Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 22
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 00:42, 18 October 2022 (Remove extra garbage formatting.. (via WP:JWB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nusoft Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not exactly notable; only 1 verifiable source and that's from Nusoft's new owners - RCM.
Given that I see little reason for the pages presence here. ScratzNutz (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 17 October 2022 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethan Woodward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probable hoax article created one and half years ago. Nothing in this article checks out. The name has only 92 Google hits, many of them based on the Wikipedia article. The closest outside hit is for the relatively unknown jazz band the Ethan Woodward Trio on MySpace, formed in 2007 (my guess for the probable article source).
There are zero web references to either album "Hallejulah, Pa! I'm a Yakoo-Zakoo!" or "That's no Fish Story, Staci". Searches on his attributed "The Atomic Musician" moniker don't turn up a Woodward association. From his leaving home at age 14 to join the civil rights movement, to his long-lost parents descended from royalty being killed in a tractor accident, the entire article reads as one extended joke with no successful searches on the highlights. The article was created by an editor who has been warned about posting hoax articles and has as his only other nondeleted edit a joke/vandalism change to 2009; all content additions since then have come from IP addresses. At a minimum, the article completely fails WP:V. Michael Devore (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Atomic Musician? 'tis a hoax, methinks. Delete per nom. X Marx the Spot (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete "some have speculated that Ethan's unique "jazz skillz" can be attributed to the immense amounts of radioactive fallout he might have been exposed to". That comment reinforces my belief, based on the fact that I have found no credible sources on an Ethan Woodward of 80s jazz fame, that this article is a hoax. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as hoax. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a bloody duck! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly even an Atomic Duck. X Marx the Spot (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! I did not think of that... could be second cousin to Howard the Duck. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Good call by the nom. And I am not going to make any wisequacking duck references...oh, never mind. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. It's a hoax, and the fact that its survived for so long without detection is remarkable. Nerdluck34 (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I took your suggestion. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax article or not it obviously fails the verifiability and notability policies. Speedy as vandalism if an actual hoax. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Red Sea Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC. I find no significant coverage, and the only assertion of notability "The Streets are Whispering was used in the Columbus Zoo Commercial" is not enough to pass criterion 10 of the notability criteria for ensembles. AmaltheaTalk 23:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no coverage about this band in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I am not seeing any clear compliance with WP:BAND and failing the provision of reliable sources then it must go. Smile a While (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted (A7) by User:Ice Cold Beer, salted by User:Stifle. Non-admin closure. treelo radda 11:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"Famous for being famous". But is this kid notable? Sgroupace (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No, he isn't. X Marx the Spot (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonnotable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of verifiable citations. Ignoring the subject's own myspace and facebook pages, the only two external links referring to the subject are to blogs. I think there's a place for internet memes on wikipedia when they cross into wide notoriety, but without multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, this one hasn't made the cut. -Markeer 23:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing the notability and verifiability policies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furtherfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I just went through 20 pages of Google and couldn't find a single non-trivial article on the subject. It's written like a fan blurb and I highly doubt any serious coverage given the one seemingly realistic reference came up blank. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thoroughly fails WP:WEB. VG ☎ 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not satisfy WP:WEB. X Marx the Spot (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:WEB; unless editors can provide independent citation or importance or activities in a major publication, this article, basically created by a single individual, is not significant. philosofool (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ups and Downs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Album by a non-notable artist. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The previous AFD was for another, unrelated song with the same title. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - However, I would note that Sara Paxton is apparently notable. Still, this album fails (future album without coverage in independent, reliable sources). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here We Go Again (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Song by a non-notable artist. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Hasn't charted, no awards, no notable covers, no references. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, no other reason to keep. Simply not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Outsets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy A7 tag was removed by an anonymous IP. Non-notable band. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. X Marx the Spot (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I am not seeing any clear compliance with WP:BAND and failing the provision of reliable sources then it must go. Smile a While (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Person is non-notable, and article contains no references. Tempodivalse (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep based on the sources added, which all show notability Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created by an SPA whose other contributions have been some unsourced comments about Bruce Block. The article's subject is a magician who has been a contestant twice on America's Got Talent, which normally would be a career booster, so I'm surprised that there is no attempt at sourcing. If there isn't any other publicity than this, Bruce needs a press agent. He balances cigar boxes on his chin, which is no less magical than hanging upside down for 60 hours, but not enough to show notability among magicians. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ignoring the SPA, I believe notabilty can be established. Will have a go at improving a badly written article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that, by past precedent, he really needs to show notability above and beyond his AGT appearances. The AGT appearances themselves can be quite easily sourced, right from the small section on him already at the AGT season 3 page. But with last season, it was pretty well established that, unless an act makes it to the finals, AGT appearances by themselves do not establish notability. I'm not going to !vote myself on this one, but just wanted to lay out the precedents for acts that appear on this show. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and improved the article per WP:MOS, wikifying it, cleaning it up, and adding cites and sources reliable within his field to show both his notability past AGT and within his peer group. I think it's okay now. Any suggestions? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Good work by Schmidt. Looks to have decent indication of notability now, beyond the AGT appearances. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Kasautii Zindagii Kay. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rishabh Bajaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, and possible merge if the information is not already there--but the parent article on the show is about as bad an example of how to handle this sort of material as I have seen, and that's what should be getting the attention. DGG (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Kasautii Zindagii Kay (which seems to have so much plot that no merging is necessary) per nom. – sgeureka t•c 19:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Abby Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Major character from a major television show. Could certainly be reliably sourced from this book or various of these. Character has been off the air for nearly twenty years except for two 'return' episodes, the most recent over a decade ago, but still averages about eight page views per day. --CBD 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per CDB. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect to Knots Landing without prejudice for recreation as a proper article. Bloated with trivial content, which doesn't necessitate a spinout yet. – sgeureka t•c 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ffm 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- K-Lite Codec Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication of any significant independent secondary coverage from any source. I believe this article fails WP:N. Article is almost entirely unsourced - and as far as I can find unsourceable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. X Marx the Spot (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, it is one of the most popular codec packs. It is offered on the most popular download websites [1] [2] [3] [4], it even as a mention at pcworld.com [5]. It is even THE most downloaded program at freecodecs.com [6]. I mean, come on, it's hard to find reviews, and lots of "notable" references for a codec packs, don't you think?
- Keep Multiple recommendations on the tech pages of general interest publications e.g. The Guardian (UK), Pakistan Dawn, The Courier-Mail (Aus). Plus, also in technical publications, as noted PC World, but also VNUNet, ZDnet, iT news etc. Tassedethe (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep K-Lite Codec Pack is one of the most widely used codec packs. Many respectable journals had articles about it (See this). For nominator: if you used google to find sources it gave you (not surprisinly) a bunch of download links. You should try a more elaborate search. It took only two minutes for me to find a link to the PC World. Ruslik (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but mention in (and possibly redirect to) a suitable article e.g. Codec. The "sources" quoted above are all trivial mentions, saying nothing about the pack itself, but then, what is there to say? A codec pack has no intrinsic value beyond the individual codecs it contains. Apparently some of these have been removed after legal challenges, but this - the only piece of non-trivial information about the pack itself - is sourced to an online forum and thus not reliable. Fails WP:N and WP:V. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Popular and well-known, but needs reviews/recommendations from computing magazines. Can't merge to "codec" because that's a very general term in telecommunications, not just software. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete WP:ILIKEIT and I would love to say "keep" but the naysayers are right. A lot of mentions but they are trivial. IMO it's notable, just not "Wikinotable". :(" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's a lot of Q-and-A type columns in computer magazines where someone asks for something flexible that can play a lot of formats, and they say K-Lite. e.g. "Codec Conundrum" at PC World[7]. It may be a short column, but I wouldn't consider it a trivial mention. I'd consider it as a description of it being the best or most popular. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per SheffieldSteel. Stifle (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnny Robo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This doesn't seem to establish any real notability. It just appears to be some sort of amateur production (as detailed by the "company" name) that won't receive any major coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no real claim of improtance/significance which is supported by significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources means it fails both WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to be a fan project. I see no evidence that the concept has been commercially released or sold anywhere, let alone published about. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination and Sjakkalle. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WOW!!! The video is all over the net... in clips and blogs. Bring it back when it has a reliable non-blog review. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Boogerman: A Pick and Flick Adventure. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Boogerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of its video game. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plot summary, game guide, and in-universe details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to Boogerman: A Pick and Flick Adventure. JuJube (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — this article is about the Boogerman character and not the Boogerman video game, just to clarify. MuZemike (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Boogerman: A Pick and Flick Adventure. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Delete and) redirect - the character is not notable, but his name definately serves as a search term. – sgeureka t•c 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ms cosmopolite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Album by an artist Blog with no assertion of notability. See also WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I'm a little confused, because the current article seems to be a blog, quite possibly not a notable one, and there is no indication of an earlier article about an album in the history. Was the punctuation perhaps different? DGG (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must have tagged the wrong article from my contributions list, then. No wonder, now, that at one point I was looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ups and Downs (2nd nomination) and could not find it. It was in fact created by me 5 minutes later. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Also possibly WP:COI. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tengine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested Prod rm with no reason given. I have not been able to trace any reliable sources for this concept so, at the moment, it seems to be a neologism and fails WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of reliable sources. X Marx the Spot (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources, looks sketchy. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources that I could find. The only Tengine I could dig up was something to do with transistors. -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if this was sourced and verifiable, it would be a dictdef. --Lockley (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of BBC children's television programmes. Xclamation point 03:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CBBC Programmes broadcast by The POD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod.This is a redundant list - all it does is list programmes that were included in one particular morning strand of CBBC. Not only is the notability of this strand questionable, but these programmes are already covered at List of BBC children's television programmes. This list is most definitely not notable and not needed. TalkIslander 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as duplicate information. There's also the wording "or could have" which suggests elements of the listing are speculative. 23skidoo (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of BBC children's television programmes as all relevant information is there. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect X Marx the Spot (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 11:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Pie is good. Sensible way to handle an article that duplicates information already on Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion about merging or rewriting can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maya priesthood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be text that explains the religion of the Mayas; nothing links to it; it is written in sort of a dialog tone; may have other issues ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has lots of reliable sources that confirms its verifiability and indicate its notability. Just because its a bad article doesn't mean its delete-worthy. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong merge to Mayan religion which would be the correct title and already exists. It is that which has more sources and notability. Unless we want a separate one entitled Mayan priesthood (proper grammar)- but it seems likely from the title that this is WP:OR, and if anything of it is notable/verifiable/not conjecture it should be merged to Mayan religion, otherwise, delete. Sticky Parkin 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Maya religion, which is a more presentable article than this one. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect despite the 3 references (note they are just to different pages of the same books), wikipedia is WP:NOT for homework assignments and essays. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This does seem to be referenced text on an aspect of Maya religion that contains information not present in that article. While I agree that redirection would be appropriate, I think that at least partial merger should be considered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge though alternatively the article could be rewritten as a proper encyclopedia article. The main article appears to have been started nicely, but needs continuing and expansion. DGG (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and do not merge. It is probable that this is a WP:SUP. Recently at WikiProject Mesoamerica we have been facilitating one of these exercises with KU (see here), and I suspect this contribution is one of those. If so WP:MESO will be happy to take responsibility for getting it up to wikipedia styling & conventions. The topic is a valid one, and I do not favour a merge with Maya religion (itself not a great article, has its deficiencies & holes ATM) since although thematically related it's not synonymous and is an aspect that can easily stand on its own accord. The article is not original research since I can vouch the information can be found in a host of published reliable sources, and I doubt that it is a copyvio. While it needs a name change and prose, stylistic and formatting overhauls to bring it into line with usual wiki material, that's something can can be worked on and not a sufficient reason to delete or redirect. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the article certainly has significant editorial issues, poor style and lack of wikification are not grounds for AfD. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable subject, well written article can follow. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. actually I had no idea what it was and deleted it A7, but it prolly should have been A1 :P slakr\ talk / 06:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Milk Morinaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person. Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD:A1 (no context). Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There are some ghits. Person might be notable, but the article needs to be scrapped and totally redone, properly asserting notability if it is to stay. As-is as of this writing, it is more a candidate for speedy deletion than anything else. -- Alexf42 21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Stifle. There's nothing to this. Almost comes of as a doujin author. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD:A1 X Marx the Spot (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - it would seem that the creator of this page, Ro0oney303 (talk · contribs), is a disruption-only account that should be blocked. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per request of sole editor. – iridescent 22:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Braids of the Powhatan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable short story - fails WP:N, article written by author of story. Veiled self-promotion, verging on WP:SPAM ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No references, no notability (no coverage in other sources at all), definitely self-promotion. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Undiluted spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious promospam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete myself then. But I will come back with more sources next time to back it up. WarrenTrenton-9/23/08 3:52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenTrenton (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Er...you can't. Blanking the page is not deleting the article and doing so while the Afd is in process is inappropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrath Passion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Seems to be a COI issue. Look at the picture of the logo to confirm this. (note it's from commons with the band as the uploader) Delete this and the album page. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following album page.
- Delete as being non-notable. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim of meeting WP:MUSIC in the article; no professional reviews found at metacritic or allmusic; no evidence of charting found at allmusic. Reference in article is just a directory listing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep WP:SNOW, article has been improved significantly. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve Brown (yo-yo player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable yo-yo player. — Yavoh 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Changing my vote as well, in light of excellent rewrite of article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.RFerreira (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Changing my !vote in light of recent changes made to the article; good work. RFerreira (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. X Marx the Spot (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Changing to Keep in view of changes made to article by AniMate. X Marx the Spot (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per...this is getting a little monotonous, isn't it? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Changing vote to Keep, as per AniMate's updating (although some people frown on using IMDB as a source, it doesn't matter to me). I also added a source confirming Brown's title while he was on the Duncan payroll. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I consider myself to be a deletionist, so this !vote is a little odd for me. However, the article appears to have been gutted recently with alot of relevant information removed. Looking through the history and doing some digging, I discovered that he has designed yo-yos for Team Losi, that he is now considered one of the country's top yo-yoers, and that he's written a book called Duncan Yo-Yo trick book for Duncan Toys Company. Also he's one of eight national masters in the sport... or is it a game? I'm going to be expanding the article shortly. AniMate 03:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also this article that details how Brown was on the Duncan payroll for years, which may constitute a conflict of interest on Brown's part (can you be a champion and work for the company that determines champion status?). Ecoleetage (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Yo-Yo Museum is part of the Chico Toy Museum, not part of Duncan Toys. I did a brief expansion of the article, and found some solid references for his career. AniMate 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Insofar as it's possible for anyone to be notable for yo-yo-ing, it looks like this guy is. And while it is certainly a rather quirky field in which to attain notability, far be it from me to dismiss the entire yo-yo community as inherently non-notable just because I'm not personally familiar with it. The references show that he's been written about in three well-known newspapers for at least 10 years, so seeing as yo-yo-ing isn't exactly a sports page standard, I'd consider that extensive coverage for one person. Coverage over such a long period of time shows that he isn't a 15-minutes-of-fame type of character, but rather a staple in the yo-yo community. So while it may be something of a niche interest community, my overall feeling is that he nevertheless has a significant enough position in it to be considered notable. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AniMate has demonstrated clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I had tried to delete this page a while ago. It was all puffery and self-promotion, with no real refs. I saw the AfD and though, "Finally, this mess will go away." Well, at long last, someone has added sources and toned it down. I think the common name thing made this one hard to find, but we have the sourcing now. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep and severely trim out OR/PROMO material. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Competition cams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Since this page continues to be reposted, I will bring this article back to AfD. This article is about a non-notable company that has no supporting references. Article has been deleted several times before under various guises, please see previous AfD as well. TN‑X-Man 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As far as I can see, all the previous deletions were done as speedy deletions. The first AFD didn't run to conclusion it would seem as it was speedy deleted as blatant advertising. We should let this one run its course. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam and salt to prevent recreation. Perhaps a block is in order for the serial recreator, as well? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a "serial recreator," nor do I appreciate you jumping into a discussion which you know absolutely nothing about. The article is significant to many people, which I intend to prove. As for RepublicanJacobite, I will accept your apology for the personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete- As it stands, the article reads like advertising. The references provided in the article do not constitute reliable sources for establishing notability. A further search on my own finds what look to be press releases in Google News, but nothing to support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - changing opinion based on articles about the company and product reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the article read like advertising? Do you even know what the guidelines for ad writing are? I do. I'm a copywriter. Be that as it may, there is no stated opinion, "we", "our", "you", any other pronoun or directive speech which constitutes advertising's writing style. Therefore, I have no clue from where Whpq's comment came. Also, the reliable sources are in the market research conducted by SEMA, which handles the industry's research and reports these findings to the census bureau. I cited the association as a reference for a reason! --Jabarke1 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I urge you all to read the article thoroughly before voting. Just because one editor says something, that doesn't give you the go ahead to ignorantly agree before reading. The reason for recreation is that everything written in the article has been edited and improved each time. I have seen the speedy ignorance of bandwagon jumping already occur in this room with RepublicanJacobite's narrow-minded comment. I urge you all to be open-minded and intelligent with both your voting and your editing, although I doubt this will happen. I would also appreciate any DIRECT advice on how to approve the article. This I also consider to be a long shot. --Jabarke1 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Good question. Out of curiosity, did someone research writing an ad? After reviewing the below links & re-reading the Competition Cams page, I do not see any advertising writing. If you take a moment to review the links, you will notice all of the sites have about the same idea.
http://startupinternetmarketing.com/pagelinks/how2ad.html http://www.reiclub.com/articles/killer-ad-copy http://www.marketingtoday.com/marcom/writeads.htm http://advertising.about.com/od/copywriting/a/guestbottomline.htm http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=57377#Marketing_Advertising (this site contains many presentations)
Also, I compared the Competition Cams page to Edelbrock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelbrock), Ford Motor Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor), General Motors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_motors) & Dodge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge). The only differences to be seen are… 1. They use their own site to reference some information (thought that was against your rules) 2. Use magazine articles as references. Depending on the article, it can sound like an advertisement because they want to make the company they are writing for sound like the best
It is hard to comprehend why the above-listed companies are able to have a page, but Competition Cams is not. I also don’t understand the spam comment?
What is considered a reliable resource? A page on your site? A reference to the company’s site (again, thought this was against the rules)? If someone were to provide an example of a “reliable resource” Competition Cams would be able to use it. --Trenay (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — User:Trenay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - with regards to advertising, the article reads like a press release designed to promote the company. That's how it appears to me, and it seems to be the opinion of other editors as well. with respect to reliable sources, the link has been posted multiple times although you may have missed clicking on it. WP:RS. As for the other articles, see WP:N for notability, and WP:WAX for "What about article X?". -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see much notable, other than that there are plenty of people who sell or work with the parts they make. If anyone has some good reliable sources, I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Reconsidered my nomination. The only thing the magazine articles do is promote the product. Nothing more has changed. Going with speedy delete and salt at this point - speedy because it only seems to be spam, salt because the author has promised to recreate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis,
I suppose being the host or sponsor of some of the biggest events in racing is not notable, nor is the fact that the company is pioneering the use of ion nitriding for valve train parts. The reason I didn't post or source is that the COMP site and other smaller sites only provide this exclusive information. Another reason is that the intelligent, open-minded editors would consider that too to be advertising, in all likeliness. --Jabarke1 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Dennis,
“I don't see much notable, other than that there are plenty of people who sell or work with the parts they make.” – I throughly contest this comment. Please read any magazine article using a product. A magazine article helps sell the product. If this is your argument, you should protest anyone using an article as a resource. --Trenay (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — User:Trenay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Trenay, you then contest that people use the product, and that it is not notable? =) You need to come up with sources proving notability, not merely protest my commentary in indignance. Indignant protest means nothing if you can't prove notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider the deletion of this article, as I have edited it to help with neutrality, and I recently added a topic in that will make the company SIGNIFICANTLY notable! Thanks.--Jabarke1 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete per Dennis the Tiger. I'm not satisfied that notability has been asserted. X Marx the Spot (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt article recreated from speedy by SPA. 0 significant gnews hits about the company, no WP:RS present in article that would establish notability. They exist, they sponsor some kind of minor racing prize, but the company doesn't have any real coverage. Article is borderline as qualifying for speedy again, since there isn't any strong claim presented for why they should even potentially be notable. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“They exist, they sponsor some kind of minor racing prize, but the company doesn't have any real coverage.” – This comment is confusing. Not any real coverage? Please do a search on the following websites, or watch a portion of a NASCAR (http://www.nascar.com/guides/sponsors/ you will need to scroll down the page). , NHRA (http://www.nhra.com/sponsors/2008_NatContingency.html), etc. You will see by viewing these items Compeition Cams does have a dominate presence. If magazine articles are your choice, visit Hot Rod magazine’s website & do a search on Competition Cams. Also, if you want more sources, Competition Cams can provide them. --Trenay (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — User:Trenay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Speedy Delete and Salt - article is obvious spam created only to promote the company. The attempt to confuse the issue by including a load of useless references which don't cover the subject in accordance with the verifiability policy doesn't change the underlying advertising nature of the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and Salt per the above editors. In addition I think that Jabarke1 probably warrants a block, following this edit in which he says that (s)he "...will continue to recreate this page until it stays should you rudely delete a my well-researched hard work." -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For each of your points, please see my above statements. It seems like there is a witch hunt for Competition Cams and/or Jabarke1. He should not be blocked. If you are going to make an exception for Edelbrock, Ford, GM, & Dodge, why can't Competition Cams and Jabarke1 have the same rules? --Trenay (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — User:Trenay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- They do have the same rules. Unfortunately, Competition cams doesn't conform to the rules as has been pointed out by many people. In an effort to WP:AGF I won't comment on the Jabarke1 situation until the sockpuppetry case has been decided one way or the other. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, then lock that article and
blockban the user. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - despite this being the second nomination, this article has never been deleted through AFD. The previous version was speedy deleted. G4 doesn't apply. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this pointless martyr of a decent article about a notable company with good research to support it is occurring, I have no choice but to nominate those that obviously didn't read the article and posted "Speedy Delete and Salt" as socketpuppets by way of being meatpuppets for user TN‑X-Man 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Good luck to each of you. --Jabarke1 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Disruptive behaviour won't cause this article to be kept. Third-party coverage in reliable sources establishing the notability Competition Cams is what will result in this article being kept. I haven't seen any of this coverage. I haven't found any of this coverage in any search I've conducted. Trenay has hinted that there are magazine articles. If you can produced these magazine articles, then they could be evaluated here in this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly. All of the following articles have extensive mention & coverage of the company and its products:
1. 154 Stories/Articles in Circle Track Magazine
2. 193 articles in Hot Rod Magazine mentioning COMP-[9]
3.10 articles in Super Chevy Magazine mentioning COMP-[10]
4. Stories in The Commercial Appeal about the company or its events
5. 239 articles in Car Craft
These are only a small percentage of the magazine/newspaper articles that Trenay was talking about. When you've looked at that, and possibly attempt to refute these sources (all of which have massive readership), then I will provide you with an even bigger list. Until then, blast away!!! --Jabarke1 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - Can you point out which article are specifically about the company? A link to search results is not useful. The first result in Circle Track doesn't even appear to mention the company. And a quick scan of some of the other links mentions the company name, or quotes somebody from the company, but is not about the company. -- Whpq (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Whpq, I can tell that you didn't read very far at all. The MAJORITY of the articles on the Circle Track page you just mentioned are specifically about the company or one of its products. Like I just said, there are HUNDREDS of articles and stories about the company. If you want specifics, then the page will be full. If you really searched COMP Cams and didn't come up with anything solid earlier, then you are either a liar or simply ignorant. I say that not as a personal attack, but rather through the frustration of the fact that it took me 5 minutes to gather the above-mentioned articles. How can you or any other EDITOR OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA NOT find anything? --Jabarke1 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oh and by the way, a "quick scan" is ridiculous. This is a serious matter, and you CONSIDER yourselves to be academics. Therefore, a quick scan is academic laziness, and should bring aide to no conclusion in any direction. --Jabarke1 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - Yes, this is a serious matter and I am taking it seriously. I am keeping an open mind, and can be persuaded. But you aren't particularly helpful. The onus for providing references is on the article creator. I don't see notability here, and I'm not going to read through about 500 search results trying to find articles about the company when the results include anything that happens to have the word cam in it, which not surprisingly is a very common word in automotive magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(striking !vote until I've had a chance to review the article's latest updates) Ok, I went through the first 50 or so Google hits for "Competition cams". What I found was: 1) the company website, 2) merchants selling the product, 3) the Wikipedia article and 4) blogs. On Google News, all I found were some articles about acquisitions. None of these seem to constitute reliable secondary sources that would provide information to meet the notability guidelines. I also went through the external links/references section (note:I'm aware that the external links aren't necessarily referenced, but since they were in the References section, I checked them out anywayok, the references and external links are the same).
-
External Links:
- http://compcams.com/DefaultWide.asp - This is fairly obviously not a secondary source.
- http://powerperformancenews.com/ - Not sure what this has to do with anything beyond being a performance automotive site.
- http://compperformancegroup.com/ - Also fairly obviously not a secondary source.
- http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main/compcams.com - Site traffic ranking. Not sure what this is supposed to show (if anything).
- http://sema.org/MemberDirectory/frmMemberDetail.aspx - Wouldn't load for me.
- http://www.semahof.com/inductees.aspx - Wouldn't load for me.
- http://www.sema.org/Main/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fmarketresearch%2ftermsconditions.aspx - Wouldn't load for me.
- http://www.zekesauto.com/en/history.html - OK, it's a distributor for the product. Nothing here to indicate notability.
- http://www.semahalloffame.com/company.aspx - Wouldn't load for me.
- http://www.compcams.com/nitriding/ - Also not a secondary source, appears to be a product promotion page.
- http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/16042/comp_cams_pro_plasma_nitriding_service.aspx - Appears to be a semi-promotional video. It certainly isn't mainstream media coverage - appears to be more of a "How it's made" type thing.
- http://www.powerperformancenews.com/forum/essence-comp-cams-pro-plasma-nitriding-1327.html - Reads a bit like a press release.
As for the 7 links posted above:
1,2,3 and 7 are all run by the same company - Source Interlink Media, Inc. Per their website:
The Source Interlink Media - Automotive Digital Group is where millions go to find anything and everything automotive, including the lifestyles embodied in each of our unique markets. Let us help you find effective ways to communicate your message to customers while they research and purchase products.
Basically, they're a marketing website. Edit: while these sites are owned by a common owner which is a marketing company, I don't know that the articles on the site can be or are paid for by sponsors. I'm a little suspicious of it, though.
4,5 and 6 are more about the race than the company. While it's mildly interesting that the races are sponsored, I don't think it's nearly enough to establish notability.
-- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I highly doubt that you went through 50 Google hits, seeing as how I found more than you mentioned in less than 30. This goes to show your lack of credibility. Regarding the sources you mentioned, the little number behind a sentence is known as a reference to a footnote. Had you taken the time to read the sentences, you could have noticed why these sources were placed in the article. The COMP Performance Group link is provided to back up the second paragraph of the article that mentions the holding company to which COMP Cams. Therefore, do a little work and actual research next time before you post a pompous remark based on nothing but hot wind. --64.132.150.76 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you have found more than Beehive, then please put these forward. Requests for specific articles about the company just generate some handwaving about them being available. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Regardless of your doubts, I did go through the Google hits. I won't even address your assertion that I lack credibility beyond to say that it's completely baseless. I spent somewhere between 45 minutes and an hour last night trying to find reliable sources that would satisfy the notability requirements for this article and failed. I will make an effort to review the sources (recently added below) later today, but for now my !vote stands. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 17:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EXCLUSIVE COMPANY & PRODUCT INNOVATION ARTICLES
- [15]
- http://offroadbusinessmag.off-road.com/offroadbusinessmag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=432470&sk=&date=&pageID=2
- [16]
- [17]
- [18]
- [19]
- [20]
I'll post more later today --Jabarke1 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)— Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Ok, I've looked over the above sources.
- The first article (nortonabrasives.com pdf) is published by an abrasives manufacturer. Per the PDF, they're a supplier to Comp Cams - this is more of a PR piece for Norton Abrasives than a news article.
- The second article (offroadbusinessmag.off-road.com) has a source "COMP Cams Inc." (see page 3 of the article). Not really sure what to make of this one, but it seems PR-ish to me. I know that's not quantifiable, but that's my opinion.
- The third article (competitionplus.com) was "Written by CompetitionPlus". Definitely not independent.
- On to the fourth source (musclemustangfastfords.com) - this is another of the articles from Source Interlink Media. See my comments from before about them; I'm still unsure about their independence/reliability.
- Same again for the fifth (chevyhiperformance.com).
- Number 6 (maxchevy.com): article that's more about "beehive springs" than about Comp Cams.
- And the last one (carcraft.com) - another one from Source Interlink Media. This one's a comparison between some products.
- After review of these, I'm afraid that my !vote stands. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'e had a chance to review theese in more detail, and I've come to a slightly different conclusion than Beezhive. I agree the first article is essentially a PR piece and can be discounted. And the last article is not enough of a source. But the Offroad mag article is about the company and the other articles are comprehensive reviews of the the company's products. These are specialty magazine/websites but the company is a specialty company so this is where one would expect the coverage to be. With these sources, I think notability can be established. -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - In regards to notability, COMP Cams holds over 50 patents in their respective industry and 42 of the 43 NASCAR engines that qualify weekly run their camshafts. --Jabarke1 (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, here is a link to various articles about the company's product line- [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt--This seems to be a NN company. Attendence trade shows and sports sponsorship are merely forms of advertising and do not render the company notable. Once the article has that sort of triia removed there is not much left. I am far from sure that coverage in trade rags and fan mags (which the external sources cited seem to be make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made edits to the article and added more significant sources. Please look at these changes and also these two sources for significant listings of Competition Cams' notable contributions.
- For the moment I retain my opinion. Jabarke1 will help his case if he deletes the trivia from the article and concentrates on explaining in the text of the article what makes it notable. Continual interjections from the creator (with a single purpose account) into this discussion between WP editors amkes it very difficult for the rest of us to have a coherent discussion on this. Holding a large number of patents is potential evidcne of notability, but this is not mentioend in the article (as far as I can see). Being the leading component manufacturer for a niche product might conceivably be, but I have my doubts. I may reconsider my view if the article is significantly improved and references are external links are put into a more usual format, so that it is immediately possible to see what they are. However, at present I remain unconvinced of the article's merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made edits to the article and added more significant sources. Please look at these changes and also these two sources for significant listings of Competition Cams' notable contributions.
- Comment - The Competition Cams article has been completely rewritten and re-cited with new, more credible sources. I urge each of the editors that has previously voted against the articles notability, neutrality, etc. to please reconsider. --Jabarke1 (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (changing my vote) -- Jabarke1 has done a good deal to show that the company has modest notability, pointing to patents and being a leader in its field. This may be a small field, but that is beyond my knowledge. I have just removed a long list of sponsored events (as non-encyclopaedic), but think the creator has now addressed the difficulties raised, so that the article is now perhaps worth keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - but a lot of the promotional, "look what an innovator we've been and how important our founder is" stuff still has to be ripped out. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I'm going out on a limb here. Even after the initial confrontational tone of the author during this AfD, a refactoring of my AfD nomination statement, and a possible sockpuppetry case, I'm going to say this article should be kept. The author seems to have gradually reformed his editing and has added some decent sources. I can only hope that Jabarke1 continues to contribute good, well-sourced, material. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 16:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Stifle (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- American Academy of Financial Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable financial accreditation firm. All references to this firm in reliable sources are trivial or incidental; where it is treated at length, the source is less reliable and reads like a press release (i.e., does not satisfy requirement for major coverage). None of these references are in the article itself, but were provided on the article's talk page. RJC TalkContribs 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - significant professional accreditation body recognised internationally - see here, for example. TerriersFan (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This entire discusssion was already debated and settled 2 years ago but here it is again. The AAFM has even more global legal recognition today as a significant global board of standards that has the most designaions in the USA listed in the registry of the regulatory - FINRA/NASD, and in the registry of the - Dept. of Education and listed in the- US Dept of Labor websites. - see here, for example. AAFM Global is the only professional Board Certification organization to have direct legal articulation with the top 2 government recognized accreditation agencies for business schools in the USA i.e. the AACSB which accredits NYU and Stanford business schools along with 400 other business schools globally and the ACBSP which accredits another 150 business schools. Also, the AAFM is the first organization in the USA and globally to have direct education alliance with an [American Bar Association] recognized online LLM graduate program that is hosted at an accredited law school. Thus, the law school "post JD Doctorate" courses count for AAFM Board Certification. See - AAFM approved LLM Courses. References include the Wall Street Journal, Black Enterprise, China Daily, South China Post, Arab Times, The Hindu National and the El Norte Mexico which are all major news media organizations. GlobalProfessor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalprofessor (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you point toward the initial AfD? Also, could you provide the reliable sources that verify these claims? Reprinted press releases and incidental mentions do not establish notability. Being accredited does not establish notability. RJC TalkContribs 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you substantiate this, please? RJC TalkContribs 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- RJC TalkContribs 03:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- RJC TalkContribs 03:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.The AAFM is the first Board of Standards in the USA to have a joint ABA backed law school certification program. http://llmprogram.tjsl.edu/certifications AND http://www.llmprogram.org/Graduate Program 2008-09.pdf
- The AAFM is the first organization in the world to facilitate a direct articulation with the AACSB and ACBSP regarding the eligibility of Board Certification for graduates of these double accredited business schools. AACSB International recognizes AAFM in press release: http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/enewsline/Vol-2/Issue-4/assoc-aafm.asp
- The AAFM recognizes only business schools that are accredited regionally by the state governments and nationally by the AACSB and ACBSP which are recognized by the CHEA US Department of Education of the Federal Government USA. www.aacsb.edu and acbsp.edu
- AAFM First to offer Wealth Management Training in Mainland China - http://www. accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21422902_ITM
- 1st CWM programme kicks off in China. Source: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire Publication Date: 24-MAY-04 and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-91149735.html
- China Daily – AAFM 1st to Offer Westernized Banking and Wealth Training to top banks in the world including China Construction Bank. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/09/content_440362.htm AAFM trains for Top Banks. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Three_Chinese_banks_in_worlds_top_four_study_999.html and Asia Banker http://www.thebankingacademy.com/workshop_wma_kl08.asp
- AAFM first to work direct with Qatar’s top banks on training. Commercialbank’s investment team gets US body certification
- http://www. gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=97895&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28 and The Peninsula http://www. thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Business_News&subsection=Local+Business&month=July2006&file=Business_News200607189638.xml
- AAFM expands into Saudi Arabia: http://www. ameinfo.com/124311.html
- UAE News - AAFM Sponsors Sovereign Wealth Funds Conference for Finance Gurus: http://www. albawaba.com/en/countries/UAE/230586
- AAFM Kuwait Training News: http://www. alqabas.com.kw/Article.aspx?id=289772
- AAFM Recently Mentioned in the Congressional Testimony of the US Congress: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:33655.wais
- India News: The Hindu: http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/22/stories/2004112211920600.htm AND http://www.hindu.com/edu/2005/06/20/stories/2005062000640700.htm
- AAFM Front Page of Business News Mexico: El Norte News Paper: http://www. accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-832342_ITM
- AAFM is 1st Wealth Management Training in the USA followed by New York University: Wall Street Journal Business: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109883075169856486.html?mod=googlewsj
- United States Department of Labor lists AAFM in Finance Industry Brochures: http://stats.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs029.htm#addinfo
- AAFM Sponsors Scholarships in Arabia: http://www. arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=94685&d=8&m=4&y=2007&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom
- AAFM and UAE Government Join Forces for Training and Education: http://www. khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/business/2006/July/business_July526.xml§ion=business&col=
- And: http://www.albayan.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=Article&cid=1151303008267&pagename=Albayan%2FArticle%2FFullDetail
- Government Backed Dubai Quality Group News - http://www. albawaba.com/en/countries/UAE/215228
- Bahamas Registrar General a Member of AAFM: http://www. thenassauguardian.com/business/288269734178184.php
- Black Enterprise - Zinio - Aug 31, 2007 Work enhancements: how certification increases your professional worth - http://www. accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32980646_ITM
- National Bank of Kuwait 6th Largest Bank in the Middle East: http://www. nbk.com/NBK/About+NBK/Press+Room/Latest+Press+Release/cwm.htm
- Taiwan Business Training News: http://www.gocharter.com.tw/m2/detail.asp?main_id=1418
- eHow Article on How to Become an Investment Manager : http://www. ehow.com/how_2104007_become-investment-manager.html
- eFinance Portal – Financial Designations: http://www. efinanceportal.com/efp/showlicenseforsearch.do?industryId=
- CFA Institute Official Strategy Paper File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
- This case study was used as part of the CFA Institute Vision 2012 strategic planning. process. ...... Use and Publication of Official AAFM Certifications on Page 31 of their Internal Report.
- http://www.cfainstitute.org/aboutus/overview/governance/volunteer/pdf/vision2012_casestudy.pdf
- America’s Top Financial Professionals – Credential Listing: http://www.consumersresearchcncl.org/06-07_top_financial/fp_chapters.htm
- Approved Courses in Singapore: http://www.optionetics.com.sg/cpsSummary.asp Globalprofessor (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep As a clearly major organization. It is remarkably difficult to find 3rd party sources for this category of organization, but they are important in the industry, we need an article to explain the meaning of their certification, which will appear in bio articles, and what we have meets V. DGG (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but needs better sourcing and a rewrite. We66er (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a vague catch-all for a bunch of different topics, all of which have articles of their own, from the underground press to organic gardening to new religions, all of which are somehow grouped under its vague title, but to no end. The tone is non-encyclopædic, reading more like a tutorial for the novice, and there are no references. At one time, it was discussed on the talk page that the article should be turned into a disambiguation page, with the content merged to the respective articles, but there is nothing here worth merging. Delete this mess as unreferenced, non-encyclopædic, OR, POV, and unsalvageable.-RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. not a useful article. It's just a glorified dictionary definition/example farm, and the nom's concerns about referencing and tone are important to remember. Maybe this could be a dab page though. --Rividian (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am not opposed to the idea of a dab page, but I cannot figure out how it would be done. There are at least two other articles, Alternative culture and Alternative lifestyle, which are similarly vague and useless, which could fit under the same umbrella. If they can be made to point to something useful, huzzah! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Alternative society" has been around a lot longer than Marx, probably since there was society at all. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_novels#Deep_Space_Nine. As contributors have said, a proper list article would be useful here. Black Kite 11:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Antimatter (Star Trek novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources for this book. Schuym1 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify along with whatever other books exist in this series. Definitely verifiable, but not independently notable. bd2412 T 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Listify per above. JIP | Talk 06:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify. Hiding T 10:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We can't pick-and-choose what books to include in a series. Note that the next book in the series has an article, so deleting this one will only result in someone recreating it later to fill the gap. This is a Star Trek novel, not some obscure nothing. There are plenty of sources to be found (reviews, etc) if you look hard enough. 23skidoo (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like others said, they could be put in a list because they aren't notable by themselves. Schuym1 (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - However your rationale for nominating is based on the fact you haven't been able to find anything. Have you checked every possible source? Don't forget to include print. 23skidoo (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking contributors to AfD to prove a negative is not productive. We are not required to perform an exhaustive search of all possible sources, gated, print and otherwise before noting that a series novel might be best in a list of that series. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I do a long search? It was the article creator's responsibility to add the sources. Schuym1 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking contributors to AfD to prove a negative is not productive. We are not required to perform an exhaustive search of all possible sources, gated, print and otherwise before noting that a series novel might be best in a list of that series. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - However your rationale for nominating is based on the fact you haven't been able to find anything. Have you checked every possible source? Don't forget to include print. 23skidoo (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. And expand, these are novels from a notable series and TV / Film franchise. The articles desrve more - so give them more. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book has to be notable by itself. Schuym1 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge to the list. Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for books or the general notability guideline. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a combination article. This is not a series by a single author, so it is not reasonable to assume without evidence that they will all be equally good or equally popular or equally notable. I would not assume either that the different series of Star Trek books are equally notable. This is no.8. I see no.7 Warchild has an article, but it won a prize and was nominated for another prestigious one. No. 9 has an article Proud Helios, but it was written by a considerably more notable author. I think they would be best served by a series article. DGG (talk)
- I don't think that is the same Warchild (Star Trek novel) novel OCLC 30933190. maclean 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Create a list and then merge/redirect. I can't find a List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine novels just an omnibus article on the relaunch, but one probably makes sense. The notability of the individual books is rather dubious (though some probably meet the standard) but as a whole they are a notable part of the Star Trek media franchise. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found it List of Star Trek novels#Deep Space Nine. That list doesn;t have space for a merge but it would be the logical place to start for makling fuller articles on the various sub series. Eluchil404 (talk 00:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited, and that doesn't just apply to people: not every element in a notable list is notable; not every book about a notable TV programme is notable. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify and redirect per above, notability cannot be readily verified. It could always be spun out later, if and when sources for an independent article turn up. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify and redirect. I have recently worked on similar book articles for another franchise, and listifying seems like the best next option to deletion for lack of notability. – sgeureka t•c 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to list. Lists allow descriptive text, so if sourced info about this book appears, it can still be included. If the list entry gets too verbose, then the article is needed.Yobmod (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Discussion leans slightly towards keeping but there is no real consensus over whether this is a valid article or not. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1884 in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
1884 in Mexico lacks notability. The information here should be included in the 1884 page or on the Mexico page. No other years seem to have pages for the 'XXXX in Mexico' format. Gr0ff (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Keep There are indeed other xxxx in Mexico articles, I didn't realize that. So I guess it's not redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actually, contrary to the nomination, there are plenty of other articles on years in Mexico (I make it 17 blue links), and many similar articles on years in other countries. This is a pretty standard and very encyclopedically useful way of organising information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the List of years in Mexico page somewhat legitimizes the 1884 in Mexico page, but it seems redundant to have a page for each year for each country. Furthermore, I can't seem to find any other countries that have a 'List of years in XXX' page. It would certainly make more sense to have sub-sections under each year to divide events geographically. -199.67.138.154 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see Category:19th century years by country for many, many, many other examples (not just Mexico). Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the List of years in Mexico page somewhat legitimizes the 1884 in Mexico page, but it seems redundant to have a page for each year for each country. Furthermore, I can't seem to find any other countries that have a 'List of years in XXX' page. It would certainly make more sense to have sub-sections under each year to divide events geographically. -199.67.138.154 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that there are other articles about single years in one particular country does not in any way imply that this article should be kept; on the contrary, it just serves to point out that there are other articles that need to be deleted. Having articles for every year and for every country is completely unnecessary; such a decentralized presentation of information lacks context and would better be placed in an article on the history of that country. In fact, that's precisely what history articles are for! --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Different strokes for different folks. Sure, sometimes you'll want an article that identifies trends and provides in-depth analysis. But when you just want to do some quick fact-checking, it's a lot easier to use a simple, straightforward timeline. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually, Mai Pen Rai makes a good argument for Redirect, not delete, as "(year) in (country)" is a pretty likely search term. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, bad precedent to set. There are many years, and many countries. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stifle, I agree that this is a horrible and non-maintainable precedent to set. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Considering that there is a concerted drive to remove all links to years, the year pages such as 1884 will be orphaned soon. This may be the way to go about showing some context when linking to dates in articles. Corvus cornixtalk 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This has an infinite number of combinations that will ultimately be unmaintainable --Banime (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Real encyclopedias, like Encarta, have articles like this. (Encarta only goes back to 1938 for some reason - doesn't mean that nothing happened in 1884, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a good way to organize information. Essentially a list article, and justified by the standards there. I would certainly encourage these in all cases where there is enough material. That we don't have others does not mean we should delete what we do have. DGG (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- the main value of list articles is to identify missing articles, which this is not what this article is about. The evetns named are NN in world terms and should not be merged with 1884. If they are notable in terms of Mexican history, they should be merged into a suitable article on that or some aspect of it. I have come across articles of this kind for other countries, but they are not very useful. There appear to be a few others for Mexico, mostly with even less content, and would recommend a mass cull of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to be a valid part of the years-by-country tree, pointed out above. If there is an issue with the notability of the contents, then it should be redirected to a more encompassing article about Mexico's history, but, definitely not deleted. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although there is other (year) in Mexico articles, I don't feel any of them is comprehensive enough to have their own articles. 90% of them aren't referenced and all of the dates can be included in the 1884 article. Its simply just redundant information that isn't necessary. Tavix (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [24] has the full list. If this one is deleted, I don't see why the others can't be put up for deletion as well. Tavix (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to delete them, then you should delete everything in Category:Years_by_country. Don't just pick on Mexico; pick on the US and the UK, too. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true. I picked Mexico because that is the article that we are arguing about right now. Tavix (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is simply a convenient way of organizing historical information and is done for other countries as well. Bob (QaBob) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This topic clearly can meet the GNG and WP:V without missing a beat. The real question in my mind is if this is a reasonable organizational structure. That is an editorial decision and not a good topic for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems valid enough, and the problems with organisation are not deletion-worthy. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can see readers using this type of article to take an overview of the events of a particular year. The quality of the various pages does, to be fair, vary enormously and this one is somewhere near the bottom. However, if we are to have them then we should make the list of them as comprehensive as possible otherwise the gaps will simply serve to irritate. I understand the arguments of the delete !voters but blowing small holes in such a complex category structure is not the way to go. If this type of page is not considered suitable then an overarching discussion should be started. Smile a While (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. CSD:G12 applies. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Torcida Split (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mostly copy/paste from http://www.ultrasspirit.com/links/torcida.htm which seems to have been translated from an old incarnation of torcida.org. No valid references, ambiguous claim of notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G12 WP:COPYVIO. Now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin Boyd Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim to Notability whatsoever. Utterly fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Top of hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems like nonsense, doesn't it? An unsourced neologism. Biruitorul Talk 17:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is certainly not nonsense, though it is a poorly-written article. My guess is that this was written by someone whose grasp of written English is not great, and may even be an artless translation from a Spanish article. It is hard to judge the validity of the three external links because I do not read Spanish, but their very existence indicates the term has some currency. No vote from me, but this is not nonsense, and might be salvageable if an editor cares to take the time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it doesn't seem to be nonsense, and while I don't read Spanish, I'm bothered that two of the sources provided contain "blog" in the URL and that the creator of the article has a username that's the same name as the person who created the term. A google search of "top of hand" and the creator's name isn't very encouraging as far as notability is concerned. Rnb (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neologism; I don't think it could be expanded into an encyclopedic entry. (Consider including it in the Wiktionary instead, if the term has gained significant use.) Delete. (Note: I had previously proposed the article for deletion; the notice has been removed by the creator.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a neologism with dubious notability. The fact that it's a marketing term doesn't help, and with all due respect to the writer, it's on the verge of being incomprehensible. --Lockley (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The first sentence clearly indicates this is a neologism. I see no indication that it is a notable buzzword for a notable topic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saratoga County inventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced listcruft. Perhaps could be merged into Saratoga County, New York if proper inline citations can be added. howcheng {chat} 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if proper citations exist. No reason for a separate article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTCASE. Allowing an article like this would be a floodgate to justify one each on the inventions of all counties and similar-sized jurisdictions around the whole world, then this and that likewise from all. There are no references provided to show why, at a worldwide point-of-view, the inventions of Saratoga County are anything significant, just local articles naming what they are. Sebwite (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no citations or stand out significance to warrant an article. We66er (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this, or merge the cited stuff back to the main article.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like the very definition of OR. Delete. DS (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a fine example of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure), as the nominator gallantly jettisoned his request for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David J. Whittaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not at first glance meet WP:N. Curator of a museum and a professor at a university, the most notable thing he's done is contribute to the encyclopaedia of Mormonism - which I'm not sure is a claim to notability- it depends on how much he contributed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, Whittaker is not a curator of a museum. He is over a large document collection. Secondly, the most notable thing he has done is compile the largest bibliographty on Mormon subjects there is.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article when I came across it didn't meet the standards for notability as far as I could see. I'm glad to see it's been improved, and I'm happy to withdraw the nomination, if no-one else has a problem with it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I have added mention of several of the works he was co-author of, and reviews of some of them.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I vote keep. There are more important Mormon historians, but he's certainly done more notable work than for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. BYU's library catalog lists his many registers of special collections and books on Mormon history, and some are now in the article. His Studies in Mormon History (University of Illinois Press) and Mormon Americana (BYU Studies) are both authoritative and important Mormon bibliographies. He's published in Mormon Historical Studies, the Journal of Mormon History, BYU Studies, and Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. The article doesn't cite his contributions and background in detail, but that can be added someday and I would like to know, should I ever read his work. Rich jj (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add some comments about difficulties and issues in developing a better article on the discussion page associated with the article.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and rewrite - David J Whittaker, the curator and associate professor does not at first glance appear to meet a number of the basic guidelines under Notability (academics). In answer to the question on how much he has written, his bio states he has written two of the chapters out of five in the cited encyclopedia (a google search would have helped the above argument). This is an effort, perhaps, to focus on his recent publications. A slightly more well-known David J Whittaker is a retired scholar who focused on international relations. Of course, we could also mention the David J. Whittaker who is a molecular plant biologist and has written several journal articles on the subject. Getting back to the BYU historian, it would seem that with a quick browse through of scholar.google.com, he is significant in his field (along with the other 2) with over 10 books/journal articles/etc. listed (note citations as well as individual publications). If anything, this article needs to be expanded since notability is not lost (he was more prolific when younger, hence the brevity of his current BYU bio) and two others written on the other David J Whittakers of note.--eleuthero (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the reason that the BYU bio that you sight is so short has nothing to do with how prolific Whittaker has been of late. It has to do with the fact that most of his articles and other writtings have not appeared in publications controlled by the Neal A. Maxwell Center and its predecessors. The "Author Biographies" there are not meant to be exhaustive, but only to direct you to the articles that you can through that site access the full text to.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Eleuthero's comments about prolificness, Whittaker has produced several registers to specific collections that the L. Tom Perry Library has. I am not sure that these are worth mentioning, but this is where much of his energy has been exerted.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as consensus supports the article's merits. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Patriotic Nigras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A group of griefers. Some passing mentions are cited, but really nothing significant, and this article seems to serve primarily to glorify them. It's been speedily deleted twice already, this version looks as if it's sourced but the sourced are not substantially about this group, just about the phenomenon of people getting their kicks by disrupting gameplay, with one or two namechecks as examples of a griefer group. A redirect / smerge might be appropriate, but this group seems to me to fail any independent measure of notability by a fair margin. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the group has received significant coverage, primarily this article in Wired (this article does discuss other groups but it does cite the PN's 11 times throughout its five pages) and an interview with NewScientist, there was also an article in The telegraph solely about their attack on John Edward's second life HQ. It was kept overwhelmingly last AfD. - Icewedge (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's clear that they meet the GNG. What they do is largely irrelevant. Protonk (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't like the group. I don't like griefers in general. However, the article is well sourced with mainstream links. This clearly meets notability guidelines as I understand them. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as above. Curious, but why was this re-nominated? RFerreira (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as nothing has changed to render the previous AFD of one month ago -- which was withdrawn by the nominator for reasons not stated but possibly due to WP:SNOW based upon the responses there. Normally I put up boilerplate about articles not being renominated in such a short period of time, but I'll cut slack as technically there wasn't a keep decision last AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected to Gorilla Zoe. Didn't need an afd. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gorilla Zoe discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I boldly merged the discography into the Gorilla Zoe article. As such, the discography article is now redundant -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm surprised this was not done earlier. Xclamation point 03:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IPhone Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability concerns: This is an article about an anonymous girl who works at a factory in China, who gained extremely brief notoriety because a few pictures of her apparently appeared on someone's iPhone. This may merit a couple of sentences, tops, in the IPhone article itself but is hardly worthy of an entire article. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS reflect my concerns here: there was a flurry of activity from anons and newcomers for a couple of days, then activity dropped off almost completely. Warren -talk- 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No one cares about this anymore now, much less in ten years as suggested in WP:RECENTISM. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a very minor news event, not an encyclopedic topic. Peacock (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete severely not-notable not to mention the whole not news thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not news, also most of the sources are not reliable secondary sources. --Banime (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. RFerreira (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikinews, that's where news belongs. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm 99% sure that they only allow creation of recent news, so something that occurred over a month ago wouldn't qualify as current. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Deserves a brief mention in the iPhone article, at most. Tempodivalse (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Drag to trash as non notable an a perfect example of how Wikipedia is prone to systematic bias. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - My friend also works in a factory and I took his picture on my phone. Why doesn't he have his own article? Jay Gatsby(talk) 07:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is just not right in my opinion Hybirdd (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Has been expanded over the course of the AfD, no reason to delete (non-admin closure) treelo radda 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Liz White (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The information on this page can be found in other articles such as the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada, just because she is a leader of a one person party does not make her more notable than other canidates running in the Toronto centre riding who do not have a page, if she is elected than she would be notable for a page Landlord77 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is no such thing as a federally-registered "one person party"; a party needs to have at least 250 members to register. Moreover, note that WP:OUTCOMES (which is not policy, but a synthesis of past AFDs) notes that "A leader of a duly-registered political party at the state, provincial or federal levels...is notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:OUTCOMES also shows that the party leader article should be redirected to the party's main wiki page, until more information about the person can be written. At this point the article material is already covered in the parties page and very little information beyond that she is leader is actually mentioned, minus one sentance. Landlord77 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She was the party's only candidate in one particular election, but she isn't its only member. They've had other candidates besides Ms. White (four registered in the current election so far), and as noted by Sarcasticidealist a party has to have at least 250 members to be registered with Elections Canada. Precedent, as summarized at WP:OUTCOMES, does allow for political party leaders to be deemed notable regardless of the party's degree of electoral success, but it does also allow for the article to be redirected to the party's article if it's just a stub which doesn't actually contain any substantial information about the person as a topic independent of the party. Keep if some properly referenced content that's specifically about her can be added; redirect to Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada if it can't. But deletion simply isn't an option here, because regardless of whether any individual editor is kicky about the party's size, she is a leader of a duly-registered political party. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada until there are adequate WP:Reliable sources for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR article DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep;at least until after the election in, I believe, 15 October 2008. With an election there is heightened interest in which others might add to the article with greater frequency and volume than otherwise. 192.30.202.21 (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a long-standing consensus that leaders are registered political parties are notable; I don't see any need to make an exception in this case (and particularly not during an election). CJCurrie (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It still needs references. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Animal Alliance is running four candidates in this federal election it clearly has more then 1 member. Liz White is a the leader of the party and in that long standing tradition it makes her notable.--Cloveious (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While you're correct that this rules out deletion as an option here, it doesn't address the equally-established precedent that an unreferenced article about a minor party leader should be redirected to the party until such time as sufficiently verifiable reliable sources about her as an independent topic can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If she is notable, then she should be noted somewhere. I can find no information about her for a proper bio. Any news stories that mention her only do so in passing that she is the leader of AAVE Party of Canada or as the source for a quote. Without reliable sources about her, I can see no possibility of a proper biography and danger of violating WP:BLP. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem one of your references indicate two different Liz Whites, or am I mistaken? The other website only indicates she is the leader of the party which is a lik present on the party's wiki pageLandlord77 (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, in view of the work done on the article since it was nominated for deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- commentIn view of the article expansion which is in great effort, there is still minimal information about her and more about the party which should be said in the a party's wiki page. Im not anal about my opinion if others disagree with me thats fine, but thats just how i read the articleLandlord77 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Alexf42 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Danny Tien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax article. No reliable sources support the content of the page. X96lee15 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —X96lee15 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as shear BS and therefore vandalism Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a hoax. WP:CSD#G3. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete please, for reasons stated above. RFerreira (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Hoax article, no sign of truthfulness, also fails WP:BIO. SchfiftyThree 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elizabeta Josifovska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is not notable and a quick Google search returns no information, keeping in mind I also typed her name in Cyrillic form. Köbra | Könverse 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep. Google indicates that Josifovska is indeed a Top 40 charter in her country. Recommend that the nom recruits Wikipedia:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia to aid in cleaning up and expanding the article. GlassCobra 21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- commentThe nom is a member of WP:MKD. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I did not see that. Can we get some editors that speak Macedonian? GlassCobra 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the nom. And me, but I still haven't made my mind up. She's not as notable as other Macedonian musicians though. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much notability, and therefore not much information. BalkanFever 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to the lack of accessible, reliable sources which are required to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:MUSIC. No sources to support notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources. We66er (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:MUSIC Testmasterflex (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David A. Prior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
either a hoax or a non-notable person with severe verifiability problems article as been tagged with refimprove for approximately 2 years without any said improvement and I'm not finding anything in the way of significant coverage from reliable 3rd party sources to help fix things. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added Deadly prey, a movie by this individual, to this AfD - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)G7 deleted as author deleted the contents of the page except for AfD notification. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Action International Pictures may or may not need to be added as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article doesn't comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Stifle. Definitely add Action International Pictures ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. --Tom 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge both. Keeper ǀ 76 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hariprasad Pande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The person fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), on his own merit. The Hariprasad Pande's son Swaminarayan is notable, not he himself. "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability." Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because Hariprasad Pande and Premvati are parents of Swaminarayan, so same arguments hold true in both cases:
--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both: People being related to notable people aren't automatically notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both into Swaminarayan per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both Hariprasad Pande and Premvati into Swaminarayan . -- Tinu Cherian - 15:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both Hariprasad Pande and Premvati into Swaminarayan because there is only one reliable sources, and only one notable event has been recorded. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 12:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mwynyw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There are no meaningful Google hits (including Google Books and Google Scholar) or Yahoo hits for this term. The one citation (not on-line) given by the author is flawed in several ways discussed at the article's Talk page and is therefore not sufficiently credible as a reference. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I suspect a semi-hoax. With medieval Welsh there is always the possibility of different spellings, but no relevant non-WP ghits on 2 possible spellings. Where exactly was this supposed to be geographically? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's not impossible that this represents a simple typo for Mynyw, known in English as the town of St David's. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - but the content is then all wrong isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Menevia suggests that the name Menevia / Mynyw covered a larger territory than the current town; the named diocese covers more than a third of the territory of Wales. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But at the period mentioned (11th cent) it would have been part of Deheubarth surely. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, one version of the boundaries of Mynyw/Menevia can be seen at Dewisland (hundred). It does seem to be a fairly large territory, but hardly a kingdom, rather a cantref or hundred. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well a Commote, the next level down, according to that article. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, one version of the boundaries of Mynyw/Menevia can be seen at Dewisland (hundred). It does seem to be a fairly large territory, but hardly a kingdom, rather a cantref or hundred. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But at the period mentioned (11th cent) it would have been part of Deheubarth surely. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Menevia suggests that the name Menevia / Mynyw covered a larger territory than the current town; the named diocese covers more than a third of the territory of Wales. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - but the content is then all wrong isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete looks like a hoax as the book (the supposed source) doesn't seem to exist according to Google Books anyway. Weak because I'm not as good at the book and scholar searches as many others on here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete and Comment the books exist and can be found at search terms, and covers v. 3. The reign of Harold and the interregnum which aligns with the pre-WtC dates, though vol.3 is unavailable. This sort of geographic area could be expected to appear in other encyclopaedia if real and such would get a mention in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. I cannot find such a mention in volume 19 Mun...-Old... - billinghurst (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't the book cited in the article, and there is no assertion in either the article or in this discussion that "Mwynyw" appears in the book you've identified. For kicks, I searched the volumes that the Internet Archive you looked at did return, and none of them have "Mwynyw" or "Mynyw" or "Menevia" or "Menepia". So we really still don't have a single valid reference to back up the assertions made in the article! I'm thinking that if the author of the article got so confused on which work he was citing, he might equally as well have conflated unrelated pieces of information into his article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whether this is a hoax or not, it seems confused and difficult to reference. Possible redirect candidate to St David's, which is where Mynyw currently redire ts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but in the abscence of any ghits for this spelling, it doesn't seem necessary. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but in the abscence of any ghits for this spelling, it doesn't seem necessary. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can assure you that Mynyw (but not "Mwynyw"!) is indeed the Welsh form of the Latin name Menevia, meaning Saint David's (Tyddewi) and usually used to refer to the bishopric, but the "article" itself is the purest bulls**t. Seems no point in redirecting the hoaxer's obvious typo either. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, seeing the above discussion after adding my comment, I thought I should add that Mynyw is also the name for the cwmwd in which the city of St David's stands, in the cantref of Pebidiog, but it was never a kingdom or sub-kingdom or anyhting remotely like a realm ever. The "article" is pure nonsense and should be deleted. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the person who created this hoax has also been up to other tricks. He seems to take a valid reference picked up on the web (allowin for his typo here) and then writes a load of nonsense with a veneer of historicity in the opening paragraph. I've just edited Mynyddawg Mwynfawr (genuine character) which was full of patent rubbish (see here for the original!). I'm going to check out what else he's been up to, but it's late in the day for me: anybody else feel like doing so as well? Suggest a strong warning shot across the bows at least (personally I'd ban him, but I'm not an admin here). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He/she would also appear to have the sockpuppet Omegazim. Not sure if this is the best place to put this, but if anybody here is an admin could they please check this out and do something about it? I suspect leads to other incarnations of this serial hoaxer/joker could be found. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the person who created this hoax has also been up to other tricks. He seems to take a valid reference picked up on the web (allowin for his typo here) and then writes a load of nonsense with a veneer of historicity in the opening paragraph. I've just edited Mynyddawg Mwynfawr (genuine character) which was full of patent rubbish (see here for the original!). I'm going to check out what else he's been up to, but it's late in the day for me: anybody else feel like doing so as well? Suggest a strong warning shot across the bows at least (personally I'd ban him, but I'm not an admin here). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete whether or not it's a hoax; it fails WP:V. Based on the comments above from people who know a lot more about medieval Wales than me, there's no way we can write an article on this subject. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ted Prior (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
either a very marginally notable actor or a hoax but either way it has huge verifiability problems and no coverage in reliable 3rd party sourcing that I've found Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A non-notable actor and the article has no reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article doesn't comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to BBC News. Stifle (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC News (8pm summary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is not sufficiently notable on it's own - should just be breifly mentioned in BBC News. User is creating a lot of obsolete pages recently - I thought I'd caught the majority of them in a recent purge, but this one seems to have slipped the net - for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Weekend News. TalkIslander 13:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable enough on its own. Merge or redirect to BBC News as appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the main BBC News. There's no indication that a brief news summary is independently notable from its parent program. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect: Similar to the Weekend News article. Article currently is not notable outside of the broader framework. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 14:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to BBC News as not being notable on its own. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The article is a good one though, and should be merged almost in its entirety.--MrFishGo Fish 03:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the programme is brief, but that has nothing to do with its notability. A news programme on the BBC seems very likely to be notable, and the article seems to confirm that. Everyking (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this isn't a programme though, that's the point. It's 90 seconds of continuity in which they summarise the day's news. It warrents no more than a mention in the parent article. TalkIslander 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to BBC News. A merge of the key points can be made without unbalancing the target page. Smile a While (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mrh30 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bebe Bryans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to not satisfy notability criteria. A few simple Google searches don't turn up any evidence to support the claims made. Mrh30 (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (See my comment below)
Weak Delete- AS IS, the article fails because of the inclusion of all the extraneous and unsourced material (movie star, cattle dogs, etc.). However, after repairing the link to her bio at the University of Wisconsin, I found that Bryans may have significant coaching experience at the international level. I am not certain whether there is enough there to put her over the top on WP:BIO criteria, but the article would need to be gutted and rewritten emphasizing only her professional career. For the moment, though, it's an obvious no-go. — CactusWriter | needles 13:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm unsure about it - hence why I want to get some more opinions. It's clearly been vandalised at the moment, but she's borderline anyway for inclusion. Mrh30 (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am striking my previous delete. The apparent problems in the article were caused by previous vandalism, which has now been removed. I've also added information with references which shows Bryans as a significant coach in the sport of rowing with success at both national and international levels. She passes notability for WP:ATHLETE. — CactusWriter | needles 14:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seeing the result of your edits, I'm inclined to agree. Good job cleaning the article up and saving it from the bin! Mrh30 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for mentioning that vandalism - I should have realized there was an initial problem there. Perhaps you want to simply withdraw your nomination here. That way we can close the afd discussion. — CactusWriter | needles 14:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. but I will add an unreferenced tag to the article which may get renominated if sources are not added after a reasonable time. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2002 Mountain West Football Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All that's here are season statistics with no sources, reliable or otherwise, in sight. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I keep receiving mixed signals. "Yes, you can make an article based off a team's season." "Yes, you can make an article based off a conference season." But then.. NO!! Time for an AFD. All that work, right down the shitter in an instant. I had a project lined up to improve a conference's articles (won't name it since you'll nominate everything for deletion). That project will never get off the ground, because all it takes is one administrator to say, "Nope, I think conference and season articles suck," and hundreds of hours will be wiped out in an instant. SashaNein (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. I'm taking a normal editorial action here — one admin can't delete an article unilaterally unless the criteria for speedy deletion are met. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Necessary, useful information in need of CLEANUP to add references that most certainly exist. I want to do it, but confidence that the article will remain after 2 years is zero. It's so much easier to delete than it is to create, after all. SashaNein (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURDEN states that it is for those who want content to be included to provide sources and references. If you can show them, I'll be able to review my nomination. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom. RS. V. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending the addition of references. This is an extremely notable subject with quite literally tens of thousands of references available, and all that's needed is the time to add them to the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're so sure that the refs exist, let's see them. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete (or listify) I tend agree with the nom. Personaly I don't consider this type of info to be importat at all, but I'm a fairly "anti-sports" kind of guy (way too much sports coverage in society at large IMHO), so that's my bias. Most of these "club in season X" articles that are nothing but a list of scores, maybe a team lineup and maybe some unsourced "blow by blow" commentary sprinkled in, of wich this is a perfect example (minus the commentary). A better overall solution would IMHO be to consoludate these things to one list per division/league/whatever (split by year only if it would get exessively long otehrwise). Any notable "non-statistics" information should go into the main article for the club and/or player in question. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is never a good argument, but this discussion could easily apply to probably thousands of other articles as well, so maybe an RFC on this class of articles woudl be something to consider... --Sherool (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree, Sherool. Though this article isn't a particularly good example, there are several featured single-season articles floating around out there. If this article is deleted, it should in no way be considered precedent-setting. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An article about a Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (the highest level of the NCAA) season. I have a feeling this article would not be nominated if it was about the Big Ten Conference. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I can tell the article about the division (or conference or whatever) itself is Mountain West Conference and it's not up for deletion. The article in question here is just a a data dump for results for the 2002 season. I think we should focus on writing ensyclopedic articles about the main subjects and let ESPN.com and simmilar sites deal with the statistics mongering that is only interesting to hardcore fans in the first place. --Sherool (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This AFD discussion has been canvassed at the College Football WikiProject. I request that the closing admin take this into account and that any users contributing to this AFD in response to that message identify that they are doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FWIW, I don't believe what SashaNein did at WT:CFB#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2F2002_Mountain_West_Football_Season is considered inappropriate WP:CANVASSing. It was a neutrally-worded post, serving only to notify people of this discussion. I equate it to deletion sorting. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was a neutrally worded post, which is clearly allowed. WP:CFB has an archaic deletion sorting method, unlike other projects like WP:VG and WP:BASEBALL. An administrator that doesn't know what is and what is not CANVASSING and starts making sweeping, baseless accusations to gain an unfair advantage in an AFD just because things are not going his way should not be an administrator at all. I request the closing administrator to have the common sense to understand WP:CANVASS. SashaNein (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a D1 football conference. Every one of its seasons should be notable by default. It doesn't matter if you like sports or not, hundreds of thousands, if not millions followed this football season. Would it be better if there was a nice writeup about the season? Sure. If it were the ACC I'd take a crack at it but I don't know much about the MWC. However, it's far more likely that someone with a better understanding of the MWC will come along and contribute to and improve a bland article than it is that same person might create a whole new article. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Melissa Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Twice previously deleted (see box), article has been recently recreated.
I'd have speedied it, but for two possibly significant additions:
1) Single released on itunes - I don't find this persuasive of notability 2) Claims of lead role in forthcoming film - referenced to (http://commandperformance-themovie.com/cast.html) but WP:CRYSTAL concerns Dweller (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep - She has had a continuing presence in the "reality" music programming of late and made it as high as the semi-finals in at least one of the shows noted in her entry. It would seem appropriate, given the weight and depth of information provided on the actress/singer, that she be kept. While an individual area of notability may not be upheld, across the board, she would appear to be broadly known for her constant reappearance (which might do well in some outside-of-wikipedia critique of the reality programming "casts").--eleuthero (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor stuff on reality tv and fails WP:MUSIC. Has little value other than promotion. We66er (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep Per eleuthero's reasoning. I tend to agree that minor notability can be established when considering everything even if it does not exist in any field per itself. SoWhy 10:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I agree that there is a class of person who is/becomes "famous for being famous". I'd be persuaded on this if there were any RS verification. Currently, there isn't. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has appeared on several reality shows, had several TV/film appearances and has a lead role in an upcoming movie whilst also releasing a single on iTunes. She has enough actress credits to have a page and I don't see no reason for a deletion. --Xxultimatefanxx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Good to have the creator here. Noone disputes that she has appeared on several reality programmes and that she is slated to be in a future movie. However, Wikipedia convention is that most reality contestants are not notable, other than winners and people like Nasty Nick who find a broader notability outside the confines of the show itself. Similarly, WP:CRYSTAL means that until the film is on major release, we don't consider that notability either. How many planned films never make it? Those are reasons for deletion. A reason for keeping would be if she were the subject of multiple non-trivial references in independent reliable sources. The article currently has none. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but the film has been filmed and has an official site with plenty of information which highlights that Melissa Smith is a lead in the film. She just doesn't isn't the usual reality TV show contestant who has a few reality show appearances, she has a TV background and some film background too. I would agree with you if all she had appeared in was the reality TV shows but she has done more professional work outside of them - music videos, TV shows, independent films, her debut single, TV & web appearances too. --Xxultimatefanxx (talk)
- As soon as the film is released, she'll be notable. Until then WP:CRYSTAL applies. --Dweller (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- African_people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
Reason...this page was created a couple of years ago. Immediately somebody queried the relevancy of it, pointing out the POV nature, and factual inaccuracies. "Citation needed"/"unsourced" tags were placed. Now some time later the article remains unsourced, and is still full of POV points. There was also a tag that stated something to the effect that it reads like a school essay, which was removed without any real rhyme or reason. The best reason however would be for editors to read the article in question, making note of how long the "unsourced" tag has sat there. Dr Rgne (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, deletion is not a substitute for improvement in cases like this. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're asked to "make note of how long the 'unsourced' tag has sat there". It appears that sources have been added since December 2006, but that nobody has removed the "unsourced" tag since December 2006. I agree with nominator that much of this seems to be a rambling, disorganized essay that addresses a lot of different topics incoherently; I agree with Stifle that this is a topic that can be improved. I'll have to say that the title "African people" took me by surprise, but we also have articles entitled European people and Asian people, White people, Black people, even Green people. To me, all three titles seem too simplistic, but in some cases, a generic term is a better place for most redirects. (Green people actually is a redirect). Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've done some editing to the lead and the prehistoric population bits; I think that's the largest problem at the moment (covering stuff like haplogroups, race generally, etc). I don't have the context or materials to make that section awesome-great, but it's a start. 127.0.0.1:80 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article is at the very least a decent foundation, and the topic is clearly notable, with several sources already dealing chiefly with the African people. Everything else is salvageable by editing. Huon (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important worldwide topic, though all information does need sourcing. But this does not appear to be a POV fork, rather a simple way to describe a broad group. Sebwite (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ISouljaBoyTellEm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced claims, WP:CRYSTAL Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 21:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator, WP:CRYSTAL is a valid assessment. JBsupreme (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Albums. Even if it was released, it would still fail notability for lacking "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums (and WP:V). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, fails the albums guideline for WP:MUSIC plus crystal ball issues. RFerreira (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails per the above discussions. No verifiable information or sources, WP:CRYSTAL. SchfiftyThree 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Added a few references. Still in dire need of them, though. --EoL talk 01:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I believe this has been deleted before. See WP:Articles for deletion/ISouljaBoy(album) and others. Warrants a G4? TN‑X-Man 14:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have tagged this as G4, recreation of AfD material. If others would please review, that would be great. Thanks! TN‑X-Man 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of The Simpsons trilogy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is just a listing of loosely related episodes of The Simpsons. Why not a list of Christmas episodes or list of Sideshow Bob episodes? Now, I know some will point to the List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, which I did create. However, this is completely different. The THOH series is a long established tradition of clearly defined episodes that air annually and have even inspired an off-shoot of Simpsons merchandise. The trilogy episodes, however, are nothing like that and the inclusion of at least one (Trilogy of Error) is arguable. -- Scorpion0422 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. TheLeftorium 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the loosely related episodes Gary King (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. I'm not a keepin' hobo, I'm a deletin' hobo! Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some trilogys aren't that notable enough for a second list. Better off as a template or category. Martarius (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that this is unsourced and not notable, with the coverage at the time failing WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert holohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article is about a murder victim, who is notable for one event only. If there was an article about the case, it could be redirected there, but I don't think an article exists. TN‑X-Man 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to
Murder of Robert HolohanDeath of Robert Holohan. --Eastmain (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- If it wasn't legally a murder, then Death of Robert Holohan or Asphyxiation death of Robert Holohan. If the death is notable, then the article shouldn't be deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been moved to Death of Robert Holohan, so discussion can now focus on whether the death is notable, rather than the victim. --Eastmain (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is a disaster. For one, the accused has already been released after serving three years for manslaughter. The article's unsourced at present. It strikes me as a case of BLP1E, as pointed out above, and while the case received a substantial amount of media coverage, the question here is whether it's notable enough to be an encyclopedia article. I suggest no. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or slight possibility of merge) - If anything, there should be an article about either the murder itself or the murderer. Definitely fails WP:BLP1E. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing vote because of move. May re-vote later, even if poles are evil. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no longer a BLP issue thanks to the move but there's still no evidence the death is a notable one. I'm still looking for sources. TravellingCari 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not only completely unsourced, but fails WP:BLP horrendously. No-one convicted of murder, but article has sub-heading "The murder". Nothing to show that it was a notable event. news coverage in a certain area for a limited amount of time isn't notability enough.Yobmod (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, per Rtphokie's withdrawl. - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WERW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
unlicensed college radio station., no indication of notability. I'm not finding references where this station is the subject outside of the campus newspaper. Rtphokie (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: Radio Station articles, be them AM, FM, HD, Low Power, Middlewave, Shortwave, or Carrier Current are inherently (sp?) notable, hence this one is as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While most unlicensed campus AM stations of this sort are not notable, this one serves a relatively large population and the station has garnered at least some significant coverage from independent reliable sources, including the Syracuse Post-Standard as well as the campus newspaper. I've added a couple of SPS references to the article and listed a few relevant Orange articles on the station's talk page. - Dravecky (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Rtphokie points out that the station is mentioned in the campus paper. We should consider Wikipedia's own entry about The Daily Orange, which notes that the paper is independent of Syracuse University. The newspaper has a long legacy of independent journalism (without university funding) done by students in one of the top journalism schools in the country, the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communication. Since the Daily Orange sells advertising and functions as its own entity, it doesn't seem any different than many, many sources used as "acceptable" citations on Wikipedia. Radioh (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's not unusual for media (radio, TV, newspaper, etc) serving a university to be organized behind a corporation of some sort that is seperate from the university, but that media still primarily serves the university and not much beyond. The purpose of the independence serves both the newspaper or radio station (by limiting the day to day control the university has over the campus media) as well as the university (by providing some insulation from libel suits). Without some history of FCC license, we'll need some significant coverage that the station is notable outside of the campus. Daverecky's find of articles in the Syracuse Post-Standard is helpful but more would help make the case for notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is noted in the article that WERW is heard well outside of the university grounds and throughout the City of Syracuse. How far it is heard, that is unsure...as we don't have a coverage map for WERW, but to say that is serves the "university and not much beyond" isn't a completely true statement. - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:There are approximately 20,000 people on Syracuse University's campus every day. If we're going to delete the WERW page based on the logic that the Daily Orange isn't a credible source because it doesn't provide coverage of much beyond campus, then you should delete the Daily Orange page, too. And while we're at it, let's delete every Wikipedia page about small town newspapers in communities with fewer than 20,000 people. Those papers don't cover much beyond their towns' borders, so they must not be worthy of citation. And without the citations from those papers, we'll probably have to delete some of the small towns' Wikipedia pages, too. By the way, did anyone note that there were "legal battles" involved in the Daily Orange seperating from the university? Doesn't sound like everyone involved believed seperation was going to be "serving both" to make that move.Radioh (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's not unusual for media (radio, TV, newspaper, etc) serving a university to be organized behind a corporation of some sort that is seperate from the university, but that media still primarily serves the university and not much beyond. The purpose of the independence serves both the newspaper or radio station (by limiting the day to day control the university has over the campus media) as well as the university (by providing some insulation from libel suits). Without some history of FCC license, we'll need some significant coverage that the station is notable outside of the campus. Daverecky's find of articles in the Syracuse Post-Standard is helpful but more would help make the case for notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Dravecky has updated the article (thanks!) with good references from the local newspaper (with 100k+ circulation). This coverage indicates that the station is of interest outside the campus.
- 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. Passes WP:N for me, at least for his earlier work. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 19:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dmitry Galkovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The first AFD of this article ended up in a hopeless trainwreck after a wave of socks and SPAs posted comments; some were blocked, some had their comments struck, but there was no way to distill a consensus. No opinion from me for now. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting (although comments of unregistered and very new users are often given less weight), but it's important for the closing administrator to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. |
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to pass the notability bar based upon awards received (the Russian Booker Prize) and the fact his works are referenced in at least one professionally published third-party work, New Realism, New Barbarism (available via Google Books here). 23skidoo (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the arguments at the last afd. Ostap 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He has been published in English (see above comment), and he has been covered in the Russian-language multiple times. See editorial in The View (Vzglyad) ("Дмитрий Галковский: Березовский – между Азефом и Парвусом") and an interview with leading opposition radio station Moscow Echo (Ekho Moskvy) (Radio segment). He is also considered a key figure in contemporary postmodernism in Russia, in the English-language publications, and in a 2007 PhD thesis "From Aleshkovsky to Galkovsky : the praise of folly in Russian prose since the 1960s" (requires OCLC access). There's room for improvement, but this is a good start on a real, notable figure. Cross-translation from the Russian wikipedia could also help this article. Avram (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Galkovsky is notable as a writer short biography by Mikhail Epstein and winner of Anti-Booker literary prize [27], as a journalist (his political commentary is quoted by (Boris Kagarlitsky), George N. Katsiaficas, Vladimir David Shkolnikov) and as a blogger (his blog is in the top 100 of Russian blogs). His work is treated by Oxford research fellow Oliver Ready in his From Aleshkovsky to Galkovsky: The Praise of Folly in Russian Prose Since the 1960s. Oliver Ready, Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages and Literature, Division of Humanities. 2007. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but cleanup is required. This is an article on a living person and yet is quite extensive despite a significant dearth of reliable sources. That said, he does seem important enough to merit an article, thanks to the critical analysis of his work and this Antibooker prize. Mangojuicetalk 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Galkovsky was notable as an important and controversial author, long before he became a scandal-mongering journalist and a navel-gazing blogger. Here is a result of a Google book search that yields, inter alia, significant references such as a treatment in a comprehensive compendium of contemporary Russian literature by Sergei Chuprinin; a "metaphysical" analysis by well-known literary scholar Mikhail Epstein; another exegetical treatment by first-rate critic Aleksandr Genis; a political reference by famous historian Roy Medvedev; another political reference by prominent socialist thinker Boris Kagarlitsky; an extended treatment in a Dictionary of XXth Century Culture by Vadim Rudnev; and an entry of the title of Galkovsky's magnum opus in the definitive Dictionary of Quotations from Russian Literature by Konstantin Dushenko. Larvatus (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)larvatus[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. Though the voters were not unanimous, the article was greatly improved during the debate and seems to address many of the objections raised in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BeatThatQuote.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertising, not notable, and mostly written by the company themselves. (Please see my own talk page for my potential COI reagrding this article) Jasonfward (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete it does look a lot like spam for a company/website/whatever which doesn't have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. It fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. I should point out though that the nom's COI thing seems to be at the article talkpage and not his usertalk. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the incredible number of {{fact}} tags on that page humorous. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep contingent on sourcing If any of those awards can be sourced (considering they're tagged with {{fact}} they're questionable). It seems pretty likely they're notable, but just lacking sourcing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suspect those awards are real, but when I thought about it, they don't in themselves amount to noteability, the awards (the overall awards ceremony etc) may not even be noteable. In fact I just awarded you the "Most Splendid Chap" award in my "Jason fancies a good meal" awards ceremony. Jasonfward (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They may not be significant, but I think we need to find that out first. Also, thanks for the award. :-D —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suspect those awards are real, but when I thought about it, they don't in themselves amount to noteability, the awards (the overall awards ceremony etc) may not even be noteable. In fact I just awarded you the "Most Splendid Chap" award in my "Jason fancies a good meal" awards ceremony. Jasonfward (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep contingent on sourcing If any of those awards can be sourced (considering they're tagged with {{fact}} they're questionable). It seems pretty likely they're notable, but just lacking sourcing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jasynnash2, I should have said on my user page where I declare who my employers is, but yes I also mention it in the articles talk page Jasonfward (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. At least you declare it which is more than some people do on here. I just didn't want people jumping to the wrong conclusion if they went to your talkpage and didn't see what they may "expect to see".Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete artist and albums (which I've tagged). Fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, how did that end up on the wrong afd? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You were obviously in the wrong queue...it happens to the best of us. And while I am here: Delete -- as per Jasynnash2's cogent comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Tidied up the article and found a few more references, most significantly a reasonably lengthy Financial Times profile of the company and its founder. It just about satisifes WP:N now in my book. Gr1st (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sourcing that has been added to the article establishes notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nominator Withdrew and if the nom didn't withdraw, it still would have been per WP:SNOW. NAC.Schuym1 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Piggie Pie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not notable children's book, reads like an advert too UltraMagnus (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment: I added two reviews so how is it non-notable? I was not trying to write an advertisement. How is it written like an advertisement? Schuym1 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This stub has two references linked to book reviews. The content seems more then appropriate for a stub article on a book. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as the book has been at least twice listed in the [National Education Association]]'s top 100 list for children's books and has won many awards. Notability has been established and sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I was not sure of the books notability when I originally nominated this article, however with the new sources it now appears notable. ;) --UltraMagnus (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was retitle with redirects. Not a conventional close, but it seems here that something happened, and has enough sources to be in wikipedia. The two BIO articles, by consensus, should be merged together under a new title, as suggested first by User:GoldDragon. Keeper ǀ 76 17:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- John Magno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Adrian Roks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Two WP:ONEVENT biographies for alleged co-conspirators in a fatal arson in Toronto, Ontario. One is convicted, the other is awaiting trial. This is a tragic but non-notable crime. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest merging both into one article. The new title could be Woodbine Building Supply Fire. GoldDragon (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Gene93k, and move relevant content from both articles into one about the event, as suggested by GoldDragon. JNW (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we do that, we'll need to keep these titles as redirects to the new article rather than deleting them per se. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can go along with the merge to new article about the event as suggested by GoldDragon. The new article would, however, need to maintain the author history of the two articles for GFDL purposes so I suggest that changing them into redirects would be easy, cheap, and possibly useful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline merge into an article on the event. I'd say the event itself is borderline notable, so wouldn't be hugely opposed to deletion, but I don't see much wrong with keeping it either, since it can be reasonably well referenced. The people by themselves only seem notable for their connection with this one event, so should redirect. --Delirium (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An article about the event might be valid. I strongly suspect it's of much too local interest to really pass muster, but I'm willing to withhold judgement until I see what kind of effort, if any, somebody is or isn't prepared to put into it. As WP:BLP1E topics with very little notability otherwise, Magno and Roks should exist only as redirects to such an article if one exists, and not at all if one doesn't. Merge into an article about the event if someone's willing and able to write one that passes WP:N, but delete if that can't or doesn't happen. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NanoInk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I found this with a WP:PROD tag on it but the nominator said on the talk page that he/she wanted to discuss deletion, so I've changed it to an AfD. The concern on the prod tag was "Reads as a long press release. Tagged as such for more than a year, with little improvement." I have no opinion of my own as yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I found external links such as this one [28] which seem to establish some notability for this operation. The nominated article is in dire need of a re-write to remove the hideous levels of ad-speak. X Marx the Spot (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Amongst all of the regurgitated press releases a Google News archive search finds significant coverage in reliable sources such as [29][30][31][32][33]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, per stronger arguments. Keeper ǀ 76 17:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam J. Yeend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reason for article according to Wikipedia:Noteriety
- This AfD was incorrectly created. Nomination is by User:Colourinthemeaning. For the record, I'm staying neutral. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 10:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appeareances in popular mainstream Australian TV shows such as All Saints implies notability, methinks. X Marx the Spot (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while he has appeared in notable television programmes, he hasn't appeared in notable parts on those programmes. According to IMDB, his contribution to "All Saints" was one episode where he played an unnamed "Vietnam Soldier". Other roles appear similarly minor. Would not appear to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- KEEP, This actor has a lead role in an upcoming Australian feature film. His contribution to All Saints is included in the production listings of the series having been in two episodes as "Vietnam Soldier" and is also listed to appear in the series again later in 2008. This actor also appeared in more than one episode of HeadLand in 2005 and his short film credits have had screenings at festivals all around the world; one even received an Academy Award Nomination according to IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.150.119 (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm the author of this article. He may not be a famous actor but he and his credits are credible/notable within the industry it would seem. Boys Grammar was reported on A Current Affair here in Australia, he's received credible reviews for his theatre work and the above poster is right, his rapist Vietnam Soldier character was in more than one episode of All Saints, I saw it. Just because a character is unnamed does not necessarily question the validity of the part as being 'notable'. He's also listed as having had several lead roles in his productions as well as a lead in a feature film. --Spa1980 (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough here to suggest he meets the relevant criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER, being "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." The Vietnam Soldier character doesn't seem "significant". Regarding other appearances, the notability of the film or TV show is only half the story - he needs to have had enough significant roles in them. Purported upcoming lead roles in feature films may change the story, but mean nothing in terms of his current notability for which I think he falls short. Murtoa (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think by Australian standards he fits the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER, having hard lead roles in various stage productions in Sydney as well as having two re-occurring characters on a TV series. Additionally, it looks like he's had lead roles in all his short film productions as well as a lead role in 'Offing David'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.150.119 (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Striking keep - user already posted saying to keep above. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're not judging by "Australian" standards. It seems he's had a combination of small roles in notable productions and bigger roles in non-notable productions. Neither qualifies. Murtoa (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Nice job finding the sources. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everybody's Baby: The Rescue of Jessica McClure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show this movie's notability on the first 11 pages of a Google Search, Movie Review Query Engine, and Rotten Tomatoes. Schuym1 (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Numerous reviews appear on a Google news search: [34]; 682 word review in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1,822 word review in the Miami Herald, Associated Press review, etc. Those are sufficient sources to meet WP:NF. I guess people just aren't really motivated to work on an article on a 19-year-old made-for-TV-movie, but we'll get there eventually. --Rividian (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed. No longer the same article after CJPargeter (talk · contribs)'s rewrite; just needs watching to keep the hoax info from creeping back. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 13:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Real Thing (Lisa Stansfield song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article by 5ivetv (talk · contribs) whose other articles are on AfD as hoaxes. This one was prodded, but the prod was removed by an IP, who also blind-undid every edit I've made to any article 5ivetv also edited. Hmmm. Anyway, a Google finds no sources other than speculation on a forum called "digitalspy". If anyone has other sources, please come forward, otherwise I say it's time to delete. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 08:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Speculation. Schuym1 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. The song meets the notability criteria at WP:MUSIC#Songs for reaching #9 on the UK singles chart as a Lisa Stansfield song. I believe the article, if kept, should be rewritten with the focus on the original version, with the current info under a notable covers section. Or something like that. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Have re-written the article as a stub, noting songwriters and sourcing the song's claim to UK top ten.CJPargeter (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuck Me USA (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable album of non-notable band. Band entry speedied under A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: An non-notable album by a non-notable band. Schuym1 (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a non-notable album by a non-notable red linked band. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. A red-linked band doesn't bode well for notability... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above: non-notable album. Cliff smith talk 18:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this needs to go along with the band. RFerreira (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard (warez) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is an instruction manual for pirating software and related 'standards.' The references are actually image files; screenshots from warez groups, but not good sources, IMHO. XF Law (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The reasons cited in the first nomination still hold. This is not an instruction manual, but rather a detailed description of the standards employed in warez distribution. To be honest, I think there's a lot to be learned from the article. It doesn't even promote warez distribution, so much as explain something. The odd source format is explained in the original discussion. For obvious reasons, there aren't publicly accessible sources to link to-- these are an ingenious recourse. Avram (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Informal standards set by unnamed committees with dubious authority to do so. Essentially original research, no reliable third party sources, ie it fails WP:V and I can't see it improving seeing as the article is several years old already. Equendil Talk 10:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not an instruction manual, simply guidelines to how material is packaged in this community. It's a great resource to law enforcement, security individuals and outside analysts. The 'scene' as a whole is a large group of unnamed committees, but they all work together to make a cohesive standard which, IMO, lends to its sense of notability. Since much of the discussion of this particular topic is made on private sites, the only public facing information is that within NFO files that are used as a source here. The article is used as an appendix-style resource to a number of other notable articles here, to keep them free of cruft. Rurik (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question This seems to be a fairly inclusive source of details for this article. Would this meet the requirements of citation? This is where most of the images came from: [35]. Be aware that this is not an easy decision. The rules are not set down and posted on a public forum. They're debated back and forth in the text files that accompany warez releases. It's a very unique system. Rurik (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, it's not an instruction manual, however, it is completely lacking in sources independant of the subject. The references in the article are to the standards themselves, I see no reliable sources that establish any of the points made in the article. I understand that the information in the article is essentially correct, but WP:OR often is - it still is improper for inclusion. Equendil has this right - it fails WP:V. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and comment - It occurs to me that if we allow an exception for RS at a certain threshold (which might be a Good Thing), sources could be provided. If sources do not exist, then delete; but I'm thinking this isn't really true. 99.149.172.83 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Zoo Records. The content's there for anyone interested in merging. Stifle (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lori And The Chameleons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was requested speedy, but let's settle this the right way, shall we? Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Zoo Records. While technically passing WP:MUSIC#C6, I can't find any good ref's to prove stand alone notability. As a side note, Lori and the Chameleons and Lori & The Chameleons already redirect to Zoo Records. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Was not anything more than a footnote in Big In Japan's history. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- They released some singles, few but the band wasn't very anonyme.
- Weak Keep - they were popular at the time in the scene. A few singles that sold well and a few worthy members. If the article can't be expanded with cites, I think it should be deleted down the road. daleki (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Avan Jogia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable actor. No coverage on the internet that I can find, except for the usual listings and IMDB stuff. His roles all look to be in relatively minor productions, or bit-parts, and I don't see how he would meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The actor has only been in minor roles. I seriously doubt that a minor actor would have coverage in reliable sources.Schuym1 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, minor roles, but it appears that he has gotten enough coverage to qualify. He also has more than one or two minor roles. A look at the ghits (2990 + 196 image hits) seems to push him just over the edge. It is borderline, but with a current actor, I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt and keep under these circumstances. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images don't show his notability. The article has to have reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Avan Jogia is a lead character (Ben Stark)a regular cast member on the Battle Star Galactica spin off pilot Caprira and none of the roles listed are minor they are all consider lead or supporting please check His IMDB to confrirm. He has consistently listed under 15,000 that's #1 being Johnny Depp, Megan Fox, Zac Efron ect. This subject has already come up last year on Wiki how and if you check that discussion. it was concluded that Avan is a person of note. also cross check Battle Star Wiki as he is also posted there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.157.97 (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per this search. I believe notability can be shown and the article improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Just did a cleanup of the article, adding cites and a few nice links. I think his notability just squeeks by. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote Changed to Keep: per sources found. Schuym1 (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Burragubba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Removed prod, think I should take this one to the people. This article features a wholly non-notable charlatan. Any of his "albums" are furthermore not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia general. I have no idea who this guy is, and more importantly, I don't want to know. Delete. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, secondary coverage exists, in which he is referred to as "A world renowned busker". Also participated in a hunger strike which got press coverage. Meets WP:N easily. In addition, I do not believe that comments like "I have no idea who this guy is, and more importantly, I don't want to know" are helpful. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but this needs some serious clean-up to make it not read like pure promo material. The hunger strike and 3rd-party converage should get in there. Also, should be merged with Adrian Burragubba, which is inexplicably a separate article. Avram (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article is currently undergoing a minor edit war, in which a single user is trying to limit the scope of the article to the artist's musical career and exclude sourced information on his political career. Note that articles like this are kept in Wikipedia specifically because they try to include all notable and verifiable aspects of a person's life and career, and they will not act merely as mirrors of publicity material available on other sites. Avram (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This proposal, and its contempt for Australian Aboriginal people, is unacceptable. The subject is clearly notable and clearly not a charlatan. I agree with Lankiveil about the rest of the nomination. Before nominating a bio for deletion, one should make an serious effort to find out who the subject is. The material in Adrian Burragubba should be merged in, although there seems to be little that is new, and that article made into a redirect. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient secondary sources exist to establish notability. I too am concerned at the terms used in the nomination; refer WP:CIVIL Murtoa (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to pass WP:N test. As stated above Burragubba needs to merge with Adrian Burragubba.--Takver (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sources confirm notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT are not grounds for deletion. Huon (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Page has been edited. We are wondering who Bilodeauzx is, and if he is an expert on Aboriginal performers. Adrian Burragubba has been publicly performing for over 20 years and is personally known by every notable didgeridoo player (meaning Aboriginal) in Australia and is now recognised as an elder in Brisbane. If you have a problem with authenticity please email info@burragubba.com Itwasagoodyear (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator's rationale is based off WP:IDONTKNOWIT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Thank you to Lankiviel for locating the secondary sources, which I added to the article yesterday. There is sufficient coverage of Burragubba (mostly for his politics) to narrowly meet the biography notability criteria - the school page is a little weak but the ABC and AAP stories are genuine secondary sources. I appreciate these weren't in the article at the time of the AfD nomination, and trust the nominator's concern is now addressed. Euryalus (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep this nom seems to have been made in bad faith. X Marx the Spot (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Line of succession to the Choctaw throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-sourced, non-notable, original research, merger discussion into Choctaw resulted in a consensus to delete this article. Since this was deprodded, I'm sending it to AfD in hopes that notability, original research, and lack-of-source issues will be quickly resolved. If they aren't, I strongly recommend deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I am the nominator. Will consider changing if reasons for nomination go away. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no evidence given that the living people mentioned are in the line of succession. The Choctaws' own website is not even cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my comments at Talk:Line of succession to the Choctaw throne. -- Jao (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This is silly, and looks to me like a practical joke or a hoax. There is no evidence of a "Choctaw throne" or that the principal chief of the Choctaw tribe was a hereditary title that had a line of succession. Like other Western Hemisphere nations, they elected their chiefs. Maybe the Whitener kids are descendants of Thomas Leflore, who served as a chief of a district until someone else was elected to succeed him. One might as well do a list of heirs to George Washington and call it the line of succession to the American throne. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Mandsford. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The primary editor of this article is known for disappearing for over a week at a time. He does not have email and may not be aware of this AfD until after it closes. He is aware of the notability and original research issues though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been mentioned on Talk:Choctaw. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of successive Choctaw "royalty" in my printed sources. The word king does show up in Gideon Lincecum's Traditional History of the Chahtas which is not referenced as a successive royalty but rather a chief/leader.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfergusonjr (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 September 2008
- 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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Danny Augustine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
self-written vanity article, thousands of nn artists are featured somewhere, if he was notable, someone else would have written it Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non notable, vanity, possible hoax, etc. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, despite the absurd arguments given above. Young artist who is just not notable yet. There are large numbers of important artists who have no articles here, but he isn't one of them. This version (including copyvio from his website) gives his best shot. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment to johnbod-and if those large numbers write their own articles on here, that also makes them vanity and worth suspicion. Whatever you're slinging absurd at can't be that absurd after all. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly is absurd (as is the hoax allegation below it). According to you, it seems no new artist articles should be allowed - if they were notable "someone else would have written it"! Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note per WP:Afd#How to discuss an AfD: The accusation VANITY should be avoided [36], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Ty 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly is absurd (as is the hoax allegation below it). According to you, it seems no new artist articles should be allowed - if they were notable "someone else would have written it"! Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a hoax but still not notable. A COI biography that fails WP:CREATIVE. The one independent reference that did check out was for a state/local art prize. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly not notable.--Shelly No (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
per nom....per Johnbod (talk · contribs).... Modernist (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elevator effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
original research. Bilodeauzx (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with the original research, plus you can get motion sickness from... well any continual motion. If anyone can show that this is a term thats actually commonly used, then I may change my mind, otherwise this can go. Boccobrock•T 04:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if it is a notable expression the most it would merit is a mention in Motion sickness. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 06:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research and otherwise no reason for a fork of motion sickness. Equendil Talk 10:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I actually do get motion sickness from elevators with the same effect described in this very short stub of an article. However, it's unsourced and I very much doubt it to be a recognized medical condition. The fact that elevators can cause motion sickness could be mentioned in the article on motion sickness, but the phenomenon doesn't deserve its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mai Pen Rai (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless references are provided, in which case we might discuss merging into motion sickness. GregorB (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of post hardcore bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A similarly-named article (List of post-hardcore bands) was sent to AfD about a year ago and deleted due to concerns that the list was supported only by original research, as well as it being redundant due to the creation of Category:Post-hardcore groups. As this list stands now, it's an absolute joke, started by a user with very clear POV issues towards the genre. TheLetterM (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, genre lists like this are breeding grounds for POV, particularly for nebulous genres like post-hardcore. Nothing in this list that the equivalent category does not also accomplish. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, I agree with the nomination. JIP | Talk 06:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Armopride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is this true or is it a hoax? Largo Plazo (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'll go with "little-used neologism", actually. Negligible use of the term on Google, and a lot of that usage doesn't seem to be obviously connected with Armenia. Not verifiable, I'd say. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Eradicate as patent nonsense (CSD G1), as something made up one day, as a non notable neologism, as a dicdef, and because of verifiability issues. Equendil Talk 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 10m/6m Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a ham radio hobbyist group. Their article indicates that they don't have any officers and their website says the group has 131 members. I don't see any way the group meets our notability guideline for organizations. chaser - t 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:ORG. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a group of this size and level of organisation, and without any secondary coverage that I can find, would not appear to meet the WP:ORG notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Retain,Meets the following =Notability (organizations and companies):
"Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including, but not limited to, charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc."
"Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Djdubuque (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while it probably is an organization, it's not notable. No reliable sources, none found via Google. Huon (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and not because it is small, but because there are no sources confirming notability.Yobmod (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AfDs for articles about this person
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Walker (1st nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Walker (2nd nomination)
- Deletion review
- Articles for deletion/Martin J. Walker (3rd nomination)
The result was delete. No significant coverage in RS. Black Kite 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin J. Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article on this subject has already been deleted due to non-notability: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Walker_(2nd_nomination) which turned out near unanamous approval for deletion. It appears possible that the author of this article user:Sam Weller was aware that the subject's previous article has been deleted, as, when his notibility was questioned, directed the user in question to the no-consensus result of Walker's first notability nomination. Subject fails on virtually all notability criteria on authors or activists: has not had work published in any peer-review, mainstream or credible publications. Vast majority of publications and publishing houses on article's Bibliography return nothing on Google search. All verifiable output appears to be in the form of self-published pdf files and pamphlets. Mainstream coverage appears to be limited to a couple of brief mentions in a couple of journals and alternative magazines, and even that's assuming that the inadequate references in the article in question are accurate. Google search for Martin J. Walker returns only 941 hits. Further arguments for and against can be found at both deletion nominations listed above.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article was re-created as a result of this deletion review. Polemarchus (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Review states: Recreation based on reliable sources and with attention to NPOV allowed. Just to clarify, that means that it may be receated given certain pre-conditions, not that it ought to be. Can see no evidence of requisite reliable sources.FrFintonStack (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Have you followed the convention of notifiying the editors who have worked on that article? Sam Weller (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Review states: Recreation based on reliable sources and with attention to NPOV allowed. Just to clarify, that means that it may be receated given certain pre-conditions, not that it ought to be. Can see no evidence of requisite reliable sources.FrFintonStack (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Unless someone can show that Walker has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Polemarchus (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain Some degree of mainstream acceptance--or at least tolerance-- is shown by the articles in mainstream journals, including multiple ones in MIT's The Ecologist--not all of them cited in the article, but se WorldCat. His books were published without the middle initial, which makes hem harder to identify, but a check shows done with any large number of library holdings. DGG (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure I understand your point, DGG. The issue here is notability, not acceptability. Tens of thousands of British people have published articles in mainstream journals but they're not all notable. The question is whether reliable, published sources consider Walker to be notable enough to write about. The evidence I've seen suggests they don't. (Also, just to clarify, The Ecologist is distributed in North America by the MIT Press but it's not an academic journal, and it's certainly not "MIT's The Ecologist". It's a fringe magazine and its writers are not generally notable.) Polemarchus (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we were to extend notability to everyone who has had an article published in a magazine or a journal, we would include virtually every academic and journalist in existence, as well as literally millions of private individuals working in other fields, myself included.FrFintonStack (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The deletion proposal fails to substantiate non-notability in any respect. Walker's books from mainstream publishers such as Sidgwick, Fontana and Canary Press are fully referenced in the bibliography, and reviews from serious independent sources are highlighted in the article itself. His graphic works are included in several national and international collections, again fully referenced. So in what way are the references 'inadequate'? As for my recreation of the originally deleted article, the discussion on my talk page makes clear there is no secret that I initiated the deletion review, and why. I have no confidence in a deletion proposal that so ignorantly or mischievously omits these points. Sam Weller (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's everyone assume good faith and try to stay on topic here. The article was clearly created in good faith and nominated for deletion in good faith, the only question is whether Walker is notable.
- Sam, it's absurd to ask people to provide evidence of non-notability. It's up to the person asserting notability to provide evidence. Nobody's disputing the fact that Walker has published books, articles and art, but that's not, in itself, evidence of notability. As I said, tens of thousands of British people have published that kind of stuff, and we're not gonna have Wikipedia articles about them all. Book reviews are not ordinarily evidence of notability either: non-notable books are reviewed all the time. The rule of thumb is that a person is notable if they've received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.
- If you want this article to be kept, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and explain why Walker is more notable than the millions of other writers and activists out there. (The simplest way to do this would be by pointing us to a reliable source that talks about how notable he is.) Polemarchus (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK Polemarchus, first the simple way. Check my talk page for why I got a deletion review when another WP article states Walker is notable. [37]
- Second, using the rulebook. [38]
- "Basic criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"
- The article already contains highlighted extracts from full length independent reviews in weighty cultural/political journals. They comment on two phases of Walker's published books, politics of policing (1980s) and pharmaceutical politics (1990s on).
- "Creative professionals: The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."
- The article already contains ample detail of exhibitions and permanent holdings in internationally important galleries and collections. References to the catalogues and monographs containing examples of Walker's graphic work are included in the refs.
- NB, "Invalid criteria" includes search engine statistics.
- Walker clearly meets WP criteria for notability in two distinct professional fields, and as such is doubly notable. Moreover, he is stated to be notable in a separate WP article. Sam Weller (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer-reviewed article, mentioned in the text, and in the bibliography.
Am J Ind Med. 2006 Nov 3. Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. Lennart Hardell, Martin J. Walker, Bo Walhjalt, Lee S Friedman, Elihu D Richter. Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro and Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
BACKGROUND: Recently it was reported that a Swedish professor in environmental health has for decades worked as a consultant for Philip Morris without reporting his employment to his academic employer or declaring conflicts of interest in his research. The potential for distorting the epidemiological assessments of hazard and risk through paid consultants, pretending to be independent, is not exclusive to the tobacco industry. METHODS: Documentation is drawn from peer reviewed publications, websites, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency, University reports, Wellcome Library Special Collections and the Washington Post. RESULTS: Some consulting firms employ university researchers for industry work thereby disguising industry links in the income of large departments. If the industry affiliation is concealed by the scientist, biases from conflicting interests in risk assessments cannot be evaluated and dealt with properly. Furthermore, there is reason to suspect that editors and journal staff may suppress publication of scientific results that are adverse to industry owing to internal conflict of interest between editorial integrity and business needs. CONCLUSIONS: Examples of these problems from Sweden, UK, and USA are presented. The shortfalls cited in this article illustrate the need for improved transparency, regulations that will help curb abuses as well as instruments for control and enforcement against abuses. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2006. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
- Easy to see why Walker might be deemed a threat by various interests. Sam Weller (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Sam, you can't use another Wikipedia article as evidence of notability, as Wikipedia's not a reliable source. (Anyone could have inserted Walker's name into the Health freedom movement article, the statement's not sourced.)
- You've quoted the notability criteria for creative professionals but haven't said which one you think he meets. Are you suggesting he "(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries"? If so, which "several notable galleries or museums" do you mean? (It seems to me that the article exaggerates the extent to which Walker's work has been exhibited. For example, I could only find one of his works[39] in the Victoria and Albert Museum archive — am I missing something?)
- What do mean you mean by "full length independent reviews in weighty cultural/political journals"? Are you talking about those book reviews in Capital & Class and the Edinburgh Review?! I suspect we have very different understandings of the word weighty. If his books are notable they will have been discussed in mainstream publications (like The Times Literary Supplement or the New Statesman), not just extremely rare mentions in fringe magazines.
- I don't understand why you're citing the Am J Ind Med article. No-one's disputing that Walker has published articles but, as we've said, millions of people have published articles in peer-reviewed journals and they're not generally notable. And could you please explain what your comment about Walker being "deemed a threat by various interests" has to do with this discussion?
- Anyway, to return to my original question, can you cite a reliable source that says he's notable? Polemarchus (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now, Polemarchus, you're not the judge here, and you can't invent criteria, shift goalposts to suit your case, and interrrogate other jurors. "Subject fails on virtually all notability criteria on authors or activists: has not had work published in any peer-review, mainstream or credible publications." Did you really not pick up the serial misrepresentation there? It's really up to others to vote and decide this. You and I have had our chance. Sam Weller (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When did I shift goalposts or invent criteria?! I've repeatedly asked you to either (1) demonstrate how Walker meets our notability criteria or (2) cite a reliable, published source that thinks he's notable. Now that you've hopelessly failed to do either of these things, you want to change the subject. Frankly, I think it's completely ridiculous of you to accuse me of inventing criteria, interrogating you, and shifting the goalposts.
- Please assume good faith and stop accusing other editors of dishonesty. Okay, so Finton was incorrect to claim that Walker hasn't had any work published in a peer-reviewed publication, but this is irrelevant since peer-reviewed publications are not evidence of notability. (See Wikipedia:Notability (academics).)
- By the way, this is a discussion, not a vote. The closing admin will weigh up the arguments for and against deletion. Like I said, if you want the article to be kept, it's in your interest to provide some sort of evidence that Walker meets our inclusion criteria. Attacking everyone who disagrees with you is not likely to help your case. Polemarchus (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well excuse me. Finton's deletion attempt was launched without informing editors who worked on the article, or editors involved in the deletion review from earlier this year. My good faith has been questioned in two places, here and at Ben Goldacre. The deletion proposal itself misrepresents Walker's work not merely by claiming that he had no peer-reviewed articles (which you concede was wrong), but that he had published no books (when he has), with mainstream publishers (when he has), and has attracted no independent critical comment (when he has). Since all these points were available in the existing article, we're entitled to wonder what is going on here. And since when are independent critical reviews in serious journals not good enough unless they appear in publications of your choosing?
As I'm not au fait with the subject's recent activities, I googled and was interested to find this deletion attempt coincides with a very public spat between another investigative journalist, Brian Deer, with Walker. http://briandeer.com/mmr/mli-information.htm http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2360&end=2380&view=yes&id=2887#newspost [[40]]
For what it's worth... Sam Weller (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam, I've explained several times now that the general rule is that a person is notable if he's received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In his forty years as a writer, Walker has apparently been the subject of two book reviews in minor publications. I doubt anyone would consider that "significant coverage". My granny has received more media attention than this guy, ffs.
- The rest of your comments are completely off-topic. There's no rule saying the person who nominates the article has to notify the editors involved. In any case, it's pretty rich for you to criticise Finton for not informing the editors who were involved in the deletion review, considering that you launched the deletion review without notifying the editors who were involved in the last AfD. Why should different standards apply to people you disagree with?
- I notice that you've now gone to the trouble of notifying the editors who voted to re-create this article, but not the people who voted to delete it. You might want to read WP:CANVAS before notifying anyone else. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be more accurate, Polemarchus, I said 'convention', not rule - which I took from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Deer,"Have you followed the convention of notifiying the editors who have worked on that article? Midgley 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"
- Re the Walker deletion review in March, you can check my history and my talk page and discover I did nothing at any stage without first taking advice from experienced editors - MastCell, and Singularity. They said nothing about notifying editors who deleted the original article. I don't understand your last comment - I notified all the deletion review editors regardless of their opinion (except one who has been banned), as well as the editor who closed the debate. The 'delete' editors you refer to are all here. Or do you actually mean I should have gone back to the editors who voted to delete the old article, and the ones who voted to keep it even before then? That was a different article - and as I said previously, I can understand why it was deleted, since IMO it was startlingly poor, even from the little I knew about Walker.
- I find the tone of some of the comments here unpleasant and mildly threatening. Why should I assume good faith when it's not accorded to me? 1. I've mentioned Fintons's wild allegations, and asked him to substantiate his statement, "when his notibility was questioned, directed the user in question to the no-consensus result of Walker's first notability nomination." I wasn't even aware of the first debate until Finton mentioned it. 2. I am not close to the subject, and I have no ownership of the article - of course I initiated its recreation, but I have only reverted one anonymous act of vandalism. All other editors have done what they wanted with no interference from me. Verbal edited once only, making numerous requests for sources. I hope I dealt quickly and completely with them, as requested, but without any acknowledgement or further help from Verbal it's hard to tell. I would have been far happier if I'd not been left to do 95% of the work unaided. 3. There were no complaints about coatracks before - if it's a problem which I'm blind to, why were the coats not removed by those now objecting?
- Frankly, I'm as unimpressed with the quality of editorial oversight during the revised article's brief history as the deleting editors are with the article. Cheers. Sam Weller (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vs. rewrite from scratch: I !voted at the deletion review to allow recreation provided it was based on reliable sources; my fear was that it would becone a WP:COATRACK. My fear has been realized. I'm not entirely sure which of the following two scenarios is at play: either a) there are insufficient independent, reliable sources to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about the guy, or b) a short, neutral article must be carved out of the lengthy coatrack which the article has become. I favor deletion; I am not encouraged by the reference to the OneClick website, which is BLP-inappropriate. If kept, the article should probably be stubbed and rewritten from the bottom up, with sources and content vetted for reliability and POV before being included. MastCell Talk 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Still a non-notable, has coatrack problems and seems to be being used as a soapbox. I've edited this page in the past and one editor seems to have ownership issues and be very close to the subject. Verbal chat 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- EasyMOD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As pitiful an article as Habari is, this article manages to be even worse. No secondary sources, what-so-ever. I know, I know... as in the case of Habari, benefit of the doubt ought to be given on the basis that the about page states "articles and subject areas sometimes suffer from significant omissions", but that was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable software. VasileGaburici (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. if it was bullshit, you would have won. that you didn't should be proof enough for anyone that it isn't 85.17.45.118 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am disregarding this opinion, as it is incomprehensible. Punkmorten (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Don't take it personally, it's just that the article doesn't have enough information to establish notability. If you feel I am wrong, refactor/rewrite the article citing sources that prove it's notability. Psychcf (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing notable about this software that I can find. JBsupreme (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable sources, no notability. Huon (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Xclamation point 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Causer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I moved the article to Murder of Michael Causer and added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good job eastmain, wp:ONEEVENT is no longer an issue I think. Boccobrock•T 18:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? Not an issue? The article is still only about the boy's death. There's no indication of why he is notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the article is now about the event, not the person, I think that wp:ONEEVENT means that the notability of the boy is no longer the issue here. You can argue against the notability of the event, but with the multiple news stories that may be difficult. In my opinion the event is notable, and thus an article about the event of the boys death is notable. The article should maybe go further into the public reaction and such though. cheers, Boccobrock•T 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Eastmain. --Law Lord (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G4 by orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gracie Diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominated as a repost--{{csd-g4}} of deleted content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gracie Diet. I have tagged it twice for csd but the speedy tags are being removed by the principal author. Recommend that this be speedied and salted. I know this is the wrong forum but I have no interest in edit warring over a speedy deletion tag and I'm not sure who else has the page watchlisted. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONT DELETE MY WORKS Don't delete it, this is the same as the South Beach Diet and the Atkins Nutritional Approach Diet. If you are going to delete my diet then delete those diets too. I spent five hours on this, so dont touch it please. I am making it as professional as possible to conform to all of Wikipedia's rules and policies! If there are any problems and concerns you have let me know and i will fix them.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatirnitzany (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (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}} . |
- South Korean cultural claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I closed this AfD just recently as a keep, however, at deletion review it turned out that wasn't really supported, and relisting it would be preferable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We cannot make the decision only by the number of Delete and Keep because people may cast their vote regardless of whether what the article says is true or not, but in regard of whether this article is favourable to Korea or not. Some says these claims are only rumours, but they aren't as you can see from the fact that the theory that samurai derives from Korea is reported by Chosun Ilbo[41], a Korean leading newspaper. Even if they were rumours, we can state them as long as they are so big that mass media such as newspapers pick them up. For example, there was a rumour that Paul McCartney was dead. It was only a rumour but so big a rumour that wikipedia has a page which explains it (see Paul is dead). Even if the examples in the article were rumours (I don't think they are, though), they are so famous that they made the relationship between China and South Korea worse[42]. Whether the examples are rumour or not cannot be the reason for deletion since they are so big.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Synthesis, not neutral, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Any information in this article that is valid and backed up by authoritative sources should/could already be included in the appropriate articles on South Korea, China, and their cultures (note: I am not suggesting a merge). As I see it, this is just one big troll magnet for cultural warriors and not a coherent encyclopedic topic. As written, it is an argumentative essay. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a coherent topic because there is even a word, uriginal or Korea-Origin Theory, which express them as a whole. Shunpei Mizuno, a Japanese professor has been working on this issue, dealing the claims as a coherent topic.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification by example: if a case can be made for the derivation of Judo being Korean, that case should be made in the Judo entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the issue is a coherent topic. There are even some professors who are working on it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification by example: if a case can be made for the derivation of Judo being Korean, that case should be made in the Judo entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep While there may be specific entries where examples of this could be discussed, the fact is that there is a general series of claims and such and that there are sources discussing the collection of claims and the larger cultural phenomenon. In that context, it doesn't make sense to split it up because that material can't go anywhere. Hence, keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. This article is a collection of internet rumours and fringe theories claimed by individuals or individual organizations, blog entries, posts in internet forums, youtube videos, and other non-reliable sources. Based on such sources, the article engages in original research and synthesization. Also, I believe many issues in this article can be much better covered in Anti-Korean sentiment, another article created by User:Benlisquare, since there has been extensive attention from the media and academdia on anti-Korean sentiments in China caused by the same rumours in this article. Note: By this, I don't mean a merge. There's a difference between analyzed information and a simple collection made by a Wikipedia editor. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find no blogs or posts in internet forums in the article. Which one are you referring to? I have just removed the youtube video and added some detail about the Confucius dispute. Which source are you saying is unreliable? Please tell me.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a POV fork over Japanese and Chinese culture. Also it looks like it has a bunch of OR in it but I can't be positive. Tavix (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems like a bunch of hearsay. Kuebie (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and rewrite, preferably by someone not previously involved--I hope it won't be necessary to say someone who understands Korean and Japanese culture and sources, but comes from a third country. Sure it contains some OR and a good deal of disputed POV, but those are questions to be resolved by editing. DGG (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Difficult to re-write in NPOV manner. Blogs/editorial and news about how the blogs are causing trouble; seems like we are writing about rumors. Also the article contradicts itself. The top states Koreans take this seriously and the bottom of the article states Koreans do not. --Objectiveye (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What Objectiveye says above is not true. S/he talks as if the sources are blogs but there are actually NO BLOGS AT ALL. S/he says "article contradicts itself" but his/her explanation does not make sense. The article does not say about how seriously Koreans take these claims at the top of it. What it states at the bottom is that "KBS states that only few Koreans take Korea-Origin Theory of Chinese characters seriously." It is only KBS's state and about the Chinese characters only. For example, the false theory that samurai derives from Korea is taken so seriously that they even made a film and Chosun Ilbo reported that it is true that samurai derives from ssaurabi. I find no contradiction in the article. If you tell me what contradiction the article has, I can modify it right away. What s/he says is a false accusation because the article is unfavourable to Korea.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keepThis article shows relevant information on S. Korean Cultural Claims, within Japan, China and other Countries.--Propastop (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--— Propastop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You tried to make to hold irrelevant and unreferenced materials to stay with your dishonest statements and false accusations. So where is the evidence that South Korean governments advocate such rumors that you insist? Besides, your edit count was just one before the first AFD opened.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE I've said enough rationales why the article compiled with WP:SYNTHESIS and rumors should be deleted. There is no evidence that majority of South Koreans culturally claim such rumors which have been actually coined by Japanese and Chinese based on their anti-Korean sentiment. Moreover, given that any trying to clean up the article and to make WP:NPOV is impossible because many single purpose accounts refuse to cooperate but even try to hold irrelevant matters (such as Aesop's fables) and unreferenced disdainful allegations (governmental involvement). Some of contents should be integrated to Anti-Korean sentiment.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you say this and this and this and this and this and this were made up by Chinese and Chinese?! Do you really think so? Although they are from Korean newspapers and a Korean association? What you have said is not true.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional movies can't be a source, a couple of your links state China was the origin, then you got a source pointing out the similarities between the two cultures, would that be a claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fictional film was created because there is a belief that samurai is derived from Korea (see ssaurabi). Chosun Ilbo even states that "the film is rests on the primise that the spirit of ssaurabi developed as the spirit of samurai, based on the historical fact that people from Baekje pioneered Japan and introduced culture to it" (映画には、三国時代、百済人が日本を開拓して文物伝播した歴史的事実を土台に、サウラビの魂が日本の侍精神に発展したという前提が込められている). Even if this website says that Yusul is originated in China, it states that Judo was introduced by Korean to Japan during the era of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. But actually it wasn't (see Jujutsu#origin). Even if the website does not state that the origin of Judo is not Korea but China, it clearly states that Judo was introduced by Korea and it is a "cultural claim", indeed.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who added irrelevant materials to the article (still, the samurang is not referenced and the article has references from totally unreliable sites), so what you're saying is not even true. Uriginal that you've tried to insert is also from a blog. The Japanese editions of South Korean newspapers have different characters, so don't mislead the discussion. You already did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I don't think the material was irrelevant, you removed it, didn't you? I did not revert your edit. Why do we have discuss it more? Samurang is not sourced in this article, but it is sourced in its own article. What do you need more? This website shows only that the word, uriginal, is used by a university professor. The existence of the word is sources with this one. I don't get why you say the Japanese edition of South Korean newspapers have different characters. Why do you say it is misleading? They are in Japanese but they sure are written by Koreans and published by Korean newspaper service. What you say does not make sense.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who added irrelevant materials to the article (still, the samurang is not referenced and the article has references from totally unreliable sites), so what you're saying is not even true. Uriginal that you've tried to insert is also from a blog. The Japanese editions of South Korean newspapers have different characters, so don't mislead the discussion. You already did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well sourced and all the sources are reliable because they are from major newspapers, major organizations and books written by a Japanese professor who has been working on this issue. There's no reason to delete it. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Purely Original Research. this article consisted by Internet rumor. also this rumor made by Japanese and Chinese internet user for insult korean. 121.135.161.242 (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]IP address users' vote cannot be counted. Sorry.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]IP address users' vote cannot be counted??? what wikipedia guideline say it? 121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is using WP:TW.vandalism.--Propastop (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Propastop is using WP:TW.vandalism. unexplained tage delete.[43][44] 121.135.161.242 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Propastop (Your name, "Propaganda stop" seems to ring a bell too much). How did you figure out to use Twinkle as a newbie? (I'm very amazed by the ability) Besides, the article is accused for holing sythesis and unverified claims, so the tags are very legitimate to stay. Interestingly, you tried to copy behaviors of Wahtsay (talk · contribs)[45][46][47][48]. The editor was warned by admins accordingly.[49][50][51]--Caspian blue (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]stop Personal attack.my name is propas top.--Propastop (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]You're the one who should stop personal attacks. I've been through enough by YOU. Also, you called the anon as "vandal", which is a serious personal attack and totally uncalled accusations. Propas top? Does it even have a meaning? --Caspian blue (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Stop Personal attack.my name is propas top. Apologize to me,--Propastop (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]You're the one who should stop such personal attacks to people and should apologize for your lying my edits and calling me "liar". Sincere apologies should be required.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]You're the one who should stop such personal attacks to people and should apologize for your lying my edits and calling me "liar". Sincere apologies should be required[52].AND my name is propas stop.Do not personl attack for your imagination.--Propastop (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Why are you plagiarizing my warning to you? Do not personl attack for your imagination. --> This is another personal attacks. Do not continue such harassment.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No reason to delete. The article is sourced. If anything is poor, the people who want to delete should point out what is poor in the talk page. I'm afraid some people are trying to hide what are widely reported in Japan, China, and Taiwan.--Mochi (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*:If the article has a validity, we don't need this second round of the deletion discussion and third party people say delete. Yes, the Japanese biggest forum 2channel in which you're deeply involved cooks up such bashing rumors such as uriginal. That is not even new.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS.--Propastop (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Stop nonsense and do not taint the discussion page. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian Blue, please provide sources that I'm participated in bashing rumors in 2ch. You are insulting me.--Mochi (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]You're the one insulting me.I'm afraid some people are trying to hide what are widely reported in Japan. I did not say that you're making the rumors but the 2channel do. Please differentiate carefully. You admitted that you're involved in 2channel forum, so followed me for a while. That is so true.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]What is insulting ? My afraid comes from people who are trying to hide something. If you are not, you are not concerned. About 2ch, I and "bashing rumors" (I don't think things are not "rumors".) do not relate, but you wrote as if I and "rumors" relate in some way, that means you are disturbing the talk page here. Please stop such behaviour.--Mochi (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Mochi, I have never said that you're making the rumors, but 2channel does. So please stop falsely accusing me any more and don't use inflammatory languages. If you're not colluding with the 2channel, that is no concern of yours. You previously said that you enjoy leaving your opinion to the 2channel page and you translated your own comment at the forum indicating me. You once wiki-stalked me for a while and you admit it at ANI. So what is your problem to say the truth? I only said the current situation coined by the Japanese forum and the ongoing meatpuppetry. Why are you contracting yourself? --Caspian blue (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? it is easily find that Japanese 2ch user make tag edit for this.[55] 121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing and meatpuppetry going on. So the 2channel's involvement and harassment are still affecting the AFD. This is so typical and pathetic movement. My ID and other Korean editors are listed on the Japanese forum and have been chased by them again. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:182: 名無し's MANSE: 2008/09/19 (Friday) 14:50:51 ID: 59H7MVjf
現在注目されるキムチ5兄弟 5 brothers noteworthy that the current kimchi |
Propas top, you can explain why I'm referred to as "kimchi"? --Caspian blue (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you talk about? You said my name is propaganda. Give me the source.Apologize to me--Propastop (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if we delete all rumours and unsourced POV statements not much is left of the article, and in any case I am afraid that given the edit warring/canvassing going on right now it will not be possible to rewrite the article in a neutral manner. Better to delete and hope that one day someone will start this article again in a NPOV manner, that is, if the topic is even notable at all. At the moment that does not seem to be possible, hence delete. Much better than having this article in its current form and attracting a kind of editor we surely do not want here at Wikipedia. Not to mention that in its current form the article is a disgrace for Wikipedia, as it is mostly an attack page. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per all of the above; WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:V, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There Korian's social ecology is very valuable in posterity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.2.254.99 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC) — 121.2.254.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch.[56]MakesintoJp (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problem!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.208.156.129 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC) — 202.208.156.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch.[57]MakesintoJp (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep off course! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.30.43.209 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC) — 125.30.43.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch.[58]MakesintoJp (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Japanese IP anons who have not any contributions in English Wikipedia before the AFD. This is ridiculous obvious canvassing/meatpuppeting. Well, this kind of disruptive meat/sockpuppeting only weight in the deletion of the article--Caspian blue (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is active WP:CANVASSing at 2channel targeting this article, this AfD and some of the involved editors.[59] Visual evidence: [60] [61] [62] [63] Cydevil38 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Keep" was decided to this article recently. These articles are in Korean influence on Japanese Culture and implications. This article relates to Korean influence on Japanese Culture. Korea insists on the origin of the Japanese culture though the Japanese culture received a deep influence of a Chinese culture. And, inconvenient information is deleted by their political campaigns. This text might be profitable to explain of the Japanese and Chinese disliking Korea.--Eichikiyama (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, political campaigns that delete inconvenient information, I guess we should be grateful that we have all those Chinese and Japanese that counter these campaigns and expose the truth about Koreans and their audacious claims. Novidmarana (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*keep This article is important for understanding the South Korean.--Aipiee (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch.[64] MakesintoJp (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- sockpuppet of Totsutaix, see this diff. Novidmarana (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch.[64] MakesintoJp (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Regarding notability, refer to Chinese and Japanese Wikis. Regarding verifiability, refer to newspaper sources. Regarding seriousness, refer to the argument regarding the ROK and PRC government interventions as described in the 1st AFD nomination. Additionally, consider WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and please as soon as possible. If all unsourced statements are deleted not much substance remains, and this is even ignoring the serious POV problems that make this page look like an attack page on Koreans. All we have is basically a statement of one professor Masami Oiso, claiming that there is a pattern of unjustified South Korean cultural claims (horrible article title anyway). Everything else in the article are examples and related statements that by virtue of being included in this article suggest that there is indeed a broad pattern, but do not have solid citations that show that this indeed a case. in fact, this article is a prime example for demagogy. Novidmarana (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder which piece of information you are calling "unsourced." I see no unsourced information there. It is not only Masami Oiso who's working on this issue but also Shunpei Mizuno, and his comment is also available in the article. The article is not demagogy and all of the information on the list is sourced. Even if they were rumours, we can state them as long as they are so big that mass media such as newspapers pick them up. I already stated the case of Paul is dead above. Another example is a rumour that Hitler was a Jew. The rumour was never confirmed but the information is in Adolf Hitler's page. We have sold citations that show that there indeed exist "rumours" (I don't think they are rumours, though) that Koreans believe samurai, kendo, judo and kabuki are from Korea. So, how about changing the name of the article into "Conflics over South Korean Cultural Claims" or something like that? There sure is so big a conflict that even the Koream ambassador had to refer to it (according to Yahoo News) (The Korean ambasador claimed that it was a false report that Koreans believe that Sun Yat-sen was Korean. Yahoo News states that "the reason why such a false rumour spread was that Chinese people have an image of Korea as a country which steals history and culture.").--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "(according to Yahoo News) (The Korean ambasador claimed that it was a false report that Koreans believe that Sun Yat-sen was Korean. Yahoo News states that "the reason why such a false rumour spread was that Chinese people have an image of Korea as a country which steals history and culture.")."
- Ok, confirmed. it is not made by Korean. It is made by Chinese. What relation with korean? Korean did not made such claim. article title change as a 'Chinese made Hoax Toward Korean'.Nightrainbowfan (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not serious, are you? I changed the article to a version that reflect that all this rumours are just that, rumours, and you promptly started whining on my talkpage about my edit (that btw, has been discussed by other editors on the talk page). You claim all the time that there are solid citations, but then why do you insist on a version of the article that treats it is a fact that Koreans make these claims. It is rather disgusting to see that you say one thing here, and another thing on the article page. Novidmarana (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not serious, are you? >I changed the article to a version that reflect that all this rumours are just that, rumours. The case of Confusius was rumour, indeed. But the cases of Samurai, Kendo, Judo and Kabuki are not rumours. There are souces from Korean websites. It is a fact that Koreans make these claims.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, as has been shown above, it was a US organization who made the claim that Judo has a Korean origin. What rather proves my point, that this article attempts abuses all this examples to make a point. You need for that all these examples are indeed examples for Korean falsely claiming aspects of other cultures as their own due to nationalism. Novidmarana (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. it was a US organization who made the claim that Judo has a China origin.[65] I don't know this orginization is represent to all korea Judo. "Yudo is a traditional military art. It came to Korea from China as a system of unarmed combat during the Koryo Dynasty." However according to Korea Judo association[66], I can't find such claim that it originated from Korea. It is a Japanese made Interner rumor. Nightrainbowfan (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, as has been shown above, it was a US organization who made the claim that Judo has a Korean origin. What rather proves my point, that this article attempts abuses all this examples to make a point. You need for that all these examples are indeed examples for Korean falsely claiming aspects of other cultures as their own due to nationalism. Novidmarana (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not serious, are you? >I changed the article to a version that reflect that all this rumours are just that, rumours. The case of Confusius was rumour, indeed. But the cases of Samurai, Kendo, Judo and Kabuki are not rumours. There are souces from Korean websites. It is a fact that Koreans make these claims.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "(according to Yahoo News) (The Korean ambasador claimed that it was a false report that Koreans believe that Sun Yat-sen was Korean. Yahoo News states that "the reason why such a false rumour spread was that Chinese people have an image of Korea as a country which steals history and culture.")."
- I wonder which piece of information you are calling "unsourced." I see no unsourced information there. It is not only Masami Oiso who's working on this issue but also Shunpei Mizuno, and his comment is also available in the article. The article is not demagogy and all of the information on the list is sourced. Even if they were rumours, we can state them as long as they are so big that mass media such as newspapers pick them up. I already stated the case of Paul is dead above. Another example is a rumour that Hitler was a Jew. The rumour was never confirmed but the information is in Adolf Hitler's page. We have sold citations that show that there indeed exist "rumours" (I don't think they are rumours, though) that Koreans believe samurai, kendo, judo and kabuki are from Korea. So, how about changing the name of the article into "Conflics over South Korean Cultural Claims" or something like that? There sure is so big a conflict that even the Koream ambassador had to refer to it (according to Yahoo News) (The Korean ambasador claimed that it was a false report that Koreans believe that Sun Yat-sen was Korean. Yahoo News states that "the reason why such a false rumour spread was that Chinese people have an image of Korea as a country which steals history and culture.").--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-*Delete - Article consisted by Original Research. and Individual person's claim can't be a official claim of south korea. MakesintoJp (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an account made on September 20, 2008. --Eichikiyama (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--— MakesintoJp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - purely content pov forking article. Appear publicly (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an account made on September 20, 2008. --Eichikiyama (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--— Appear publicly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete -- No academic source, personal claim, POV fork from blog or unclear rumor or Internet meme. Nightrainbowfan (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--— Nightrainbowfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete without some substantial reliable sources I do not think it is possible to write an encyclopaedia article about this kind of largely internet based rumour/meme/argument whilst still presenting the information in a neutral way and keeping the article free of original research. Guest9999 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While some of the issues discussed in the article are notable and supported by sources, the overall tenor of the article is so poor that it cannot be salvaged. --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Even articles that showed sources of news site (e.g., The Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo) are original research ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)— NAZONAZO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
* MUST KEEP - very important article to show world the lies of Koreans that do as if Japanese culture and civilisation is all invention of koreans. So must keep this article otherwise it will be clear that english wikipedia is biased and racist against Japan. Jirominami (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC).
— Jirominami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: Jirō Minami was a Japanese war criminal. Novidmarana (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete still The article CLAIMS that Japanese sources CLAIM that Koreans CLAIM that certain things originate from Korea. Lets thing about the level of weasel-wordyness just in the first paragraph of the article. This is more than an article about a sourced but unsubstantiated (or even false) claim such as the "Paul is dead" meme cited above. It is a second or third level set of claims, claims about claims (meatclaims?). "Korean origin theory" in Google scholar gets 5 hits all about ginseng. "Korea-origin theory" (the term used in the article) gets a massive ZERO Google scholar hits."uriginal" gets lots of hits but as a mispelling of "original" and non related to Japanese claims about Korean claims. "uriginal Korea" gets 4 google scholar hits, none relevant. The article is synthetic and fundamentaly problematic with respect to a neutral point of view. A feast of weasel words.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then say please, if Koreans steal our culture why think that this is not true. Many newspaper report, professors and many internet users in Japan found out about Korean lies. Wikipedia must have this information so that the world can judge and see true nature of koreans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirominami (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Jirominami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your comment illustrates the problem with the article. Wikipedia is for verifiable information - this article will just serve as a place for people to have arguments. As a debate topic on a forum or on a blog it may have some merit but Wikipedia is neither. Nick Connolly (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Why delate my question ? My contributions are few ? I don't vote, only have questions .--NAZONAZO (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, horribly POV sythesis, and unsalvageable in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalist flagwaving. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - Just to note that, it is very hard to eliminate POV as only certain users are capable of editing. The only "sides" that are capable of editing are those affiliated with Japanese and Korean sides. Even the Chinese Wiki is mostly edited by people from Taiwan, and overseas Chinese, since Wikipedia is blocked in China. Thus it is almost impossible to obtain an equal POV from all sides. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Benlisquare sounds a little bit less concernced about NPOV at [67] Novidmarana (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Having visited both Korea and Japan I find their (general) dislike of each other very sad, since I like them both. The Koreans do make a lot of claims. I should mention that North Korea makes the same claims as South Korea, and even more strongly. I don't know why the article singles out the South Koreans. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC) p.s. I like the Chinese too but haven't visited their country yet.[reply]
- Second comment Lots of countries around the world make the same kind of
absurdclaims that the Koreans do. For instance the Irish claim to have founded European civilization. I really think the Chinese and Japanese (two of the greatest and most important cultures in the history of the world) should chill out a little about this. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, quite often these claims are not even absurd - just ask a Brazilian, an American or a German who invented the airplane. You will probably get three different answers (Alberto Santos-Dumont, Wright brothers, Otto Lilienthal), and all of these three answers are right in some way, and definitely not absurd. I suspect that this is the case with the alleged Korean claims here, although the article certainly gives the impression that Koreans deliberately choose to falsely claim inventions or cultural achievements as their own. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I've been trying to make a similar one which is buttressed by your comment. There is no article on Brazilian cultural claims, but in the airplane article Alberto Santos-Dumont appears to be relevantly and accurately included in the History section of the airplane article. That is as it should be in my opinion. Editors can attempt to include claims in appropriate articles dealing with the individual notability and verifiability of individual claims on a case by case basis. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Still (with the re-listing note above not sure if I'm supposed to weigh in again). This article is unambiguous POV culture warrior troll bait (again). Its whole premise belies any attempt at objectivity. Note this article is "about" certain cultural claims. If a specific claim is notable and verifiable (e.g., Judo was originally Korean) editors should work on that relevant article (e.g., Judo). Note 1: I have no stance on the Judo issue, I use it as an example only. Note 2: I am neither Korean nor Japanese but have briefly visited both countries and I confess a predisposition to Korean cuisine. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inherently POV warring subject, and an article that is built out of morsels, original research by "synthesis" turned ugly. It's a wonder this hasn't turned into various XYZ views of ... forks yet. Equendil Talk 11:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2channel canvassing and tag-teaming is going on other Korean-related articles. This kind of childish and disruptive on/off-wiki activities should be stopped.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've heard of this phenomenon, but verifying it is difficult, especially with the non English sources. In addition, the article as it stands is an edit war battleground using what devolve into primary sources: in other words its essentially original research. If we don't delete it, we should probably wipe it down to a stub and start over on a new title. --Tznkai (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Again -- Even articles that showed sources of news site (e.g., The Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo) are original research ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.ditto.--Doronpa (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Doronpa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]- Delete I sat out the first AfD, confident it would go, and was surprised it was saved... Anyway: Thinly disguised OR, POV-pushing through Undue Weight, Synthesis, etc, etc., etc. First, the article is mis-named. It should be something like "Nationalistic Chinese and nationalistic Japanese claims of Korean claims of cultural superiority, and a few scraps dug up to justify these claims"... which would be more accurate, and make it more clear what hogwash the article is. I was raised close to Japanese people and culture, and I lived in Korea for a few years. I spoke with many very nationalistic people there, but never heard the kinds of claims presented in this article. However I did hear many claims about the Japanese people from these people which I knew to be totally false. Should we group together some of this nonsense and present it as a "Japanese cultural claims" article? No, it would be just as wrong as this one, and if we have one, I'll gladly vote to delete it too. I asked my (Korean) wife about the claim in this article that Koreans (some) think that Chinese characters originated in Korea. She had never heard of anyone who thinks this, and asked me why-- if such lunatics do exists-- am I reading such fringe views in an encyclopedia? This kind of baiting and smearing goes on between Japan, Korea and China constantly, and no encyclopedia worth the name would give any of these claims the benefit of an article. The article in question states continuously that these claims of cultural superiority are fabricated by anti-Korean Chinese and Japanese websites, and a few right-wing "scholars". Hence giving these claims any merit by presenting them in an article as "Korean cultural claims" is a borderline hoax. The only use this material could possibly have is as a small part of an article on Chinese and Japanese nationalism. But it is questionable even there, since these are such fringe, petty hoaxes... Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreadable, worthless piece of POV drivel. Even if the title and scope of the article didn't already implicitly contain a POV-forkish/WP:SYNTH perspective, the article would still be factually unsalvagable: given the present state of our Japanese and Korean editor population and the intensity of POV-warring in that field, there is not the slightest chance that we can get anything remotely adequate written on such a topic within the next thousand years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No adequate sources are provided for the claims in this article. These are not actual Korean beliefs that can be cited to Korean authors. This is what some people in other countries *think* that Koreans believe. This is hopeless. And yes, I agree with Future Perfect's comment too. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. the topic is interesting, and i hiope it gets coverage somewhere on WP (a Korean culture article?), but the amount of warring over this shows that this will never be a viable article. The dubious sourcing is at most enough for a few sentences somewhere, not an article.Yobmod (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing going on by Benlisquare via http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-2584-1-1.html. Novidmarana (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on Canvassing. This isn't just any canvassing, this is a concerted effort to game wikipedia. The link gives a step by step script in how to engage on wikipedia. E.g.,
For the record, I'm not a China hater or Korea hater, nor am I Chinese or Korean. My Delete recommendation (not vote) is based on the observation that this article is inherently POV and unsalvageable. The quality of this "canvassing" approach leaves me appalled. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Now, in the deletion discussion, the more votes we have for "keep", the more likely our articles won't be deleted by China-haters. The more people the better, HOWEVER change your text; don't make each person's entry just like the other; this gets BORING and people might realize that they are up against an army of "yes men". ONLY USE ONE ACCOUNT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BANNED. We need more PEOPLE voting for us, not more ACCOUNTS, or we would have done that earlier. WRITE ONLY IN ENGLISH, otherwise you may be banned. I am asking you of this plainly becuase there are more China-haters on Wiki than there are Chinese; since we are outnumbered, our articles are trashed while others spread their propaganda.
- Delete and salt, page is an unsalvageable wreck which attempts to synthesize a controversy out of a bunch of nationalist trolls linking together unrelated disputes on history. I'll note that the controversy looks like it may soon become notable, however, so I'm not against an article on the subject at a later date if it was written by someone who wasn't personally involved in the argument. I do not believe that keeping the page around towards that eventuality is preferable, however, and any new version should be cleared prior to insertion in the mainspace. --erachima talk 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt immediately, and let's have a couple of RFCU to go with it on some of these IP's. Let's not even talk about all the way the article mangles WP:OR and WP:SYNTH AND WP:NPOV, the sources aren't even close to reliable. The J-cast article is , at best ambigious and I don't see the whole "uriginal" in that article. The Kendo association is just some website, and hardly reliable as it has a completely biased stake. I'm amazed as some of the claims purported to be "referenced" here and the article is -- regardless of the "truth" of the claims -- not encyclopedic. As far as I'm concerned, the Chinese are in the right as far as the issue goes, but this isn't the sort of debate that can be carried out in an open editing environment and the article topic will ALWAYS be a controversial mess with dubious sourcing. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kakkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am somewhat concerned about the notability of this surname... after a Yahoo! search, I did not get many good results about the surname. While the surname is not that notable, certain individuals with that surname certainly are. Marlith (Talk) 05:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least the article is garbage. Punkmorten (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lots of news hits as a surname--certainly verifiable and notable as such. Certainly needs to be reworked for NPOV. JJL (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article itself is in a really bad shape. Marlith (Talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Kakar tribe is a prominent Punjabi tribe. The article itself is in poor shape and was very POV. I will try and add some citations for this, though at this stage, I am surprised many editors have not helped it so far from other knowledge networks....--Shanti bhai (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The internet is not always the best barometer to use for notability. Kingturtle (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
}}
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Belarusian uprisings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced list, mostly a fork of uprisings from the List of Polish wars, mistakenly attributed to Belarus. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belarusian wars.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, the material certainly seems to be unsourced, and my first thought is that it is all rather dubious. However, it is possible there may be some material that can verify this in either Belorussian or Polish, neither of which I can read. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. I tested a few of the links in this list and the use of uprising in it's title is highly dubious. At the link Kaliningrad from the list, I could note find a single mention of anything relating to an uprising. Appears more a collection of hearsay links to a nonexistent subject matter.--«JavierMC»|Talk 04:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Terminology of KO One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Two unsourced completely in-universe glossaries without any indication of notability (for these terms, not for the main series). These are plot elements without any real world significance. We already have a plot synopsis in the main article, episode descriptions in the epsiode lists, a long list of characters in a separate article as well, and a list of spells for the second series as well. The X Family list has been taged as unsourced since March, but although it has had over 100 edits since and been expanded from 30K to 45K, it still is unreferenced.
- Also nominated: Terminology of The X-Family (which is the sequel to KO One) Fram (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and rename. I contested the prod, as a procedural matter, for I thought this should get attention more generally. In spite of the confusing names, they seem to be lists of weapons. I think such lists a good idea if the gam is notable enough--which I cannot judge--and the article should be renamed accordingly. Unlike some content of this sort, the details given for each are not excessive and if it were a game, would fall within the current game guidelines. DGG (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivial content at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial / non-notable. Very few fictional works create weapons of sufficient notability for WP to devote an article to them. This isn't one of them. What reliable secondary sources will there be? This isn't like Star wars, which has many reference books, it is inhenrently unsourcable, so should go.Yobmod (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If viewers need a glossary in order to follow the story, it is not Wikipedia's place to provide one unless the terminology itself is notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Southern Democratic Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
per WP:ORG. This fringe political party which fielded candidates for one Legislative Council of Hong Kong seat, obtained 0.3% of the constituency vote and consequently lost its deposit in the 2008 election. In addition, the article was created by User:Lwmlung, who is suspected to have a conflict of interest. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. fails WP:NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to be a reasoanble amount of third-party news coverage of the party. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, for the above reason of generating coverage, and because this admittably minor group seems to be at least a leading foil for mainstream political groups. I admit that the article is not so hot, and it may even has some bias problems, but I would be disappointed if Wikipedia was missing coverage of minor parties like this. The prominence or negligibility of this party should be included in the article, of course. Avram (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a thorough rewrite, bringing the article inline with quality standards. I think it passes notability.Avram (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Avram's well-done clean up. We66er (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Skyzoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. The artist fails WP:MUSIC, lacks any charting productions and also lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You may want to throw his albums, Cloud 9: The Three Day High and Corner Store Classic in here too. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete artist and albums, no notability established. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC for the time. RFerreira (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted (G11) by User:Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. treelo radda 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bath and spa supply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not seem to meet notability criteria. Small "main street" store in North Carolina. Brougham96 (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Author's Comment:I believe you are looking at the words 'Main Street' and making assumptions here. Note the statement from the article: "through spas and distributors world wide" The store and production facility are on main street, however this does not make the business a main street storefront only. The company's products are licensed in 29 countries. Bath and Spa Supply has multiple partnerships or distribution agreements in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. --glassjar99 (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as advertising. Almost a CSD G11. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Meadher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This term is not to be found in any dictionary or encyclopaedia; furthermore, the information in the article is not relevant to the subject matter. Yumegusa (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete i don't even think it's right as a definition. Googling found virtually nothing but copies of the WP page until I got to [this extract from Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine from the 19th century] where it's clearly being used to mean a "container for mead" or "glass for mead" and nothing to do with making the stuff. MadScot (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and MadScot. —Angr 08:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. TravellingCari 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ché Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Minor theatre worker. The writing credits are all either red-linked or link to existing works of the same title, the director credits don't appear to be for major projections, and the acting credits don't even list the parts played. There are, tellingly, no sources other than the subject's own website. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You think this is telling and that he is minor? Evidently you did not feel the need to even do a cursory Google search. Either way, I'm long past trying to understand what drives the deletionists in this place. But just for the record, a few links - do what you will. --Peripatetic (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC) http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article4213556.ece http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0907610/ http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsW/walker-che.html http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/article-23504126-details/Che+Walker+is+Camden's+chronicler/article.do http://www.wac.co.uk/content/?q=node/537 http://www.faber.co.uk/author/che-walker/ (a published author in a leading publishing firm) http://www.londontheatre.co.uk/londontheatre/reviews/frontline08.htm http://www.musicomh.com/theatre/features/che-walker_0608.htm[reply]
- And you apparently did not feel the need to add a single one of the above sources nor any significant claims to the article. Perhaps you could apply some of your understanding to basics of article writing as opposed to the compiling of an uninteresting CV. As for your links, perhaps you could also apply your understanding to 1) formatting for readability; 2) the basic requirements for reliable sources, including the part about 'multiple'; 3) notability standards for entertainers; 4) regarding your 'published author in a leading publishing firm', that notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities; 5) this handy guideline for interaction. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. The blue links in his writing credits go to other things altogether. If he were notable, his plays would already have articles. His imdb entry only shows that he has appeared in one or two episodes of episodic TV, has never starred in anything. Directing plays by famous people at non-famous locations does not make someone famous. Corvus cornixtalk 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. this link establishes our man's notability, surely? If not, can someone explain to me (possibly with more civility than contributors are displaying above) why it doesn't. And The Globe is hardly a non-famous location, is it? AndyJones (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, Andy. Based on that, I'm striking my above comments and changing my opinion to keep. Corvus cornixtalk 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added that link to the article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, though. AndyJones (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, Andy. Based on that, I'm striking my above comments and changing my opinion to keep. Corvus cornixtalk 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per links and arguments above. As stated when I deprodded, about 80 gnews and gbooks hits; the NYT and other major news sources have reviewed his plays.John Z (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Nice job Peripatetic on finding the link. Schuym1 (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Terry Smith (news anchor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
COI, possibly non-notable. I declined a CSD on it, and then prodded it, and removed that because I thought he would be notable, and now I'm having second thoughts. I'd like to know what others think. SpecialK 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the information within the article is unverified, the subject appears to fail both WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER, with no sources within the article, and only four Google News hits] for "Terry Smith" WTVA, and none of those provide "significant coverage", more like trivial mentions. There's no sign of a "cult following" or that he has made an outstanding contribution to the industry, as required by WP:ENTERTAINER. Non-notable, unverifiable. – Toon(talk) 17:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN News Anchor. Page Created by subject and a previous version had already been speedy deleted last month. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violates WP:Auto. Tried several different seraches for Terry Smith/Mississippi/News Anchor and had no luck. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- 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, as is standard for non-notable albums. The history will be intact in the redirect (not deleting anything) if anyone wants to mine it to expand the artists' article. Keeper ǀ 76 17:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Schädling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Album with little claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. No professional reviews found at metacritic or allmusic; album has not charted per allmusic. Professional review linked in article has a non-professional air to it (no name on review and grammatical errors suggest it was not professionally edited), but I'm not certain so I'm bringing to AfD for discussion. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportDelete although those two websites may not have information, a gsearch does give 1mil+ for the band, and considering this band has a fairly extensive discography, I think this article passes the wp:music for albums. But the article does need some work to be sure. Boccobrock•T 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After thinking about it a bit more, I think the part that requires independent coverage is very likely to not be fulfilled in this case. Thanks fabrictramp for the reminder, Boccobrock•T 18:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, on the rationale that if the artist is notable, then that artist's albums are also notable. --Aseld talk 05:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nom: I hope everyone will take a minute to read Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs, which says "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Please note this says may have sufficient notability, not does have sufficient notability. WP:MUSIC also says "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I hope the keep !voters will add those sources to the article. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't meet WP:NMG. Notability isn't inherited. If deleted, redirect to wumpscut:. Stifle (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to wumpscut:. Notability not established but is a valid redirect. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was RESULT. Punkmorten (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ambition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nom, {{Prod}} contested by editor on talk page. This defunct band claims to have "had a great impact" on music from Long Island, however the only sources in the article are to Myspace and other self-publishing sources. There don't seem to be any relevant hits on Google, and the subject fails both WP:N and WP:MUSIC - they never toured, and never released an album on a major label. – Toon(talk) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom – Toon(talk) 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also seems like a WP:CONFLICT by the article's author. smooth0707 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- INCA Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about an aparrently non-notable company (the only reference which attempts to assert notability states that it was 339th in an Asia-Pacific only list of companies based on growth) and which currently appears only to be WP:SPAM based on the WP:COI of the contributing editor, overly WP:PEACOCK-ish prose, and marketing speak particularly in the product range. Problems with the references, as noted in the discussion page. WP:COATRACK issues include using the article as a biography of the CEO. Ros0709 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but question Ros0709's claim of notability of INCA Internet. 339th fastest growing corporation of Asia-Pacific list by Deloitte was made to recognize notable companies of today. Picked as one the of 50 fastest growing in Korea is also a recognition of notability. Although the corporation has not received american recognition awards, please do not consider Korean awards less worthy of recognition for corporations of their country. Because the corporation is not located in US, many of the citations are not in Korean, but anybody who questions the authenticity of the articles may transalte the article and verify the validity. I have fixed the parts of the article claimed as peacock-ish to have a more neutral POV. I have requested to further please point out any other parts that may still need correction to better this article, but it seems against the ideals of Wikipedia to just delete the article, when there are still people trying to better it. As for the Biography of the CEO, I just followed the article of General_Electric. If people feel that the part is worthy of an article of itself, I do not mind making it a separate article. I just thought the information was not enough to be an article of itself. As for the deletion of the POV-check tag, I was not aware of the procedure and do apologize for the hasty removal. Furthermore, please help by pointing out parts that need further improvements and sign your posts on talk pages. Thank you for the time.
Kevinkph85 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kevinkph85 in that INCA Internet seems to be a notable company in Korea due to some of the awards it has won. However, the Wikipedia article on the company seems to be in serious need of more sources and a rewrite. In the first paragraph alone I cannot verify two sentences (RE: market share and number of users) using the reference links available. The market share sentence even shows up again word for word in the second paragraph. Also, the products list seems slightly like advertisement, although I have no idea how to fix it.
I have used Google Translate to 'read' over the linked Korean news articles and it was a very painful process because the translations are very very broken. I therefore suggest that perhaps this article should be put into WikiProject_Korea so that more people who can read the news articles can scrutinize it and add more input to it. aibyou_chan (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see why we shouldn't keep and article for one of the 50 fastest-growing companies in Korea, and one with this much usage -- assuming, of course, that the sources are good (and I can't read the Korean ones). It does need reworking for certain. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news shows the company is the subject of, or mentioned in hundreds of articles in Korean as well as in English. I would work on the article, but software corporations are not in my line of interest or expertise. Nevertheless, AfD is not for improving an article, but for judging whether that article's subject is worthy of an article here. Even if the article is not currently in good shape, the wide mainstream news coverage indicates that this corporation deserves an encyclopedia article, and that a fine one can be put together from the sources easily available. Dekkappai (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article at first glance looks well written and I can easily find the notability in reliable English sources.[68][69] I don't see why the article should be deleted.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Kenneth Copeland. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kellie Copeland Swisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
She is a pastor and daughter of televangelist Kenneth Copeland. The article notes she is part of a video series and music. However the importance of this isn't established. This was originally prod-ed, but it was removed without reason by an IP who also added the word "dynamic" to describe her videos. We66er (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to daddy. There is no independent significance, and one cannot inherit an encyclopedia entry. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kenneth Copeland as she is currently non-notable. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Notability is not inherited. We have a pastor's daughter who married a pastor, with whom she runs a NN church. The lack of links to other WP articles other than her father's speaks for itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect--she deserves a paragraph under her pops, no more. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- This article is completely uselss and poorly written. --24.11.211.126 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Secret Love (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was an expired prod. However quite a notable artist and being featured in Shark Tale soundtrack suggests a case for notability. Salix alba (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's no secret -- it fails WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per all of the above DragonDance (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was RESULT. Punkmorten (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ancient Mayan Culture: The Family, Food and the Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It's not an encyclopedia article, it's an essay with no hope of being an encylopedia article because it's too broad therefore there's no way to improve it. We already have the more-than-adequate Maya civilization and its daughter pages, this doesn't add anything and there's no viable merge target due to its scope. TravellingCari 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an essay, complete with a popcorn recipe. I'm sure that it was added in good faith, but it's redundant and not encyclopedic. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An essay. Wikipedia is not a depository for homework. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant to Maya civilization, Maya architecture, Maya cuisine, Maya society and Maya peoples. I'd say some of those articles are already redundant. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's an essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 06:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- rewrite/relink, while this article is certainly an essay, it does contain something valuable--there's no information from the main pages on Mayan culture that informs on the Mayan social life. While there are many areas that are helpful that dance around the subject (religion, architecture, etc.), none speak to the "marriage practices" noted in this essay. It would be helpful to delete this page perhaps and then drop in a section on Mayan social life that is more cohesive than what is currently available (provided it is properly sourced, which the AfD is not). --eleuthero (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Probably has enough coverage in RS to warrant a keep. Black Kite 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Legends In Concert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a tribute show of uncertain notability; previously deleted as spam but the current version is considerably better— but it still has serious difficulty establishing notability. The awards do not appear to be significant (or at least aren't demonstrably so: they are sourced by the tribute itself), and the press quotes aren't sourced and verifiable (and have no context to help figure out significance). — Coren (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No attempt to establish notability. TheMolecularMan (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note: a bit of digging shows the current references to point to either user-provided contents or minor "show exists" mention in calendars or travel guides. The prize is also increasingly suspect: it is given to hundreds of "winners" every year according to user voting with no mention of criteria, methodology or even vote counts. — Coren (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE NOTE: A credible and referenced association with Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. (EPE) has been added to the article further adding notability. Jaiesi (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This doesn't seem to go very far. Notability is not transferred through minor business ventures, and Elvis Presley Enterprises doesn't seem to have that much notability to share anyway. TheMolecularMan (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A few more press comments have been added with appropriate reference and one notable nomination under awards.Jaiesi (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Jaiesi (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note that I have added several more press comments adding to the notability and credibility of Legends In Concert's 25 years as a premiere tribute artist show. The comments all contain links to the articles with named author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiesi (talk • contribs) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, the Seattle Times counts as non-trivial coverage from a reliable source; Boston Globe is also a reliable source, though since the article is not online I can't tell if the mention is non-trivial. Branson Courier, Kingman Daily Miner and the blog post on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch web site, I'm not really sure about. This may be inching toward notability but I would like to see some opinions from others. TheMolecularMan (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is commercial package and not an artist or set of artists. I.e. it is a case of SoundAlikes ("tribute bands"). What needs to be assessed is whether this particular professional organization passes the CORP and organization guidelines. So far as I can tell, it is miles away. Getting a mention of a performance is not the same thing as a discussion of the promoters, and the title refers to the promoters. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take note.More press quotes added: Please take note that I have included even more reliable press quotes in striving to meet notability and establish credibility of the show. I have included The New York Daily News among the quotes with verifiable links including references. Again, Legends In Concert has been established for 25 years on the Las Vegas strip as several of the articles I have referenced indicate. Again. Thank you for your time and feedback.Jaiesi (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition to Awards. Another award/honor has been added under Awards to further establish credibility and noteworthiness. Jaiesi (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to meet WP:RS and it has articles in several publications where it is the primary topic. The article needs a lot of work. Shows lasting 25 years in Vegas are rare. The lack of categories and links is part of the reason this article has not been noticed by editors that could improve it. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability seems to just about have been established through the sources added to the article. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Gazimoff 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Permanent Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails to meet notability Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DragonDance (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wanted to save this, but even after being part of the Warped Tour they didn't draw non-trivial media coverage.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article only has two sources which is the offical site and Myspace. Schuym1 (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Another MyFace.com band. They're gigging. That's great, but it's not encyclopedic, and using Wikipedia to advertise is both disallowed and a bad idea. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. /Keep, either way it isn't being deleted. There are issues with the article but they are articles which can be dealt with via editing and possibly merging, rather than deleting. TravellingCari 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyberformance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm not going to call Neologism on this one, despite all the sources being self references to Second Life culture... however not every word has a topic associated with it that can be considered encyclopedic. There's no acedemic view on "Cyberformances" and more importantly there is little to say on the matter that makes it any different from an extremely sad (POV) form of Real Performance. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the references are to Second Life by any means. I don't use SL myself for cyberformance, i work in free software environments such as chat applications and the purpose built cyberformance software UpStage. You can't have read the article very closely to think that it's all about SL, it isn't the case at all. And there are academic views: I've just completed my own Masters thesis at Queensland Universityof Technology, entitled "Adventures in Cyberformance: experiments at the interface of theatre and the internet" and in that work i reference numerous other contemporary scholars who are working in the wider field of networked performance. User:Frock —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I didn't say that the article was all about Second Life. You can't have read my nomination very well, especially if you're not going to make a point related to the AfD and posted only in an attempt to belittle me. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a professor and curator of New Media, I'd like to weigh in on the matter on a number of points. Although I feel there needs to be entries on both "Cyberformance" and "Virtual Performance Art" (The first being a bit more formal in regards to medium, and the other being more closely tied to the gallery tradition as exemplified by Abramovic and Acconci), Jimmi Hugh is is on very shaky ground in his refutation of the entry. One, while the entry has (I believe) two references to Second Life, it mentions _none_ of the contemporary work being done by the Mattes, Second Front, Stephanie Rothenberg, Joseph DeLappe, or others. The entry lists a lot of very sound references to historical works that I would deem very worthy of "cyberformance".
Secondly, as an _Academic_ writer on this subject (with at least 7 published missives and essays on Virtual Performance, which I deem a form of Cyberformance) I refute there not being an academic point of view on this subject, including current theses on the subject. If Jimmi might say that there is not a large body of essays dealing with this particular definition, I may only say that this is due to the fact that historians have yet to begin fully fleshing out the discourse of 80's New Media, and not that Cyberformance is a neologism.
I wholeheartedly support this entry, and respectfully differ strongly in opinion from Mr. Hugh.
Patrick Lichty, Interactive Arts & Media, Columbia College Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patlichty (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 September 2008
- Very marginal keep--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point! However, I still feel, despite your persuasive argument that it isn't quite worthy of inclusion. I just don't see, with such minimal sources, how it can become an article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: In fact, it is a neologism, and it is an ephemeral one at that. Educationalists are quick to coin, slow to persuade, and masses of verbiage remain in their own smallish worlds without once making it to wide discourse. I have seen one person eager to use "asynchronous communication" to refer to chat rooms! When a subject is so new that no one can even agree upon what they're discussing, much less how to refer to it, the result is original research. Encyclopedia are conservative by nature. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a researcher and practitioner of various types of technology-mediated performance, I refute the assertions that this entry has no academic merit. I am currently working on a PhD that directly draws on the premise of "cyberformance". I daresay there are hundreds, if not thousands of active cyberformance projects currently active around the world. Some of the most recent examples would be the 080808 festival using Upstage, the Burning Life festival, Barbara Campbell's "1001 Nights", SLShakespeare's performances in Second Life and others. Second Life may well be implicated in the current offerings of cyberformance but it is by no means the only site where cyberformance is occurring. Kim Flintoff BA, Grad Dip Ed, MEd. (PhD Candidate - Queensland University of Technology; Sessional Lecturer/Tutor in Drama Education and Contemporary Performance - Edith Cowan University) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.169.10 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with everything you've said... but I have to ask, so what? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete. I see a few hits on Google scholar, but it seems that the protologism hasn't caught on much. Unless someone can improve the article with information from reliable sources, I have to say delete. As it's written now, the article strikes me as original research. VG ☎ 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. This is indeed an emerging field and the concept of cyberformance draws on aspects of other research and practice in the fields of networked performance using digital technologies and performance using digital media. The use of the UpStage platform is quite different to operating in Second Life. I have drawn on work in this area and Jamieson's recent MA study in my own PhD work and in a chapter in a forthcoming textbook. Sue Davis, PhD Candidate, Queensland University of Technology & Lecturer CQUniversity, Australia. Sue Davis —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. So far I've found and added to the article two reliable (scholarly) sources (in "Linux Journal" and "IEEE Multimedia"). The article needs a bit more cleaning up, but the topic is definitely more than a mere neologism and is perfectly notable. --Zeborah (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, thanks for noting that, i'm sure despite my nomination specifically saying I wasn't calling it a neologism that people might still have not got that this word doesn't come under that category. However, for some reason you're comment is still tagged as "Keep", perhaps you accidentally forgot that the list of reasons to delete an article is far wider than that? Also, none of the sources you added make claims, or present any reason to think the topic is notable. Of course, I didn't claim it wasn't notable either, in case you "forgot" what you "read" in the nomination. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although you agreed that it's not a neologism, another !voter did call it a neologism and another called it a protologism; I was disagreeing with them. As to your original points, there are in fact academic sources for the term (which I've added to the article), some of which do discuss ways in which cyberformance differs from traditional performance (see the third paragraph of the section Features of cyberformance). Is this sufficient to address your concerns? If not, what would be? --Zeborah (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some serious academic study and sudden global recognition overnight...? I'm saying that this topic isn't encyclopedic, and that won't change in the short term. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do you define "serious academic study"? It currently cites three articles by three sets of authors in three academic journals on three aspects of the topic -- that covers the "multiple reliable sources" criteria of verifiability. "Global recognition"? New Zealand, UK, Canada, Finland... "Encyclopedic"? I don't know what you mean by this unless you mean the amount of information. Certainly there's not as much to write about yet as there is about, say, elephants; but there's enough to write a well-sourced short article. If that's not what you mean, can you point to the policy you're referring to? --Zeborah (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some serious academic study and sudden global recognition overnight...? I'm saying that this topic isn't encyclopedic, and that won't change in the short term. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although you agreed that it's not a neologism, another !voter did call it a neologism and another called it a protologism; I was disagreeing with them. As to your original points, there are in fact academic sources for the term (which I've added to the article), some of which do discuss ways in which cyberformance differs from traditional performance (see the third paragraph of the section Features of cyberformance). Is this sufficient to address your concerns? If not, what would be? --Zeborah (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, thanks for noting that, i'm sure despite my nomination specifically saying I wasn't calling it a neologism that people might still have not got that this word doesn't come under that category. However, for some reason you're comment is still tagged as "Keep", perhaps you accidentally forgot that the list of reasons to delete an article is far wider than that? Also, none of the sources you added make claims, or present any reason to think the topic is notable. Of course, I didn't claim it wasn't notable either, in case you "forgot" what you "read" in the nomination. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who created the original post, I want to clarify why I posted it. I read and write widely in the field of new media arts, and I wanted Wikipedia to reflect the distinction Patrick Lichty draws attention to above, between other kinds of virtual or quasi-virtual Performance Art and Cyberformance. It was not intended as an exhaustive post, but as a first pass that would benefit from other people's additions. Certainly there are other groups and individuals now working who could and should be added to the article to help flesh it out. I admit I am somewhat new to posting on Wikipedia, and I apologize if I have inadvertently contravened any Wikipedia conventions, although I try to carefully follow the guidelines. However, Jimmi Hugh's initial comment that the sources all reference Second Life is just plain wrong and implies a rather careless initial reading. In addition, to make a flippant passing judgment that this kind of work is "extremely sad" seems to me not in keeping with Wikipedia standards of discourse, especially when it is not backed up with an informed analysis of the current state of performance practice.--ValliNagy 20:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep -- If I can find it on GNews, Scholar, and on other searches, it's something that can verified. BARELY. This is about as close to the edge of notability as you can get. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Those papers can't seem to agree what cyberformance means. Is it restricted to the use of avatars, or is a podcast a cyberformance? VG ☎ 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Artists and thus, those dealing with them often shun categories and labels, my hunch is as the field of digital artists, new media artists expand etc. a major art institution will help define the accepted terminology. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep. Defining and possibly re-naming as well as cleaning up content to avoid OR concerns are WP:Problems that we fix through regular editing. This certainly seems to be a logical and notable emerging field in performance art. If there are editors interested in the subject it would be helpful to focus on particular art schools, museums, institutions, etc that have presented shows on the matter and seem how they are presented to the public and how they are reviewed in the arts and mainstream media. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about source coverage. I've read the Linux Journal article and the IEEE MultiMedia article. Both are about a piece of software called UpStage, rather than the phenomenon of cyberformance, which is mentioned only in the introduction. Based on these two sources it seems like UpStage deserves a Wikipedia article, not cyberformance. The current article copies most of its contents (i.e. the timeline) from http://www.creative-catalyst.com/cyberformance/timeline.html, which is personal website so it's not a realiables source, and there are some copyvio issues as well since creative-catalyst is not GFDL. VG ☎ 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the article in Digital Creativity as well. That one is indeed focusing more on the overall picture of cyberformance, rather than a piece of software. I'm changing my !vote to weak keep. VG ☎ 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedball Keep (as in, it received a SNOW's worth of SK votes. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hot Topic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks sources, very messy, editors are removing any form of criticism section, generally un-notable, etc. DragonDance (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep large chain. I was in one today! JJL (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep National retail chain with a very strong presence in malls. Hard name to Google, but I'm sure there're some good sources out there, like this and this. I wouldn't go into one if you paid me, but still, I'd say a chain with 690+ stores has a fair whack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. It's listed on the NASDAQ!--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep a big notable chain. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep It's clearly notable, even if the article needs fixing. Doug Weller (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tiao Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Google turns up a lot of results, but there are no sources listed and this article doesn't seem to prove notability. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore this, it turned out to be a redirect.
- 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. Gazimoff 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Burgers plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible hoax, or at the least, something made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as violating WP:CRYSTAL as being plot info from an unreleased book/movie, etc. Also, it is a possible hoax. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources provided, probably something made up. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonsense. Apparently, there is such a thing as a water bridge, but what this article is trying to convey is beyond me. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I like my burgers cooked medium and my articles well done. I've got a burger ready for dinner, but this article isn't well done -- in fact, it seem like a bit of a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree this looks suspiciously like something made up one day. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - For the record, I doubt this is a hoax- it looks to me to be a copy 'n' paste of a fragment fragment from a pre-publication chem or biochem paper. Has to do with measuring the strength of intermolecular bonds in organic molecules- the A. von Hell mentioned is likely Albert von Hell, who is apparently a bio professor at Utrecht University. That being said, it seems that the Burgers Plot being mentioned (just a plot of the number of molecules participating in a networked bond over time, apparently) is unlikely to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I suspect someone read a pre-print of the paper, didn't recognize the mentioned item, and created a stubby article in the hopes that it would get filled in with more details. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- first of all mr. ten pound hammer i worked together with albert van hell on the article. second, i created much of the data. third, of the data created i thought of this specific plot for showing water bridges. water bridges can't be seen on a youtube video as they cannot even be seen with many of the instruments we have in our lab. i used molecular dynamics to create the data and then to portray in such a plot. I just became member of wikipedia so was not able to post any picture of what the plot looks like yet. Also, what i wrote did not come out of any article. so go cook your own burgers you bum student. oh yeah, and some of the professors that saw the plot named it the burgers plot in reference to my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepijnb (talk • contribs)
- Note that user blanked page and replaced it with the above comment. I have restored the page and placed the comment here. Make of it what you will. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Author admits WP:COI and WP:OWN violations in the comment above. Article not only fails those but WP:NOTWEBHOST. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of many good reasons listed above. This article is definitely not well done. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'll have one hoax-burger with ketchup and mustard and a glass of Dihydrogen monoxide to drink. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As can be seen here Burgher_people, with only approximately 100,000 people of Burgher descent, it would challenging to plot them on any type of graph (trying to out-humour Eco??). Besides that, it's poorly written, badly sourced, probably WP:COI and extremely hard to try and cook up a fix for. BMW(drive) 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I came here hoping for something that could at least be redirected to Burgers' equation, but that appears not to be the case. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probably not a hoax. I wonder if this is an unsuccessful attempt at writing a description page for an image that couldn't be uploaded. Try wikimedia commons instead or something if you want to share a picture. Narayanese (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.