. 10-15 graduates per year is insufficient justification for an article. -Kubigula (ave) 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note to closing admin. no user who voted to retain this has provided evidence of it passing WP:CORP. According to this "university's" website ten to fifteen people "graduate" this place a year. We have no independent or verifable statistics or facts about anything. This has serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but that is false. There is no information regarding student numbers on the school's website. The link provided by User:Fram shows eight law school graduates in 1993 and is from a California education site. The school also has numerous other programs. Finally, WP:Corp is a guideline. It is entirely debateable whether it should apply to a school. And numerous valid reasons have been given for keeping the article. Regarding WP:V, as indicated above, sources exist that confirm the school, its programs and that students are eligible to sit for the bar. There are no WP:V issues, serious or otherwise, with the basic facts of the article.--JJay 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) This is for-profit.[16] How does it meet WP:CORP?
- 2) It is NOT accredited by the California bar as I noted above. Allowing people to take a test is different than accreditation.
- 3) According to the org. you are citing "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools."
- 4)[17] One source describes "Newport" as " A couple of clunker cars sit in the driveway of a 40-year-old brick house, which sits squarely in a commercial zone: a hardware store in back, an equipment-rental company in front and a McDonald's expanding up the street. The back yard has an old cedar fence, a rusting clothesline and an overgrown shade tree. Inside the house, a secondhand desk, some office chairs, bookshelves and a pair of torch lamps are assembled in the living room. Welcome to Newport..." Also note the title of the article.
- 5) Hence serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It doesn't matter whether the school is accredited or not. It exists and someone cared enough to write an article about it, therefore is worthy of an article. If it is a diploma mill, put this in the article. Actually, articles on diploma mills would be an excellent public service, since it would out them as such to any potential student who doesn't realise what the institution is. If it is a diploma mill, that makes it more notable than if it were just a small, unaccredited college. *jb 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back to wikipedia. However, you failed to offer sources for WP:V. Can we properly assert it is a university or a for-profit diploma mill? No one has offer evidence for either. Thus, academics aside this is for-profit. How does it meet WP:CORP? Do we have enough sources to write a NPOV article about this business? I don't think so. Arbusto 02:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete — No verification on university's "status" - delete per the WP:V issues mentioned above. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as we're apparently unable to independently verify the noteability of this institution. It should not be deleted merely because it is unaccredited but that does it make it much more difficult to establish noteability as it's not listed in IPEDS. --ElKevbo 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and per nom's convincing rebuttals to all counterarguments raised. Also, Delete because no schools are notable! :) Xtifr tälk 11:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it seems as though everything wrong with this article is that it's incomplete. So why are we here yapping about it? ST47Talk 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point if we can't find WP:RS and WP:V then we don't have enough to write an accurate article. And inaccurate articles should get deleted. Arbusto 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per Fram and WP:V. I believe this one is noteworthy, but that's no good if we can't verify through independent sources, and it seems as if we can't. Shimeru 23:42, 12 November 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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, contains information already found in Brahmin. Sfacets 02:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Appears to be a genuine topic, needs elaboration and copyediting though. Westenra 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect with/to Brahmin. Keeping the POV out of this article seems to be something that people aren't interested in, and un-doing the changes a few people have made has been a chore, to say the least. I'm inclined to say that Telugu Brahmins is little more than a self-serving fluff piece for a very small subsection of people. That said, we need an article about the Brahmin caste, and I don't see the harm in having a Telugu subsection in it. Kevin 03:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. The article needs help, but the subject appears to be notable and distinct. Telugu Brahmins are one of the linguistic classifications of Brahmins described in Classification of Brahmins. Compare Kannada Brahmins. There's a corresponding category (Category:Telugu_Brahmins) and quite a few sub-groupings (e.g. Niyogi, Aaraama_Dravidulu) with their own articles. An argument for deletion or merge should make the case, with arguments grounded in the subject matter, that the article does not represent something legitimate or noteworthy. The fact that someone edited in redundant text calls for remedial editing, not AfD. -- Shunpiker 03:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm still not seeing where this crosses over from an arbitrary subgroup, and in to something notable or distinct. For all intents and purposes, this is no different than an article entitled "French Catholics in the United States" (e.g. a redirect to a more general cultural page), or "White-collar people from the United Kingdom who speak Welsh". Kevin 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: With all due respect, does anybody familiar with the subject matter agree? There's a real risk here that people who don't understand the cultural distinctions (I include myself) may undo the work of people who do with broad-brush analogies that don't apply. There are 80 million Telugu speakers. We're not talking about a small group of people. There aren't that many Catholics in all of the United States, let alone in North Carolina. Or people in North Carolina, for that matter. Or Wales. Or the entire United Kingdom. According to the article, the Telugu Brahmin tradition outdates the United States by some 500-700 years. Is it so hard to believe that a people speaking a distinct language might develop a recognizable tradition over such a period of time? -- Shunpiker 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've edited out the most obvious redundancies with Brahmin. P.P.S. According to this article, Brahmins make up 2% of the population of Andhra Pradesh. Take 2% of 66 million (native Telugu speakers), 75 million (population of AP), or 80 million (Telugu speakers), you get about a million and a half people.[reply]
- Comment: I'm still not seeing where this crosses over from an arbitrary subgroup, and in to something notable or distinct. For all intents and purposes, this is no different than an article entitled "French Catholics in the United States" (e.g. a redirect to a more general cultural page), or "White-collar people from the United Kingdom who speak Welsh". Kevin 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This appears to be an article about a regional caste/sub-caste similar to Khatris. I think it can be kept as it relates to a distinct group of a distinct ethnicity. Nlsanand 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Lots if not most of the content can already be found in the Brahmin article. This is not a sub-group of Brahmins in that they do not have a different belief system from any other Brahmin group. This is a sub group of a sub group, and doesn't merit it's own article, unless more unique content can be provided. Alot of Brahmin subgroups have articles dedicated to nothing but a list of surnames, or "famous Brahmins" whichprovide no information on the subject, and are generally unsourced. Aaraama_Dravidulu is an example of this. These articles should be amalgamated, if not in one article, then at least not disparate and vaguely connected sub categories. Sfacets 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, an argument in terms of Brahminism instead of Catholicism! Thank you! If the subgroups don't merit their own articles, perhaps they could be merged up into Telugu Brahmins? Then that article will have more unique content and Wikipedia will have fewer disparate and vaguely connected artices. -- Shunpiker 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to Brahmin I agree with Sfactes, we don't have an article about Catholicism in Durham, North Carolina, do we? ST47Talk 12:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to the main Brahmin article per above comments. It's not necessary to create subarticles for each region. --musicpvm 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep and Cleanup per Nlsanand. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This appears to be a very distinct and historic caste. --Oakshade 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- "When in doubt ..." -- Simon Cursitor 08:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a legitimate article about a notable topic. Needs some rephrasing and citations, but is far from unsalvageable. --Czj 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a valid and encyclopedic article about a distinct and historic caste. RFerreira 06:33, 17 November 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. --Coredesat 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band Missvain 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet WP:BAND. Hello32020 03:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unfortunately, this band seems to not have any press except for this rockzone.com review [18], not much notability. The label listed in their article, Disgraceland Records, does not have any mention of them on their website. Without information about their former albums, it's pretty hard to figure out which ones were released by Disgraceland and which were not. None of the bands or artists listed on Disgraceland Records's website appears to have a Wikipedia article, so it's difficult not to conclude they fail the "more important indie label" test of Wikipedia:Notability (music). No other evidence of P.T. Grimm's notability seemed to be present in a google search. Darkspots 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 04:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete; it does fail to meet WP:BAND and does not have much notabilitySkierRMH 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BAND ST47Talk 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:BAND. --Nehwyn 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, etc. Spinach Dip 20:50, 12 November 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, per WP:V - material that doesn't meet it shouldn't be in one article or another. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A webmaster of a online "ministry" and author of one self-published book. Arbusto 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Tekton Apologetics Ministries which is currently a redirect to Turkel. The ministry meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wouldn't this be a "Move" instead? Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, technically yes. The point in calling it a merge was that the article should primarily be about the ministry with the merged material being, well merged material. JoshuaZ 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wouldn't this be a "Move" instead? Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:V. While I am unfamiliar with the Christian apologetics movement, it seems clear that the article doesn't meet WP:V. The only sources sited are either Web sites belonging to the subject or his critics. What we need is a few neutral, unbiased sources to establish notability. As of now, the article fails to assert that subject and the ministry are adequately notable. Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How does the ministry meet WP:Web? What are all the non-trivial sources? How is it an independent web site? If someone can improve the article, and make it obvious why this is notable, I have no problem with it staying. If not, delete it and the ministry entry. I don't see anyone writing scholarly pieces about Turkel or the Ministry, but again, absence of proof is not proof of absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs)
- Keep or at least Merge to Tekton Apologetics Ministries. Holding is clearly very well known to both Christians and antitheists. 58.162.2.122 08:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - There was RECENTLY a vote on this whole matter and the vote was to keep. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JP_Holding
Also: 1) The leading atheist website www.infidels.org lists 40 Christian apologists and JP Holding is listed among them (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html)
2) Next, well known Christians have spoken favorably of his ministry (if memory serves Hank Hanegraaff" The Bible answer man" on the radio spoke well of Holding for example). Here is a link to one of Holdings articles at his website: When apologetics was evangelism by JP Holding
3) Many well known atheists disparage Holding and these atheists are listed among Wikipedia subject headings. What better recommendation of your relevance can you get than the public disparagement of those who oppose your viewpoint!
I cite:
G.A. Wells (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html )
Farrell Till (see: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/turkey.html )
Holding returns the disparagement here:
G.A. Wells http://www.tektonics.org/TK-W.html
Farrell Till http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html
4) Even the www.infidels.org website has mentioned Holding in rather favorable terms.
I cite:
"Updated the author page of Kyle J. Gerkin with an added link to the "Scholarly Diplomacy Series." (Off Site)
Kyle J. Gerkin and J.P. Holding amicably engage each other in an and ongoing discussion of their differing worldviews. The goal is to tear down the wall of antipathy that too often divides Christians and skeptics, so as to foster a respectful understanding of those differences."
taken from: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/new/2003/may2003.shtml
5) Holding's website gets a lot off traffic and his articles often get high rankings on the search engines as many people link to them.
6) Holding has been published.
7) I know that many evangelical ministers are aware of Holding. I spoke to one last month and he is aware of Holding.
ken 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
- Comment first of all, if over a year ago is "recently" then yes, there was a "recent" vote on this. Second of all, due to full disclosure provisions, I will note that ken created this article, and is the main contributor.--Andrew c 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also want to note that the nominator, possibly after people suggested a merge, did an out of process blanking and redirect of Tekton Apologetics Ministries. Sorry, you can't bypass AfD by redirecting articles (if that was the intent). --Andrew c 16:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew, you mean Ken, not the nominator (me). It was he who redirected it. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. A correction to Andrew's post. I did create the article but about half the article was created by other Wikipedians by their additions to the article because JP Holding is well known among many atheist apologists and Christian apologists. ken 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
- I apologize if I mischaracterized ken. I just wanted to make sure AfD Wikietiquette was being applied (regarding Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.).--Andrew c 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. A correction to Andrew's post. I did create the article but about half the article was created by other Wikipedians by their additions to the article because JP Holding is well known among many atheist apologists and Christian apologists. ken 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
- Merge per JoshuaZ. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Impressive Guy. Well referenced and presented. nascarfan1 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. Also note that the user account is User:Nascarfan1 while the user page is at User:NASCARfan1. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does this meet WP:WEB (for the merge people) and how does this meet WP:BIO for the keep people? So we have 3 votes for k two are new users and one is the original author. I should have speedied this as it doesn't assert notability. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — If you ask me, this article fails WP:V, and the entire article seems to exist in order to promote JP Holding - not to present it in an encyclopedic manner. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This guy is only notable inside his own head. Laurence Boyce 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient reliable and verifiable third party mainstream references presented to establish notability. Edison 05:38, 13 November 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. --Coredesat 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN local politician - crz crztalk 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — City council members are not inherently notable, and in answer to the questions posed on the article's talk page, "He will probably move up in the Democratic party, be mayor or who knows in the future" is not a very good answer for the 100 year test. Furthermore, the article's grammar is quite bad - "where is attended college"? –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 04:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also fails the WP:NOT#CBALL test. SkierRMH 07:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable political figure who has a minor chance of moving up in his political party. Spinach Dip 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete egads, no sources, and unlikelt to pass even if there were sources.-- danntm T C 23:20, 12 November 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. Dakota 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousand Islands Foundation for the Performing Arts (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
NN org - crz crztalk 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete — It seems quite well-known locally, but ultimately isn't notable enough to deserve its own article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - verifiability problems, 92 non-wiki ghits, nothing particularly reliable. MER-C 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, also WP:V, could also be WP:Corp or WP:COMPANY
- Keep. I added some referencees from the Kingston Whig-Standard. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of those sources only say that they're receiving funding from someone or other. Is there anything a little less trivial? I'd like to keep this, but I don't feel comfortable voting to do so in the state it's in now. Shimeru 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of substantial enough coverage to establish notability, as pointed out by Shimeru. Sandstein 06:49, 15 November 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, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable band Missvain 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSpeedy DeleteWouldn't their song being placed on the soundtrack of the FIFA 06 video game be counted as notability?OK, my objection withdrawn. S-man64 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete No, one (or more) song on a soundtrack doesn't mean notabliity. Does not meet WP:BAND criteria (criteria for musicians and ensembles). Put as footnote on FIFA 06 SkierRMH 07:47, 12 November 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, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
super non-notable band Missvain 04:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability except for the "Discography" section. While we're at it, I've prodded their only recording, a demo called Let our music be your drug. MER-C 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — No assertion of notability, and nothing links to this page. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable and they look rubbish. Phileas 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject (A7). Absolutely no assertion of notability and they fail WP:BAND by miles. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, again, does not meet WP:BAND, 1st criteria. No notability...SkierRMH 07:51, 12 November 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--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Talk:Save_Indian_Family#Article_orginally_submitted_as_part_of_MyWikiBiz_paid_PR_blitz, this article was a MyWikiBiz creation. Its tone is that of an advertisement and its sources are unreliable. DurovaCharge! 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but cleanup:The article is horrible, but the subject is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The sources are definitely reliable, such as CNN and Indian Express, both notable news sources.However, POV cleanup is needed.Hkelkar 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the "CNN" source actually looks like the IBN part of CNN-IBN, which is not quite the same as CNN. Bwithh 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless authoritative sources showing encyclopedic notability of this organization (not the issues) can be found. At the moment, there is no substantive evidence or even claim in the article or in sources provided for encyclopedic notability. Coverage by news sources, even mainstream channels with international profile, does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Authoritative sources need to be provided showing that this is an organization of substantive scope and base that actually is a social movement, not just that a group of people have formed a society which relates to a set of notable issues. At the moment the article is just a soapbox for this organization's issues, and does not show the encyclopedic notability of the organization itself. Bwithh 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if notability of organization is not proven, the Indian men's movement could be mentioned in the article Men's rights which seems to be US-centric at the moment Bwithh 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No encyclopedic notability whatsoever. Crabapplecove 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but cleanup:The subject is extremely relevant, though the article needs some refinement and objectivity. India is currently debating the new Domestic Violence Prevention legislation and such topics definitely provide a prespective. The article explores the plight of an abused minority whose existence is ignored by the mainstream Indian society.
--Landoflakes 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rewrite- as per Landoflakes. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete editors who have contributed might want to author some information into other general domestic violence related articles. •Elomis• 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'd like to see greater objectivity, but the group appears genuine and moderately well-known in India. WMMartin 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough of pandering to Femofascism's & the 'Liberal' (sic!) Mafia's censorship of opposition to their criminality and misandry, whether VAWA or the DVA. My Wikidness 13:38, 17 November 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.
This true story in india , so article is must keep it - Vina Ra (vina.raj369@gmail.com
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a high school athlete with no assertion of noteability beyond local high school activities ElKevbo 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable athlete, delete! Missvain 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I think {{prod}} might have covered this one, but it's good you brought it to AfD just to be sure. riana_dzasta 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it could be speedied but since I wasn't 100% sure I opted to run this through AfD. I wouldn't blink an eye if the closing admin/'crat/whoever-closes-AfDs speedies this deletion. --ElKevbo 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 05:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, non notability.SkierRMH 07:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Tulkolahten 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete ST47Talk 12:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant vanity. Non-notable high school jock who probably doesn't need a bigger ego than he already has. Wavy G 15:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete a no-question-vanity article, delete away.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Non-notable and vanity. Spinach Dip 20:59, 12 November 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. --Coredesat 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this notable? It looks to me like promotional material. Any ideas? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. No coverage by news sources (at least, GNews didn't find anything). No third-party published materials. On the other hand, it's written in a reasonably neutral manner, and it seems notable enough within Romania.
Weak Keep, I guess.Delete per MER-C's findings. No prejudice against recreation if Ro-Wiki consider it notable enough for an article. riana_dzasta 05:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete - no equivalent in the romanian wikipedia. MER-C 05:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no question then. riana_dzasta 05:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - also does not meet WP:CORP Criteria.SkierRMH 07:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the company does not seem notable enough, most likely a promotional article.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An advertisement. Also non-notable to boot. Spinach Dip 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Not notable enough - delete per all above. Reads as an advertisement. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:21, 13 November 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 - Yomanganitalk 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label Missvain 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if they sign on somebody well-known, it might be worth considering. riana_dzasta 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 05:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom... also does not meet WP:CORP and WP:NMG Criteria. SkierRMH 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable advertisement. Spinach Dip 21:02, 12 November 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 Redirect to Birmingham Derby. riana_dzasta 08:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same article is covered in more detail in Birmingham derby. 'Second City Derby' and 'Birmingham derby' are both the same thing, this page isn't required. I'd merge them, but this contains nothing that isn't already in Birmingham derby. Phileas 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, delete. After that, someone should move Birmingham derby to Birmingham Derby - I don't want to do it right now, just in case it messes anything up. riana_dzasta 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and redirected it to Birmingham derby as a possible search term. Birmingham Derby (capped) also brings up the Birmingham derby page. Shimeru 06:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Close this, then? I'll wait 20 minutes. riana_dzasta 07:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason why not, since nobody's objected. I'm not an admin, though, if you were asking me. ^_^ Shimeru 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Close this, then? I'll wait 20 minutes. riana_dzasta 07:09, 12 November 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. --Coredesat 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be vanity material according to its history. In particular, please note the userpage content and contributions of Ming Chan (talk · contribs). Takeel 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooo-er. I suggest delete and recreate from external sources, since he does seem reasonably notable... I'm not too sure about this one. riana_dzasta 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't able to verify the Emmy. Would you happen to know of any good ways to verify besides Google and the website at www.emmys.org? --Takeel 06:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If he's not there, it's probably not real. Possible hoax. riana_dzasta 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - only 22 non-wiki ghits. You'd expect more from someone who's won an Emmy. Yes, a rewrite is necessary but I doubt the presence of reliable external sources. MER-C 06:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This Emmy doesn't seem to exist. There is an award for news or documentaries in new media, but it was awarded to washingtonpost.com for a Katrina documentary. A Google search for "Ming Wai Chan" -wikipedia brings up nothing whatsoever. (This could possibly be a romanization issue, though, admittedly.) Shimeru 07:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Officially emmy site, as well as another relatively complete fan listing shows no mention of this name or close variations. Unverifiable.SkierRMH 08:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 42 Ghits is not-notable: if he'd got an Emmy there would be more: and googling his name + Emmy get precisely zilch. Clever hoax: nice attempt to scam Wikipedia; but Wikipedia is cleverer than you are. Moreschi 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete provide official links about Emmy Award or it is a hoax. Tulkolahten 10:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. --Folantin 15:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity and hoax. Spinach Dip 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is really just SPAM for the fellow's new consulting company disgused as a vanity article. OfficeGirl 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:07, 14 November 2006
- 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. John Lake 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable game. Google does not reveal any WP:RS that would indicate that it passes WP:WEB. Leuko 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe WP:SOFTWARE applies to this game. --Aquatics 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the notability requirements are essentially the same, it doesn't pass that either. Leuko 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a notable game, pretty high Alexa rank for something like this. A simple english Google search is not enough to establish that this does not have any reliable sources - the game seems to be primarily played in China. --- RockMFR 08:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - although the article perhaps requires cleanup, I think the game is notable enough to deserve a page. As it seems to be based in China, perhaps that's where the sources are? Ale_Jrbtalk 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & cleanup, per RockMFR. Alexa ranking of just under 8000, not far behind Blizzard's ranking of about 2500. 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, will change to keep if someone shows reliable sources. I can't find any. -Amarkov blahedits 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup per Ale_Jrb --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just because it "seems to be a non-notable game" to one person doesn't mean that it is. The nominator needs to provide a better explaination to delete it then just a gut instinct. I vote keep since I don't see evidence to the game be not notable. --Pinkkeith 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, the reason that I called it not notable is that I didn't see any evidence in the article it was notable. It wasn't "gut instinct," but a lack of WP:RS. Leuko 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's a good start but it definitely needs more references besides the official website/forums (although most references may be in Chinese, and if that's the case, what's the policy for references that are in a foreign language to the native language for this particular Wikipedia which is English?) --Rambutaan 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - will also change to keep if anyone shows reliable sources. At present it's a game guide (NOT a game guide?) and little else. There's not one third party reference? MidgleyDJ 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd also add that I dont think notability is asserted in the article. Also if it's going to stay then much of the fancruft needs to be removed. MidgleyDJ 07:15, 15 November 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. --Coredesat 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Custom Search Engine Enhancement Page (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
WP is not a Soapbox, nor a publisher of original thought. Also was prodded and prod tag was removed with note saying I should explain why the article should be deleted (the prod tag I used said "Is wikipedia a complaint department? I think not.") Bladeswin | Talk to me | 06:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Tubezone 06:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Based on the contents of the article and its talk page, this clearly represents a failure to understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not a free web host provided for the convenience of the public. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are plenty of free webhosting services out there. This is not one of them. Resolute 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT a webhosting service nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Shimeru 07:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WTF is this?! --71.216.9.26 07:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this isn't an article; it's a request for enhancements on Google. This doesn't belong here. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Google if notable. Tulkolahten 10:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not. Delete ST47Talk 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If not then delete. Tulkolahten 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not. Delete ST47Talk 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. The page is not even an attempt at an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try that before putting an RfD tag on the article. Contributor removed tags. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not belong on Wikipedia AT ALL. Spinach Dip 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Close and delete per WP:SNOW by now. Sandstein 06:15, 13 November 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. --Coredesat 01:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web game. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB, Google doesn't find any WP:RS. Most of article seems to be a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stick rpg. --- RockMFR 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 07:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Phileas 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete actually seems a little bit of spam to me. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Nehwyn 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not particularly notable, which is a shame- I wish more people played it, because it's a very fun game. -- Kicking222 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Actually, this game is fairly popular - and I've played it myself. However, this article smacks of fandom and I don't think the game is notable enough to merit an article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references proving notability. --Elonka 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A game-guide of a semi-popular
article. Spinach Dip 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I meant game. Spinach Dip 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is quite a shame that it doesn't have any sources. Seeing as everyone and their grandma has played it. I think it is very notable, but since that can't be proven, I suppose its a deleting time. Forget that Wiki policy states to use common sense, and everyone knowing about the game probably falls under common sense. Thats ok. It goes bye-bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oggleboppiter (talk • contribs) .
- Keep and tag requesting references I see no explanation why this is not a notable game. Yet, I do see a lace of references. The article is clearing not a gaming guide, it just describes the game. A gaming guide is a guide that gives you clues how to solve and complete the game, this article clearly does not. --Pinkkeith 16:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've played this game before, but this game doesn't seem to have a very high impact on gaming society unlike, say, Madness Interactive, which also happens to not have an article.--WaltCip 17:01, 13 November 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. Dakota 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First Deletion Reason: Non-notable film failing the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Part of the Conspiracy Cruft Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement of The Franklin Coverup Scandal, which was completely discredited 17 years ago and wholely a creature of the blogosphere. A Google News search for the film results in ZERO results. Morton DevonshireYo 06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it is unreleased, too. MER-C 06:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - wow. Just wow. delete per nom.--Tbeatty 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete never released, making it kind of hard to claim notability. Brimba 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, didn't this already fail an AFD before? The film is notable because of the powerful special interests that succeeded in getting it pulled from television. Joe1141 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Non-notable unreleased film. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people who think black helicopters are following them. --Charlene 08:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice, Morton, and typical to provide no mention of or link to the previous AFD discussion. Thanks to Joe for remembering this. Also, there are no "requirements" to Wikipedia:Notability (films) because it's not a guideline because it has no consensus. Finally, Google News only covers about the last month of "news". Since this is a 1994 production, it would be rather stunning if it were considered news 12 years later. Derex 09:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to scandal article or Delete. Fails WP:V, has no meaningful cites, and no signs of any reliable sources. It was a stub at its last AfD, and its still a stub now, there's no evidence that anyone can or will expand it. The keep arguments at the previous AfD seem to mostly boil down to "I've heard of this conspiracy theory, it must be notable". "I've heard of it" is not a reliable source. Standards are higher now, and it's time for this sad little stub of an article to go bye-bye. Xtifr tälk 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and no WP:RS and WP:V sources. After the last AFD there should have been a rush to bring the article up to snuff, however I am sure someone will promise to do this again and still not. Our policies trump all, and WP:RS and WP:V are quite important ones. --Nuclear
Zer015:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete - Fails WP:NF, per nom. = Crockspot 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - responding to Joe1141 above - I would say that if there's any evidence that the decision to pull the film generated significant controversy at the time by all means let us know about it - but without any references to such a controversy all I see is an unaired made-for-tv documentary which certainly isn't notable. GabrielF 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NF and nom. --Strothra 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreleased film. How many unpublished manuscripts, unvoiced thoughts and unreleased films are there in the world? As for the article, how does an "unreleased film" have a release date? Shouldn't it be an "unrelease date?" If it ever becomes notable, recreate the article.Edison 05:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Boldly redirect. The article was already merged to a new draft of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article, which is a grand merger of all the articles on people/books/etc. mentioned in the whole conspiracy theory. That draft was being prepared before this AfD was opened; it has now been installed as the main article. The idea is to redirect all the minor articles, which had been subject to all sorts of conspiracy cruft, bizarre allegations, biased and weak sourcing, to the main article which adheres strictly to well-sourced facts. The film gets a couple of sentences there, which is about what it's worth. So unless there are strenuous objections I'm just going to perform the redirect along with the others (there are 3 or 4 total) and save us waiting out the AfD. Please see Talk:Franklin Coverup Scandal for the discussion and detail. --MCB 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At present the Franklin Coverup Scandal article appears to referense this movie -- if that were to remainthe case, then I would "vote" for a redirect. If, however, the FCS reference is simply a place-holder which will be deleted as soon as this article is, then my view would be that this article should remain, as a means for future researchers to know what the film was, what it was (allegedly) about, and that it was never aired. -- Simon Cursitor 08:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Much discussion has gone into merging the associated articles into a single one that would pass any reasonable muster. As MCB said above, the current revision of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article is working towards that even as we speak. So I would agree with you in that I hope people do not choose to delete it once the merge is complete.--Rosicrucian 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon, the reference in Franklin Coverup Scandal is not a place-holder; it's meant to be the "permanent" (well, as permanent as anything on Wikipedia) destination of the material on the film. --MCB 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and what not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Franklin Coverup Scandal, as text is already merged.--Rosicrucian 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without redirect. The phrase "conspiracy of silence" is potentially too common, IMHO, to be used as a redirect to any individual incident. Practically all conspiracies involve a hell of a lot of silence, in the rare cases where they actually exist. --Aaron 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per NuclearZer0. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:25, 16 November 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable computer game. Google does not turn up any WP:RS that indicate that it would pass WP:SOFTWARE. Mostly a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But needs a major rewrite. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is definitely a notable game. --- RockMFR 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but clean it up. --humblefool® 11:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, nearly as notable as Maplestory. A clean up tag has now been placed in the top of the article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Judging from the number of GHits, the game may be notable. Still, the article fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE because of lack of sources. --Nehwyn 13:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup — Keep as it's a very popular game. I've actually heard of this one, and have friends who play it. Needs sources, however, as Nehwyn stated. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteDoes read like a game guide.Will be happy to reconsider if it's sourced and cleanup begins.Shimeru 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep now that the award's been found. Shimeru 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Don't give up on it that easily. We put a lot of work into it, and admit it's too much like a guide. But tell us how to fix it instead of throwing all our work into the drain. Note the B-rank on the talk page, whoever put that doesn't think it's hopeless. Oubliette 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I'll admit that I can't find any reputable reviews on it, but I do believe it is much more notable in Korea and the Philipinnes. I also spent a lot of time on the article in the past, rewritting a lot of content located above the Classes section, thus I'm a little biased. I was refraining from voting but looking at the votes now, there doesn't seem to be a strong support for deleting. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep According to a Financial Release (http://corp.163.com/news_eng/040803/040803_2269.html), Flyff was "Voted as an award-winning game by South Korea's Ministry of Culture in June 2004," meeting "Online Content" Notability guidelines per the second criteria. And as someone who has never played it, I personally found this a decent article to learn more about Flyff. However, it is written like an official guide. The "Versions" and "Updates" sections, as well as the first part of "Flying," are good examples of material that belongs here. A lot of the other material needs to be scrapped or changed dramatically--for Game Mechanics in particular, the focus should be on how unique mechanics affect players and their experience. Blue Crest 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting the "major award" criterion, but needs a major cleanup (and the source mentioned here cited in the article). The article needs to summarize the game, not go into every detail. Seraphimblade 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but as stated several times, it needs clean up badly.--Niroht 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above commenters. Like many articles on Wikipedia, this one needs cleaning up, but that is not a reason for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 23:02, 14 November 2006
- Keep I think the nomination is a bit bogus. I hope there isn't a hidden agenda. Hu 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:07, 15 November 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 and add to List of songs about AfD's that were closed as Keep. Per Canley's analysis, renomination of poorly devised/maintained indvidual lists should still be ok, but mass deletion doesn't seem to fly. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitary, unmaintainable, incomplete and therefore useless listcruft. There is a precedent for deleting lists of songs, see here. MER-C 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated is every single list listed here, for the same reasons. MER-C 07:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the list as some people have missed it (myself included) --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of songs about Birmingham, List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama, List of songs about California, List of songs about Chicago, List of songs about Detroit, List of songs about London, List of songs about Los Angeles, List of songs about Manchester, List of songs about Melbourne, List of songs about New York City, List of songs about Pakistan, List of songs about Ronald Reagan, List of songs about Seattle, List of songs about Sydney, List of songs about Vietnam, List of songs about World War II, List of songs about animals, List of songs about astrology, List of songs about automobiles, List of songs about being alone, List of songs about bipolar disorder, List of songs about childhood, List of songs about children, List of songs about cocaine, List of songs about computer and video games, List of songs about computer games,List of songs about criminals, List of songs about death, List of songs about disasters, List of songs about disease, List of songs about divorce, List of songs about dogs, List of songs about drinking, List of songs about drugs, List of songs about drugs other than heroin, List of songs about environmental pollution, List of songs about famous people, List of songs about famous people (other than politicians), List of songs about fear of death, List of songs about fictitious bands or musicians, List of songs about firearms and weapons, List of songs about friendship, List of songs about hair, List of songs about heroin, List of songs about holidays, List of songs about homosexuality, List of songs about killers, List of songs about marijuana, List of songs about masturbation, List of songs about mental illness, List of songs about money, List of songs about mothers, List of songs about new york, List of songs about new york city, List of songs about nuclear war, List of songs about nyc, List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley, List of songs about other drugs, List of songs about politicians, List of songs about prostitution, List of songs about racism, List of songs about radio, List of songs about robots, List of songs about school, List of songs about selling out, List of songs about sex, List of songs about sleep, List of songs about suicide, List of songs about tequila, List of songs about the Vietnam War, List of songs about the end of the world, List of songs about the environment, List of songs about the environmental pollution, List of songs about the future, List of songs about the vietnam war, List of songs about video games, List of songs about war, List of songs about weather
- KeepAre you kidding me? This article is probably the ONLY useful list of songs... my sister had to do a research thing for university and she had to talk about songs relating to drugs, however she knew none! If it hadn't been for this list she would have been toast. And just because it's ARBITRARY doesn't mean it's UNINTERESTING. Crazy people! 70.51.205.175 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precident. Unmaintainable list. I would suggest nominating the rest in small blocks, as there is also precident for DRV overturning mass AfDs. Resolute 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Listcruft. Are we going to have lists for every song about love? death? politics? Keeping this leaves open the door for all lists of songs based on every conceivable subject. Furthermore, as Resolute mentions, it's absolutely unmaintainable and very open to original research. There are many, many songs that can be interpreted to be about drugs without explicitly saying so and there'd be NPOV and OR arguments about each and every one. Plus, the shear number of songs about drugs would make for a very, very long list indeed. Actually... aren't all songs about drugs ;) --The Way 07:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't even notcie the other nominations included; there really are lists for all those different song topics? That's... sad. This is proof that having one of these types of lists leads to having countless others that are just as random. --The Way 07:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unmaintainable list, entirely unverified/OR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Christ! Delete - what a waste of space. Indiscriminate (WP:NOT), listcruft, and useless. Moreschi 09:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oi! Language. --Nehwyn 13:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete same as list of all songs about orange, yellow, cars. Tulkolahten 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're joking. Delete, surely this list could never be complete. Crufteh. riana_dzasta 11:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What's inherently wrong with a list of songs? Of course a list like this would never be complete, and why should it be? What's the problem with having lists about all sorts of things anyway? They are actually very useful to those of us looking for songs about certain topics, though I do agree that they need to be verified somehow. Stephenjh 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOT an indiscriminate heap of info, and quite listcruft. --Nehwyn 13:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I feel that these lists are helpful for people looking for songs after a specific topic. Plus lumping all the lists together is probably not the best way to do it, perhaps we could just delete the overly vague or large lists. Bakilas 00:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep It's not useless; I have it on my watchlist because I used it once. Popular culture by topic and method makes for useful divisions to study it by, and that makes the lists valuable.--Prosfilaes 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm not sure what that list is, but you've got to list them on this page for it to be a valid AfD. Just giving us a list isn't valid.--Prosfilaes 14:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Unsourced and ridiculously subjective. SteveLamacq43 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as listcruft meshach 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The deletion notices for all the listed articles refer to this, which appears to be a discussion about a list of songs about drugs. The arguments about how maintainable and useful the lists are would seem to me to vary by topic. I believe, for example, that the List of songs about Chicago is more encyclopedic and more feasible to maintain than a List of songs about drugs. This debate needs to be split, at LEAST, into similar groupings. --Dystopos 18:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dystopos is right. The drug list should be deleted, but I am not prepared to throw all those others into the trash as well. The criticisms stated above do not apply equally to all. -- Rob C (Alarob) 23:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are people looking for songs after a specific topic. perphaps only do a cleanup, the layour is screwed.
Patrick1982 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object strongly to this AfD as given; each article must be in its own AfD, or at least all the articles must be listed one by one on the AfD page.--Prosfilaes 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's long enough and is well written. It could be more informative, but I see no real reason to delete it. 2Pac 20:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Do not think this should be deleted as it came in useful for myself, and other reasons given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.83.1 (talk • contribs)
- I have to say Keep, since you lumped every single list together, even the precious few that should be kept. Whose stupid idea was combination AfD noms? -Amarkov blahedits 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to fling insults. -- Rob C (Alarob)
- Speedy Keep as much as I loathe the concept of cruft like "List of songs about a bag of four grapes", a mass nom is not the way to go. Danny Lilithborne 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep only because I'm not convinced that all lists of songs are "unmaintainable" or unencyclopedic. 78 lists in a single nom seems a bit much, especially when 77 of them are not explicitly listed in the AfD itself, but behind a link. Shimeru 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Each and Every Last One of Them lists of songs about whatever are listcruft, unencyclopedic. There is no need to have articles on every possibility of "songs about _____". I like WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information too. Now to just wait for another person to cite IAR for why we should keep this. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reconsidered as the user nominated lots of lists without discrimination. With sources, the list is salvagable SteveLamacq43 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep due to lazy mass listing - very poor form in my opinion. To the nominator: there is some precedent for deleting certain song lists in the namespace search link you provided, but there is also considerable precedent to keep in that same list - did you check them all? If not, this kind of invalidates your use of this as a justification. Please list all the articles for AfD seperately by all means, or point to an unambiguous guideline, or discussion where consensus was reached in the Village Pump. --Canley 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say, Strong Keep, for the reasons given above. It is quite impossible to have a good debate about keeping or deleting articles when so many are bunched together. Some maybe should be deleted. Some should be kept. Some can be pretty well complete. Others will always be incomplete. Please close this with a speedy keep. --Bduke 01:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Either all of these articles should be kept, or all should be deleted. People are arguing that there's too many up for deletion, but I don't believe this is the case. Either we're going to accept all lists of songs based on topic or we delete them all; there is no logical means of saying some song topic lists are ok while others aren't so we can't justify keeping some and excluding others. Personally, I have already stated that I strongly support deletion; this is a terrible precedent to set and leads to totally random lists that aren't worth having. --The Way 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree that there is no logical means of saying some song topic lists are ok while others aren't. ---Dystopos 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that lists which would be too vague (Songs about Love etc.) should be deleted, but lists about more specific things (Songs about masturbation, Songs about killers etc.) Should be kept. Bakilas 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep I think a mass listing is a bad idea - has anyone here looked at all the articles to make an appropriate assessment based on the merits of each? I think some that I am familiar with are interesting and useful, it is also useful to have such lists to redirect information that would otherwise clog up main article space. --Melburnian 02:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't think policy should be decided via AfD. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm sure some of these are no good, but there are some that are, and there's no way to properly deal with them all in a single AfD. As pfctdayelise says, you shouldn't create policy by AfD; if there's a need for some standard on list topics in this area, then write it up somewhere. --bainer (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some of these articles are notable and rather interesting. Rebecca 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per above comments by Thebainer and Rebecca. -- Chuq 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nomination is a violation of process and vastly over-reaches with its list of unrelated articles. Edison 05:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - these articles fit in with the "culture" sections of major songs on large cities, and other items. I think, rather than this mass deletion, someone should go through and pull out any arbitrary lists, so we can vote on them individually, rather than for a whole lot. JROBBO 07:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Valid subjects for lists. Ohconfucius 08:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, much as I despise pointless and unverifiable listcruft, this nomination is far too broad, and I can't possibly check all those articles. At a rough guess, I would support deletion for 80% of those articles if they were nominated individually, but as others have said, a few might actually be useful in some context or other. The notion that if one songlist is bad (or good), then they all must be is sheer nonsense! Xtifr tälk 10:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The lists are useful. Yes, the lists may need to be wikified, pruned, cited and verified, but that's no ground for deletion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The AfD notice has been removed from List of songs about masturbation because it has just survived a second AfD. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've analysed the list of AfD debates provided by MER-C as a precedent for deletion of lists of songs.
- 25 deleted
- 10 kept
- 6 no consensus, so kept
- 2 were incorrectly listed, so the debate was closed with no action
- 1 was merged (into this article: List of songs about drugs)
- 1 was speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material
- ... and one is currently running - this one.
- Also note: List of songs about masturbation has actually survived four AfD nominations. List of songs about laziness survived one AfD, but was deleted in the second.
- I figure the results would be fairly similar if this batch of lists were nominated separately, and the fact that over a third of the articles were kept (some repeatedly), should give the nominator pause for thought that mass nomination is really inappropriate and unsuitable in this case. I find it kind of ironic that this discussion is an indiscriminate listing to get rid of supposedly indiscriminate listings! --Canley 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh. Nice observation. --Dystopos 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - way too indiscriminate. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the originally nominated list as unsourced and unverifiable and unmaintainable. Keep the many other lists until either (1) a general policy discussion is held and comes to some consensus, or (2) they can be nominated in small closely-related groups instead of an indiscriminate horde. Some are more focused and more verifiable than others. I'll support deleting most of them, as this is not Wikimusic nor Wikitrivia, but they should be handled with proper attention to each one. Barno 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please there is nothing wrong with this list at all Yuckfoo 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the originally nominated list as above. I wouldn't mind seeing most other "List of songs about ---- " articles be deleted too, but lets take them one at a time. Crabapplecove 21:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most of these lists are interesting and informative. A few may deserve deletion, but certainly not the main list. Also, the lists of songs about the Vietnam War, prostitution, WWII, sex, suicide, and quite a few others definitely deserve to be kept. Callmarcus 13 November 2006
- Comment In addition, your reasons for deletion make no sense. A biography of a currently living person is incomplete, but that does not mean you should delete that biography. There are currently disclaimers are the top of all of these lists that informs the reader that the list may not be complete.
- Keep There are lots of other things on Wikipedia that are not comprehensive. This is also something Wikipedia is pretty good for -- saving time for people looking for all x of type y. Could vote delete or merge on certain of these lists, but cannot do so when they are all nominated together. — Donama 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical Keep; this one bundles altogether too many articles. please renominate individually over a longer period of time, or at least grouped in bunches of no more than a handful, grouped by theme (e.g. nomination of lists of songs about various wars). I have no opinion about the articles; it's just that in order to put some sanity to the AfD process you don't bundle bazillion and six articles with exceedingly little in common with each other in one AfD. Remember the esoteric programming languages AfD that went bazquoncs. And that "all 200 articles in the Naruto episodes category" one. If you bundle AfDs, please at least make sure it's entirely possible for an editor to take a look at each of the articles in one (quick) sitting. And finally, "precedent" there may be, but each of these still needs individual consideration. You know, like all other articles up for deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I could certainly rationalize an AfD over ""all 200 articles in the Naruto episodes category" before I could rationalize this one. --Dystopos 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - These lists are overkill. Do we need a list of songs about Birmingham, Alabama? A list of songs about specific drugs? A list of songs about famous people other than politicians? Categories would probably be more useful for some of these things, but I still would not want to see Category:Songs about Birmingham, Alabama. George J. Bendo 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to like List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama. By comparison with some of these rather nebulous subjects, it is quite manageable and serves the purpose of not overloading the main article on the city. --Dystopos 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. If any lists of songs are worthwhile, these are. I can certainly see List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama being useful for scholarly research, for instance. Herostratus 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Found the Songs about the end of the world and found it very useful. They are only text and take very little space. Very useful for creating topical playlists of certain kinds of songs. Hadnt found anything else that helped until the article here.
- Delete List of songs about drugs, however Discuss all other nominations separately. Timrem 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You should not delete all of these lists. Most of them are informative and helpful. There seems to be an anti-list agenda going on here. If you truly feel they are incomplete, then add to them. Root7 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well researched, very useful list. Cnwb 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, this AfD shows a real misunderstanding of the rule of precedents and nominating. After these are all kept, the nominator and those whose delete votes are based on precedent will all gladly vote keep next time due to precedent set here, right? Yeah. Carlossuarez46 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I will be willing to vote Delete on most of these, but separate nominations are needed. utcursch | talk 12:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This list is useful, considered and exists nowhere else. Other list entries must be determined individually.Lentisco 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Good list 65.33.142.174 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, the "Songs about Mental Illness" list is excellent and I'm going to use it in my class about popular culture and mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.64.3 (talk • contribs)
- 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. Dakota 03:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable computer game. Google does not turn up any WP:RS that indicate that it would pass WP:SOFTWARE. Mostly a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable computer game. An english Google search for sources naturally would be fruitless for a game that seems to be primarily played overseas. Has entries at GameFAQs/GameSpot/IGN, which is a pretty standard measurement of game notability (or at least game series notability). --- RockMFR 08:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Article could use a lot of cleanup but otherwise its a notable computer game I've heard of before. VegaDark 09:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOT a game guide. --Nehwyn 13:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Does read like a game guide, but it's at least sourced, and seems noteworthy. Shimeru 00:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ROSE Online is published by GRAVITY Co., Ltd., the creator of Ragnarok Online, both of which are notable. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those may be notable, but what about the article in question? --Nehwyn 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:SOFTWARE, "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ROSE Online is most definitely notable, being one of the larger MMORPGs in Korean, Japan, Taiwan and such. Never made it in the west but insanely popular in the east. Ben W Bell talk 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, and actually a little bit fun. At least the beta was when I played it. What information that breaks WP:NOT can be removed. Oh, and Google isn't the be all and end all of research; GameSpot and IGN both have information about this game. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable computer game. The only reason nominator failed to find Reliable Sources on Google is due to a lack of competence in regards to search engine usage. - Hahnchen 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And your comment shows a lack of competence in reading basic policies like WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Leuko 03:31, 17 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a non-notable shopping centre that I don't think belongs in an encyclopedia. JSmith60 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks context. Marginal speedy. MER-C 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability. The article doesn't even say outright what country the mall is in. There's more than one Dublin in the world. --Charlene 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are no claims to notability, simply being a building is not notable enough reason to have an article on. VegaDark 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. Tulkolahten 10:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no claims to notability asserted here. --SunStar Net 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notablity. Hello32020 13:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - No claim to notability. --Nehwyn 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. non-notable, an ad, and possible vanity. Spinach Dip 21:19, 12 November 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. Closure mostly per WP:V, although WP:N concerns were mentioned as well. So article can potentially be recreated with reliable new sources. ~ trialsanderrors 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, removed because they thought they were notable enough to keep. I disagree, I don't think the claims to notability are strong enough. Was a member of several NN bands and was a POW. There were tons of POW's during WWII, being one alone does not make you notable enough for Wikipedia. I don't really see any claims that would have him pass WP:MUSIC. VegaDark 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification, VegaDark, but I still have to respectfully disagree. I think Pearce's story (and perhaps your own) show a slice of life people of my generation (and beyond) may not see otherwise. JABPP 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sadly. None of this is referenced in the way Wikipedia NEEDS things to be referenced; to reliable, unrelated secondary sources. The only reference given is a book written by the subject's son, which concerns me as there could be a conflict of interest - a loyal son may be less than forthcoming about negative character traits, and may see his father as more notable than he was. Unfortunately, since that's the only reference given, there's no way to check on it. If the writer of this article could locate and provide references to Romney Lyle Pearce written by unrelated third parties (Portland newspaper archives, for instance, or the published writings of local historians) and write the article based on those sources, it would be acceptable. Just because something is true doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia: it has to be supported by reliable, unrelated secondary sources. --Charlene 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete unless verifiable, reliable sources and evidence of notability are provided by the end of the AfD process. Do not prevent re-creation, in case reliable sources are found later. Unfortunately, the present article simply isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, and the lack of on-line documentation for that era makes it unlikely that the article can be fixed without some moderately serious research. It will do us no harm to live without the article until (if) someone is able and willing to do that research. Xtifr tälk 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm a Portlander in college, so I have access to several relevant databases. Two of the databases cover newspapers: one archives The Oregonian (Oregon's largest newspaper) and the other archives headlines in a large variety of Oregon newspapers. Neither came up with a hit for "Romney Pearce" or "Romney Lyle Pearce." They only go back to 1988 (five years after he died), but I would think that there would be at least one mention of a sufficiently prominent musician. A search through Cascade, an interlibrary loan system for universities and colleges in the Pacific Northwest, came up with no results for "Autobiography of a Father." The same with the Clackamas County and Multnomah County library catalogs. If VegaDark, an Oregon State University student himself, has never heard of him, I doubt he was very famous there either. As much as I like Oregonians, I can't see how he is notable enough for inclusion. - Pingveno 12:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the references to his supposed notability as a musician date back more to the thirties (which presumably would not show up in your search). On the other hand, your inability to find any reference to the book supposedly used as the sole source for all of this is far more troubling, and even raises the possibility that we're dealing with a hoax here. Xtifr tälk 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BIO in that it does not cite any sources. --Nehwyn 13:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO and WP:OR meshach 17:09, 12 November 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 speedily deleted by Pgk. MER-C 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert . Article created by user:Meakin who, I assume is the mag's Contributing Editor for fiction, Meakin Armstrong. -- RHaworth 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 10:34, 12 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:WEB for notability, does not cite sources, and appears to be nothing more than an advertisement. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:12, 12 November 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}} . |
- Keep This is a helpful page for all members of the game. More information will be added soon. What sources do we need to cite if we wrote it ourselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.39.124 (talk • contribs)
- See WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V for the answer to your question. --Nehwyn 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - alexa = 3,822,255 [19]. Enough said. MER-C 10:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advert for a non-notable game. No sources cited. Thryduulf 11:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable advert. Hello32020 13:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not deserving of its own Wikipedia entry Pontificake 13:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fully unsourced, no claim to notability. --Nehwyn 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have played this game a long time, it is local history around the ashford (UK)area. A lot of members who play Goldencrop have asked about the history of the game, so we decided to set up a Wikipedia page about the history and what the game does, the page is still in the making and over the up and coming weeks, will be a very useful part of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.205.202 (talk • contribs)
- Consider making a webpage for it then. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service. Recury 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How can this be an advertisement for the game, it does not try to encourage people to join the it. All it is, is information and facts. If the site needed to be advertised why choose a site like wikipedia to do it on. This isn't advertising because you can only find a page on wikipedia if you search for it, therefore the only people who could find the page are people who already know ablout it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.209.90 (talk • contribs) — 81.159.209.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Hello there. Even accepting the fact that it is not advertising, have you got any evidence the game meets the WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE notability criteria? --Nehwyn 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn. Everything is unsources meshach 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: User:04riversj had edited this page by posting another keep comment, but also by modifying some of the delete opinions expressed above so that they favoured the website instead. Since User:04riversj is a newly created single-purpose account, let us be very clear here to any other user of the website in question who may come visit: abusing this page will not help in saving the article (quite the opposite). Modifying other people's comments is considered vandalism, and when it is done on a deletion debate, it is a most serious form of it. I have reverted said edit (anyone interested may find it here) and posted a final warning on that user's talk page. --Nehwyn 18:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- Whpq 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. As the article is written now, it is non-notable and an advert. There is a possibility that rewriting it could make it keepable. Spinach Dip 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm... I'd say no amount of rewriting can create sources out of thin air. --Nehwyn 22:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. I PRODed this originally as being non-notable, unsourced and unverifiable; looks like a lot of folks are in agreement. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable game. --- RockMFR 22:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Definitely an advertisement, and for a non-notable game to boot. "Enjoy the game and get farming?" Seriously. Reads like it wants Wikipedians to join and play. If that's not spam, what is? –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as admitted original research. NN online game with no verifiable sources. Your own website would be the better vehicle to promote the game's history. Resolute 02:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without thrid-party sources, it does not come close to WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If we can get a 3rd party source. would the page be able to stay??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.67.202 (talk • contribs) — 86.141.67.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete Non-notable game. It needs multiple independent sources to show it is notable. One third party source would not be enough. It sounds like a fine educational enterprise, and if it attains notability there is no reason the article could not be recreated. Edison 18:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep!!!!!!! goldencrop deserves a discription it has over 6000 registerd users and surely thats more than double most of the viewers most of the pages on this site have had — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.38 (talk • contribs)
- Sorry, that is not an inclusion criterion. Any evidence of meeting WP:WEB? --Nehwyn 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a player of the game as well as a citizen of the web, I can understand both points of view being expressed. As a member of the web community, I can understand that Wikipedia has a definite criteria that determines what should and should not be placed on it's site. Reading over WP:WEB shows me that Golden Crop does not meet those criteria. As a player of the game, I know this was not meant as an advertisement, just the expression of pride in a game that is rather unique and very fun. I hope that some or all points of the WP:WEB will one day be applicable to this unique game, but until then, I can live with the fact that a page on Golden Crop does not yet belong in Wikipedia. --MrAutomation 24.67.4.192 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:03, 14 November 2006
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Edison. Best of luck with the game, sounds more interesting than bashing monsters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 16 November 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 wasDelete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. This is an article on a fan-run game server with no referenced assertion of notability. Suggest deletion as a non-notable original creation per WP:WEB/WP:NOT. --Muchness 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MER-C 10:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Thryduulf 11:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless multiple non-trivial reliable sources can be found. --Nehwyn 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:23, 13 November 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, same reasons as first time and DRV that followed. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article consists of the single sentence "The Kootenai Valley Press (also known as the Kootenai Valley Times) in a newspaper published in Bonners Ferry, Idaho."
This was previously speedily deleted by user:JzG with the comment "Empty article, devoid of context (and indeed content)". This article is identical to that version, but has one fewer stub template. Thryduulf 11:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't that mean it can be speedied again? Eh, delete. --humblefool® 11:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Hi Thryduulf! Been a while![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. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A blatant hoax, complete with a Photoshopped picture. GregorB 11:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 11:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. If this were real there would be hits to google beyond a few videos on YouTube and a page that prominently links to the Wikipedia article. Note also the redirect Guido del toro. Thryduulf 11:43, 12 November 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. W.marsh 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Appears to be a series of bios, so could possibly be split up but will need to be thoroughly checked for NPOV. Two of the people on the list have articles. Tim! 11:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - May be a notable subject, but the complete absence of WP:RS makes it a big exercise in WP:OR. --Nehwyn 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As sad or serious a story as this is, an encyclopedia is not the place for it. It is a personal account or a journal entry (or several of them), and doesn't belong here. Wavy G 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOT memorial meshach 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a memorial as meshach points out -- Whpq 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Delete per Wavy G and meshach. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on - What makes Wikipedia great is that it is comprehensive and has the potential to include different points of view. This article is written to add to the history of the Vietnam war, that it did not end when the US withdrew in 1972. Biographies of each of these soldiers may be insignificant. But including them together is significant. This article helps depict the hopelessness of the South Vietnamese at the close of the war. My newphew was asked by his high school history teacher to write about the war from a personal point of view. He was born in this country and had a hard time finding information of that time. It will take time for me and others to add sources to the article. Patience please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.29.226 (talk • contribs)
- Delete: I really can't see how this is going to become a noteworthy article. The information on these suicides belongs on the bios for the persons named, if anywhere. Heimstern Läufer 15:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet as it stands, what your nephew produuced would seem to be original research. What's needed are sources to indicate that "Cruel april" is an actual event recognized as an entity. -- Whpq 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if - If you did not learn anything new about the South Vietnamese soldiers. My presumption is that you think the US had no business being over there, that the South Vietnamese should have fought for themselves and that thousands of US soldiers died in vain. Is Wikipedia so small that it cannot afford to present a few tidbits of the fortgotten South Vietnamese soldiers, so that someone might learn something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.29.226 (talk • contribs)
- Hello there. Wikipedia requires that references are mentioned to verify information. Can you do that, so that we can verify the accuracy of the content of the article? --Nehwyn 11:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, more research - I will do more research and would add more information about "Cruel April" which is the title of a book that I have read but misplaced and will have to locate/credit. The biographies will eventually be a minor link to the total capture of the month and the rapid collapse. Thanks for your suggestions and patience.
- Delete - Simply because the article is unsalvageable. All it is now is an essay about an event with a POV title, and perhaps one book backing it up. WP:V & WP:N- one book does not a notable subject make. This is the only Vietnam related "Cruel April" result on Google. While google results are not inherently a measure of notability, I think that this paired with my above assertions are enough evidence to think the subject is NN. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 07:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cruel April is what the South Vietnamese themselves call the events that transpired that month. The communists call it Liberation. Of course you will not see the term when you google it. I agree the article needs work. But can you find anything that ties together what happened when in the course of one month, a nation of 20 million people fell to the enemy in the span of one month.
The Vietnamese Google talks about the events that unfolded in a propaganda style. No mention of the poor South Vietnamese, of the killings and the suicides. Like I said before, this article will eventually include the totality of the month and not just what happened to the soldiers. I do have some articles from the New York Times that can back up some of the contents. The rest about the soldiers, the Pentagon did a debriefing of the South Vietnamese political and military leaders in a series called Vietnam monographs shortly after the fall of Saigon. I will cite the sources and add footnotes and references (these are in storage right now).
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/saigon/articles.html#surrender http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%E1%BB%B1_ki%E1%BB%87n_30_th%C3%A1ng_4,_1975
- The term is still not notable. Name a source which refers to the withdrawal or suicides as "Cruel April." --Wooty Woot? | contribs 03:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.yale.edu/seas/bibliography/chapters/chap9.html. Several authors (politician/soldiers) recount their hardships and include the names that I included in the article.
- No, you don't understand. We are not talking about the notability of the people (if they are notable, they should be separate biographies). You specifically lumped all of these suicides into a name called "cruel april". If this term is notable, then the article's title is appropriate. Otherwise, the article should be deleted, and the people in the article should be evaluated for their notability. If they are notable, a page may be created about them. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [20] - How about this?
Thang Tu means April, Chuyen Buon means Sad/cruel stories. This is a well known poem about the last days.
- Uh, the page says "black April". But regardless, you need multiple sources, not just a poem which may or may not be about the term (see WP:NEO). I suggest at this point to go find sources for the other guys (one of them got AfD'd but it looks like he has a couple sources, so if you can repeat that with the other guys, you could just make a bio for each of them. Also consider the fact that the title of this page is NPOV. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are a pain in the ass, but you do have some good points and I do like the suggestions that you made for other articles you are reviewing. I include here the translation of the word, only because you insinuated that I made it up.:} http://vdict.com/bu%E1%BB%93n,2,0.html
- 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; given that the nomination and the two initial !votes were regarding a lack of sources (and hence a lack of notability), the five sources which were found counters this. I've added the five references to the article, however they need to be wikified per MOS. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a personalised account. see also Cruel april Tim! 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fully unsourced. --Nehwyn 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT meshach 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would be a reliable source on the subject. It's a document from the CGSC. This might be another one, but I don't have access. This might be a good place for sources as well. ColourBurst 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a general in the ARVN, and the siege of An Loc was one of the major battles of the Easter Offensive. --Groggy Dice 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Groggy Dice. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This appears to be a signifficant figure in the Vietnam War. Besides the references above, other accounts also suggest importance [21] [22]. --Oakshade 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade Unfocused 07:31, 15 November 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.--Húsönd 05:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pretty much verified that there is no source for this article and that it is a hoax. -- Evertype·✆ 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as nominator. -- Evertype·✆ 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under hoax criteria. Hello32020 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nomination. --Nehwyn 13:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Actually, there is no evidence that it is a hoax, but it just might be. Too bad. —Michael Z. 2006-11-12 16:49 Z
- Delete as unverified & with no sources a probable {{hoax}}. Sorry, guys, the WP:CSD non-criteria states; "Articles that present unverifiable and probably false ideas, theories, or subjects. Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum." (aeropagitica) 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 09:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and aeropagitica unless verifiable sources are provided before AfD expires. Xtifr tälk 10:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- German deleted their version of this articel. Someone may want to notify Korean and Macedonian, as they have translations of this. 68.39.174.238 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Felix the Cassowary 08:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nomination. Definitely a hoax and used Russophobically. The story about Moldavian is incorrect, as there was an earlier tradition of writing Romanian in Cyrillic. For a "real" Germanic language written in the Cyrillic alphabet: see Syldavian. --Pan Gerwazy 09:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete this piece of garbage already, please!! RFerreira 05:39, 17 November 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 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, no evidence provided to meet WP:BIO. Your notability isn't determined by who you do business with. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ale_Jrbtalk 13:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 13:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BIO. --Nehwyn 13:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the services he performed for his clients had made a notable impact on their business, that would be a different thing. But someone else would have performed the same services. He's just well-connected, and this article just serves to promote his business sales. The first sentence aims you right at a link for his company. That's what's really going on here. OfficeGirl 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. Spinach Dip 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:09, 14 November 2006
- 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 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless buzzword. Compare the section under "Problems in a business process may arise in three places:" in WP:BOLLOCKS Leibniz 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fully unsourced original research. --Nehwyn 13:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A comprehensive compilation worthy of a corporate compendium on the stragetic use of non-commitial communication. Also links only from one article, Leadership but then only in the see also section as such doesnt add any value to that article. Gnangarra 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Gnangnarra. Blue sky thinking outside the envelope? No thanks. --Folantin 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Delete per above. Article doesn't make sense - seems like someone's random ramblings. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original Research, unsourced. Spinach Dip 21:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. Useless unencyclopaedic OR. Moreschi 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - word salad. - Smerdis of Tlön 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, word salad is right. RFerreira 05:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:WORD SALAD sounds like a good name for an essay. ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 17 November 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 13:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, also in consideration of WP:NPOV. --Nehwyn 13:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. Spinach Dip 21:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was surprised to learn that Michael Pearl's book To Train up a Child apparently had an Amazon rank of 8,277th. The other examples of his works rank considerably lower. Ohconfucius 08:43, 13 November 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 13:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page for non-notable person. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 13:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --Nehwyn 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. GregorB 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. Spinach Dip 21:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Youngster of Germany 00:57, 15 November 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. W.marsh 13:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN per WP:PROF ("an emerging new scholar" says as much). Leibniz 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the "Major Contributions" sections does need cleanup but that's not a reason to delete. The subject has won an award(cited in article) for his dissertation, that is enough for me to say keep, as far as "notability" is concerned. Mitaphane talk 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sounds like he might be notable someday; we can make an article for him then. I'm not impressed by the award. Lots of people win awards. I've won awards! (Though I admit that his award is more impressive than any I've won, but still not enough, IMO, to confer notability.) Xtifr tälk 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Xtifr, may also suffer from WP:AUTO issues. Sandstein 06:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. WMMartin 19:34, 16 November 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. W.marsh 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guidelines for music or people.
- The article starts out by saying that he is a kid who makes records in his parent's basement.
- He hasn't been on national tour.
- He hasn't been picked up by any label, his albums are do-it-yourself.
- No evidence of meeting any of the notability guidelines for people or musicians.
Mdhandley 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination; maybe even eligible for {{db-band}}. GregorB 14:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. I point out in passing that another Adam Richman may be more notable than this individual, but I'm not even sure if that Adam Richman is notable enough for Wikipedia. --Charlene 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As vanity. Spinach Dip 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article sounds like vanity, but the guy has been on national tour. I saw him in Chicago two years ago, last year he was back opening for a J-pop band, and I find concert listings across the US (one year ago he played back-to-back gigs on both coasts). According to this he had to drop out of college to go on tour. He has an MTV profile with video. Here's a profile/review from Harp, a print magazine. The AP carried a capsule review of his album. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, he has been picked up by Or Music, the original label for Matisyahu among others. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In order to qualify as notable, you have to be signed to a major record label, or one of the more important indie labels. Guidelines say it must be "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." Or Music's only really notable performer is Matisyahu, and their history goes back barely three years. The only other qualification Adam Richman even comes close to is a national tour, so his notability is quite shaky. Give him a few more years, and see if he makes it. Then we can write an article about him. Mdhandley 01:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI. Or Music also distributes John Cale and Los Lonely Boys. That's three notable performers besides Richman. And I'm not sure how he "comes close" to a national tour, when he criss-crossed the US for three years straight. How many times do you have to tour the country before it's a "national tour"? He's the second featured performer here. Every other band on that tour already has an article (which is not a keep argument, it's just a comparison). --Dhartung | Talk 02:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Delete per nomination. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung. Meets touring requirement of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung, definitely meets WP:MUSIC criteria. RFerreira 05:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung (I generally take a dim view of the WP:MUSIC touring criterion as insufficiently rigorous and I certainly recognize that MUSIC is but a guideline and ought not categorically to control; notwithstanding that, and even as my notability guidelines as regards musicians might be differently delineated, I think there to be a broad consensus for MUSIC and that, absent special circumstances, we ought to apply it). Joe 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung. bbx 07:21, 17 November 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.