Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 12
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.111.219.14 (talk) at 04:05, 12 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- 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 dead : delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have a list of dead rappers (obviously). Normally, I'm apprehensive about AFDing recently-created articles...however, almost all the content here is copied and pasted from the various articles from them (a violation of the GFDL), and what isn't is unsourced and possibly unattributable. There's nothing to be merged since all the information is either unsourced or copied verbatim. Coredesat 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Aside from that dead rappers aren't much fun, this is really something that's better handled by a category. All of these rappers have their information on how they died, for the most part, in their own articles, so we're better linking them in a category and leaving each article to handle it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Per Dennis. Better suited as category.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OMG, it's another article about dead people, but I don't mean Plato and Philo. Yeah, make it a category, or just delete it altogether because it's a bad article. YechielMan 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and create a category, such as "deceased rappers" or the like. Sr13 (T|C) 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and make a category, at best. Goodnightmush Talk 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and no category - we do not categorize people on the basis of whether they are living or dead (with the exception of Category:Living people which as I understand it maintained for WP:BLP reasons) and in fact have already deleted a dead rappers category once. Otto4711 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and make a category - how about "murdered rappers"? Steve 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; and there's already a potential category - Category:Assassinated American people. Or Category:American murder victims which is more general. Pufnstuf 05:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not all of them died because they were murdered and not all rappers are American. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If it can be rewritten in something similar to List of monarchs of the British Isles by cause of death it would be a useful annotated list. A category is acceptable too. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference here is that there's clear-cut criteria for monarchs of the British Isles, making for a short list that won't be getting much bigger in the forseeable future. However, "rappers" could include any person who enters a freestyle competition and thinks he/she is notable enough for a WP bio and associated links. Hell, even Rodney Dangerfield could make this list, and he gets no respect! Can you imagine how cluttered and unmaintainable this article will be once it's been in circulation for a few months? And where's Left Eye? Easy E? Caknuck 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and categorise. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and turn it into an article on the unusually high occurance of murders of rappers - i.e. rename and get rid of the car accidents and other non-murder deaths. Someday rappers will start dying of old age, and we'll no more want a special article on them then on dead composers or dead reformation authors. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:NOT. No need to categorize either, doing so would be overcategorization. Arkyan • (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and no category per Otto.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Coredesat. Category would be acceptable if it served a more specific purpose, such as "Category:Murdered Rappers". Maybe. --Moralis (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are plenty of dead rappers other than these. Virtual Cowboy 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per my arguement above. Caknuck 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and turn into a category, if this doesn't exist yet. Poeloq 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't believe that WP needs a list of dead Rappers, Rock Stars, Celebrity Chefs, supermodels or anything of the like. My initial thought was also to go the category route, but agree with Otto4711 -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wouldn't have a problem with a category, as the death by violence of rappers and their associates has been covered in enough independent news sources to be considered notable. But I don't care enough to actually create such a category. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Make a catagory, though. - Hmwith 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A category for "Rappers killed through human violence" or similar may be passable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially when the parameters are so loose. Fishhead64 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and all above. JodyB 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cocept is too broad. Otherwise we could end up with List of all dead people. Murdered Rappers might be acceptable, as that's a bit more specific. A1octopus 00:39, 17 April 2007 (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. All arguments on both sides taken into account. Metamagician3000 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Fenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Technical nomination only. IP editor 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs • count) started the nomination process with the following comment: "(AFD tag...Individual in non-notable other than being killed in Iraq...this page only serves as a memorial)" Eastmain 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Eastmain 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable member of the military. A quick review of the IP's talk page may be helpful. --Eastmain 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - member is only memorable for having died in combat. The page is a memorial. As for my talk page...it is a dynamic IP and is accessed by over 2000 people. Should have no bearing on the fact that this page exists solely as a memorial and the member is in no way "Notable". --00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Very sad, but so is every one of the 2,000+ deaths. Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I can't see any particular reason to differentiate this person from any of the other casualties of the conflict in Iraq. If somebody makes a movie or book about this person, that would change things. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real indication of notability in this article. Mwelch 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Per the discussion and sources cited below, his family and hometown indeed seem to have created enough press to push him into notability. However, since it's those media-covered actions of such subsequent to his death that have separate him from just "any other soldier sadly killed", the article should be written to note such. Mwelch 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep it seems non notable until the end when we get the governor and the lowered flags and the references which seem primarily about him. I'm not sure what makes him stand out, but he seems to anyway. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In reviewing such orders,[1] it looks like Gov. Corzine does that for pretty much all New Jersey natives killed in Iraq. Mwelch 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to meet WP:BIO per refs section and [2] --W.marsh 01:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per W.marsh. Sr13 (T|C) 03:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't see notability over any other soldier killed in the line of duty. Goodnightmush Talk 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't seem notable. Steve 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bryson CitiCat 04:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, yes very sad, but not notable. Send notice of AfD to whitehouse.gov --killing sparrows 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & above. All soldiers' deaths are tragic, all are (in ideal circumstances) reported in the media and recognized by authorities, but not all are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough per above. Davewild 07:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Semper Fidelis but Wikipedia is not a memorial--Looper5920 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obviously a hero, as is anyone else who fights for their country. However, he fails the notability requirements. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Cyrus Andiron 12:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does he not meet the guideline you linked to? It says "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." and above I linked to evidence that such works exist. So clearly he does meet the inclusion guideline... people just are choosing to ignore it here. --W.marsh 13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The United States lost over 407,000 soldiers in World War II. A very substantial portion of them (99.9%) do not have their own articles. We've lost over 2,000 soldiers in the current war. Does every one of them deserve a page? Dead solderies are a tragedy, but they are only remembered for a few weeks (by the media) and then we move on. I understand the desire to celebrate and memorialize every life lost in the war. But, this is not the place for that. I think we need to keep in mind, that if he were still alive, he probably would not have a page. The fact that he died put him in the news for a couple of weeks. That does not substantiate his notability. I think we should focus on the long term. As sad as it is, he will not be remembered 50 to 100 years later by the general population. --Cyrus Andiron 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they do "deserve an article", if sources exist. Your argument was effectively that sources didn't exist, I was just pointing out that they do. I think people should be aware that deleting these articles does go against the letter of WP:BIO. Like I say below, I understand why people take that position, but I don't personally feel it's necessary at this point. --W.marsh 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The United States lost over 407,000 soldiers in World War II. A very substantial portion of them (99.9%) do not have their own articles. We've lost over 2,000 soldiers in the current war. Does every one of them deserve a page? Dead solderies are a tragedy, but they are only remembered for a few weeks (by the media) and then we move on. I understand the desire to celebrate and memorialize every life lost in the war. But, this is not the place for that. I think we need to keep in mind, that if he were still alive, he probably would not have a page. The fact that he died put him in the news for a couple of weeks. That does not substantiate his notability. I think we should focus on the long term. As sad as it is, he will not be remembered 50 to 100 years later by the general population. --Cyrus Andiron 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To say that the daeth of a soldier is not notable is very irresponsible. He is a part of history and current events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcool116 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment In which case every single soldier ever who is KIA is notable. That's a lot of people. EliminatorJR Talk 14:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's a good thing Wikipedia doesn't have a size limit. --W.marsh 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial. That being said, perhaps the Keep !voters could tell us what elements of WP:BIO this fellow fulfilled? Sorry if this sounds callous, but Sgt. Fenton was a young clerk with a high school education, no valor awards and a sparse official bio released by the military only after his death and containing little more than vitae curriculae. The article scarcely even asserts notability. RGTraynor 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh as said above, this appears to meet the core component of WP:BIO, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent" --W.marsh 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I hope the closing admin keeps in mind how some of the people here don't seem to have read the article or at least won't reply to the reference section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I likewise hope the closing admin keeps in mind selective quotations. For one thing, that core component goes on to say "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this soldier's death asserts practically nothing more than he died in action, and such encomiums as were given are the usual ones attached to any memorial. The official policy states that "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Let's run down the list: is there a credible independent biography? Did he receive significant recognized awards or honors? Wide name recognition? Did he make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field? RGTraynor 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles were written about him by multiple publications giving non-trivial information... that's what WP:BIO requires. Attempts to bend that to require a book-length source of information on a topic to count as "non-trivial" are usually unsuccessful, as non-trivial just means enough to create more than a directory-style entry, but who knows, people might vote to ignore WP:BIO here. It's happened before. --W.marsh 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO is a guideline. I make no apologies for using personal judgement in addition to a guideline. It certainly does not require that an article with sufficient sources stay and there are numerous reasons that we might delete one regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, I'm sorry if there seems to be an overly negative implication to my statements about people voting to ignore it. While I think it's slightly negative to ignore it, in that we have no size limit so no need to delete good articles that aren't "important enough", it's understandable that some people want to not follow it here. --W.marsh 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man argument. Who is asking for "book-length" sources? We're looking for something, anything, which establishes this fellow's notability beyond his untimely death. A page will do, thanks. RGTraynor 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's just it... sources were presented, but it's not enough because you're imagining that the core of WP:BIO says it doesn't count if the sources are only about his "untimely death". There's no such language there, the sources meet what is actually required. --W.marsh 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO is a guideline. I make no apologies for using personal judgement in addition to a guideline. It certainly does not require that an article with sufficient sources stay and there are numerous reasons that we might delete one regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles were written about him by multiple publications giving non-trivial information... that's what WP:BIO requires. Attempts to bend that to require a book-length source of information on a topic to count as "non-trivial" are usually unsuccessful, as non-trivial just means enough to create more than a directory-style entry, but who knows, people might vote to ignore WP:BIO here. It's happened before. --W.marsh 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I likewise hope the closing admin keeps in mind selective quotations. For one thing, that core component goes on to say "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this soldier's death asserts practically nothing more than he died in action, and such encomiums as were given are the usual ones attached to any memorial. The official policy states that "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Let's run down the list: is there a credible independent biography? Did he receive significant recognized awards or honors? Wide name recognition? Did he make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field? RGTraynor 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I hope the closing admin keeps in mind how some of the people here don't seem to have read the article or at least won't reply to the reference section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh as said above, this appears to meet the core component of WP:BIO, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent" --W.marsh 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment unfortunately, the problem with covering deaths is that it will lead to a systematic problem. Let's take the current war in Iraq. It's 3000 or so people now for Coalition forces. That's not bad, is it? But wait, what about Iraqi deaths? That would add 50,000 people. Most of whom won't receive coverage in US sources, and possibly not Iraqi sources, but some will. And then we have to think about other wars. There are newspaper articles covering deaths at least a hundred years back in some cases. Individual coverage of deaths in war is almost the de-facto now, is it really any different than any accident or crime victim's death? Not really no. This is a case where it's important to recognize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy(see WP:BURO, it's not about rules, but about reasoning. And mine tells me that absent some other notability (like a television movie, or a book written about them), it's not going to work to cover deaths in war. Not here anyway, if some other site wants to do it, more power to them. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What would the problem be? The Wikipedia articles could be accurate and reliable (if we include them only if sources exist), we obviously would have no problem storing them all, and their inclusion wouldn't at all harm our ability to cover "more important" topics, no one's required to spend their time editing these articles. So to say there's some impending problem waiting for when we get "too many" of these articles really isn't realistic. --W.marsh 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for me, it's a mix of the problem of size (think about it, this isn't just a few articles, but potentially hundreds of thousands, even millions of people if we apply the same standards to every country and war, and there are systemic bias problems that could arise from that). I also feel that such coverage would be somewhat outside the general purpose nature of an encyclopedia. There are dead people in the military who are important and notable. There are dead murder victims who are important and notable. There are even dead car accident victims who are important and notable. But not every person who died while in the military, who was murdered or had a car accident should have a Wikipedia article even if they do have reliable news coverage of them. It would be much better to have a different place for it, rather than trying to put it here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there simply is no problem of size... even if a million such articles could be sourced (I doubt it, but just for the sake of argument) it wouldn't make the servers sneeze, even with the capacity we already have sitting around going unused. Size an article takes up should never factor into why we delete that article, as it's not technically necessary. Besides, deleted articles stay on the server anyway, purges of deleted articles can occur but are rare. --W.marsh 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite confident that it would be easily possible (that is, based on the existence of reliable sources, not in terms of getting users to do it) to make several hundred thousand articles on dead soldiers, at least as far back as the Korean War. World War II is also quite possible, and even World War I. That's a large number, and I don't know that it wouldn't cause the servers problems actually. Wikipedia currently runs around 2 million articles in English. This would be a significant expansion of that. Certainly, there is a lot of room to grow, but that's a lot to consider. And applying the same standards to other deaths (IMO, required by NPOV) would balloon the number even further. And I can imagine it would cause user problems. With that many articles, most of them would be orphaned and unknown. That would lead to Vandalism problems being unresolved. Bad idea that. I'm willing to be flexible, and inclusionist, but I just don't see this kind of coverage as appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should read meta:Wiki is not paper if you really think there's a technical/space saving need to delete articles... --W.marsh 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't make Wikipedia wastepaper, either. The main problem with a multi-million article encyclopedia is that it would be far vaster than any corps of volunteers, however dedicated, could possibly police. Without policing, Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness is shot; it's already the case that many institutions refuse to recognize it as a useful source. RGTraynor 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read it, thank you, and believe it or not, my standards for inclusion are probably wider than most people's. However I do have some limits, and since I don't imagine hundreds of thousands of people whose only notability is a short-lived bit of articles in papers because of their death is really encyclopedic, this is one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't make Wikipedia wastepaper, either. The main problem with a multi-million article encyclopedia is that it would be far vaster than any corps of volunteers, however dedicated, could possibly police. Without policing, Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness is shot; it's already the case that many institutions refuse to recognize it as a useful source. RGTraynor 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should read meta:Wiki is not paper if you really think there's a technical/space saving need to delete articles... --W.marsh 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite confident that it would be easily possible (that is, based on the existence of reliable sources, not in terms of getting users to do it) to make several hundred thousand articles on dead soldiers, at least as far back as the Korean War. World War II is also quite possible, and even World War I. That's a large number, and I don't know that it wouldn't cause the servers problems actually. Wikipedia currently runs around 2 million articles in English. This would be a significant expansion of that. Certainly, there is a lot of room to grow, but that's a lot to consider. And applying the same standards to other deaths (IMO, required by NPOV) would balloon the number even further. And I can imagine it would cause user problems. With that many articles, most of them would be orphaned and unknown. That would lead to Vandalism problems being unresolved. Bad idea that. I'm willing to be flexible, and inclusionist, but I just don't see this kind of coverage as appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there simply is no problem of size... even if a million such articles could be sourced (I doubt it, but just for the sake of argument) it wouldn't make the servers sneeze, even with the capacity we already have sitting around going unused. Size an article takes up should never factor into why we delete that article, as it's not technically necessary. Besides, deleted articles stay on the server anyway, purges of deleted articles can occur but are rare. --W.marsh 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for me, it's a mix of the problem of size (think about it, this isn't just a few articles, but potentially hundreds of thousands, even millions of people if we apply the same standards to every country and war, and there are systemic bias problems that could arise from that). I also feel that such coverage would be somewhat outside the general purpose nature of an encyclopedia. There are dead people in the military who are important and notable. There are dead murder victims who are important and notable. There are even dead car accident victims who are important and notable. But not every person who died while in the military, who was murdered or had a car accident should have a Wikipedia article even if they do have reliable news coverage of them. It would be much better to have a different place for it, rather than trying to put it here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What would the problem be? The Wikipedia articles could be accurate and reliable (if we include them only if sources exist), we obviously would have no problem storing them all, and their inclusion wouldn't at all harm our ability to cover "more important" topics, no one's required to spend their time editing these articles. So to say there's some impending problem waiting for when we get "too many" of these articles really isn't realistic. --W.marsh 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment W.marsh suggested that the sources he provided asserted Mr. Fenton's notability. I checked over the 14 sources and this what I found:
1. [3] - New Jersey newspaper article. Basically, noting that a local man was injured in combat. (May 6, 2006)
2. [4] – New York Post article that notes his death. (May 10, 2006)
3. [5] – New Jersey newspaper article that talks about a protest rally for the families of deceased soldiers. (Aug 17, 2006)
4. [6] – Another New Jersey newspaper article. This one is about how his father is now serving as a public speaker. (Aug 10, 2006)
5. [7] New Jersey newspaper article that notes that people from Mr. Fenton’s hometown are remembering him on the 1st year anniversary of his death. (May 29, 2006)
6. [8] - Web page unavailable. The synopsis indicates that it is about another deceased officer. (Sep 27, 2006)
7. [9] - North Jersey website. Talks about his death and funeral service. (May 14, 2006)
8. [10] North Jersey Website - Another article that discusses his families protest of the war. (Nov 20, 2006)
9. [11] New Jersey Newspaper article that is the exact same as the source above. (Nov 20, 2006)
10. [12] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the protests that occurred on the anniversary of his death. Very similar to number 5. (August 17, 2006)
11. [13] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the 1st anniversary of his death. Mentions the protests much like #10 and #5 did and that his father is a speaker now (Aug 10, 2006)
12.[14] – Same article as #7. (June 29, 2006)
13. [15] – New Jersey Newspaper. Letter to the editor, written by Mr. Fenton’s mother. (June 4, 2006)
14. "matthew%20fenton"%20iraq&img=\\na0021\2590465\14359648.html|14 Article about another Matthew Fenton who was killed in 1949. (December 3, 1949)
The only nationally recognized puiblication that mentions Mr. Fenton is the New York Post. That article mentions the fact that he died and discussed the events surrounding his death. All of the other sources are from the New Jersey area where Mr. Fenton lived. I believe that he may have notability there, but not in the rest of the country. Additionally, nothing has been written about Mr. Fenton since September of 2006. Only two of the sources provided directly deal with Mr. Fenton's death and subsequent funeral (#1 & #2). After reviewing these sources I reassert my opinion that Mr. Fenton is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. He is mentioned only once by a reputable non trivial source. The local newspaper does not carry much weight as they tend to cover all deaths of people from the area. --Cyrus Andiron 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think some of the coverage is more meaningful than you say, such as the NYPost story, which does more than note his death. Anyway, the closing admin will... hopefully... take all of this into account. This is not a "battle" I really expect to win, it's just my opinion that there's no harm in including this article, as I've argued above. --W.marsh 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a guideline, but applicable - Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It_doesn.27t_do_any_harm CitiCat 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Geeze, that comes off as rather trite. See above where I explained why this information is verifiable and notable, specifically so no one would cite that little page (which I wrote parts of). I guess I should have repeated myself loudly for people who just look for keywords and pounce. --W.marsh 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP does not create a page for every soldier KIA and nor should it. Since this is not just a US-based work, I doubt that similar raw material for, say, a Swedish soldier killed in the line of duty who was otherwise non-notable, would pass muster either. I believe that everyone who laid down his or her life for their country should be honoured, but WP is not the place to do it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While his death is sad, and should be memorialized, unless we are planning to create articles about every war casualty, I can't support inclusion without evidence that this person was notable in something other than his death. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see a lot of irrelevant discussion here. Per WP:N the subject meets the inclusion criteria based on the number of independent non-trivial sources which provide information. Whether it is fair or unfair that not all soldiers in all armies or other victims of war receive notice, is irrelevant to this decision. There are no criteria which determine that national media is more credible than local media. --Kevin Murray 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I examined the sources in one of my posts above. There is only one non trivial source, please see the examination above. The other 13 are articles were created by local newspapers, the sort of coverage you would expect out of the death of someone who lived there. Additionally, the following comes directly from WP:ATTRIBUTION: In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. The key word there is mainstream. The New York Post is the only mainstream newspaper that cites Mr. Fenton. Therefore, there is only one non trivial notable sources that refers to him. --Cyrus Andiron 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kevin Murray. Well said, Kevin! --ElKevbo 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically the more recent wording at WP:N allows for a single source to establish notability; however, the source must be significant and there must be corroboration of neutrality and veracity. This source might be a bit weak here. However, the synergy between the small national coverage and the more numerous local sources may be enough to put this over the border. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This topic comes up occasionally a subject clearly meets WP:N, but editors come up with their own criteria, along the lines of "Wikipedia cannot have pages for every KIA soldier or Holocaust victim or whatever." It is true that we can't, but we can have articles on all of those that meet WP:N or ATT. The idea of having these guidelines is that we don't have to be subjective as to what constitutes a notable soldier or any other type of person. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding the possibilities of contravening WP:CSB, there's a similar AfD for a non-US serviceman going on here at the moment EliminatorJR Talk 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia can't have an article for every soldier that died in action. IronChris | (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets standards for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete Just another person killed in war. Articles covering him are from a lesser known paper mourning a local person. Definitely doesn't meet notability. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Post is a lesser known paper? --W.marsh 02:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is only one source. WP:N says there need to be multiple non trivial sources in order to assert notability. The other 13 remaining sources do not assert notability as they were local news coverage (to be expected in regards to the death of a resident) or did not deal with Mr. Fenton himself as shown above. --Cyrus Andiron 11:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. It's tragic but dying in a war is not unusual. There is no evidence presented that this person meets any of our established inclusion criteria. The coverage above does not satisfy our established criteria in this case. Wikipedia is also not WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Is the subject of multiple published workd from reliable sources. I see the Wikipedia is not a memorial as if a person's death negate's our primary inclusion standards. This isn't an article about an editor's grandpa who otherwise would not meet WP:BIO. --Oakshade 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see what you mean - the criterion I used was to ask whether, if he had not died, would his life have met WP Guidelines? And now, was there something about his death that was any more remarkable than every other soldier who was KIA? I'm not seeing it, I'm afraid. I don't wish to appear heartless - I admire all members of armed forces who are defending their respective countries, I am just trying to interpret the guidelines here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NOT (not a memorial). >Radiant< 08:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's sad that he died, but wiki is not a memorial. The references establish his existence, so we have verifiability, but beyond dying in the war, there is no establishment of any real notability. Mere existence is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the non-trivial coverage he has received in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a memorial applies only to articles that don't meet our notability guidelines. Otherwise, we'd have no articles on any deceased persons. Most of the arguments to "delete" above promote a subjective/personal standard of notability that is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Black Falcon 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Has anyone here actually read the article other than looking at the references section? I would be hard pressed to believe it. Starting from the intro, where his notability is based on having "died from wounds", there is nothing that states his notability other than the fact that the NYT mentioned his death. Could it be based on the fact that he is from New Jersey and it might be worth a mention based on where the majority of their subscribers live? You will be hard pressed to find anyone who has contributed more information on the United States Marine Corps on Wikipedia then me but I do not think this Marine rates an article. I mourn his death but this page is a memorial pure and simple and does not belong here. --Looper5920 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability, as defined at Wikipedia as a standard for including or excluding articles, is proven through the presence or absence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. I'm unsure why this Marine received as much coverage as he did, but the fact is that he did. We as editors shouldn't make personal subjective judgments on the notability of persons, but rather to convey judgments made by others in published works. I know not wherefrom his notability (as defined outside Wikipedia) stems, but the fact that he received coverage in multiple works proves his notability. -- Black Falcon 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Has anyone here actually read the article other than looking at the references section? I would be hard pressed to believe it. Starting from the intro, where his notability is based on having "died from wounds", there is nothing that states his notability other than the fact that the NYT mentioned his death. Could it be based on the fact that he is from New Jersey and it might be worth a mention based on where the majority of their subscribers live? You will be hard pressed to find anyone who has contributed more information on the United States Marine Corps on Wikipedia then me but I do not think this Marine rates an article. I mourn his death but this page is a memorial pure and simple and does not belong here. --Looper5920 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not a memorial, and subject is non-notable. Fishhead64 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a memorial. Kusma (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claims of notability other than normal memorials for the dead. Sorry, but he's no more notable than any of the millions who have died in other wars before the advent of the internet. -- Necrothesp 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:ATT mentions mainstream sources but I take that to mean mainstream in the sense of true, unbiased reportage. It is not a reflection of circulation numbers. To quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source" Unless we can make the case that these sources are unreliable, we should keep. JodyB 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical nomination only. IP editor 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs • count) started the nomination process with the following comment: "tag for deletion...only notable for having died in combat....this page is a memorial)" Eastmain 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Eastmain 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable member of the military. A quick review of the IP's talk page may be helpful. --Eastmain 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Member is not notable. Page is a memorial for a member. Again my IP is dynamic and 2000 people use theis address. Cannot help if some of them use it to vandalize.--203.10.224.59 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is nothing in this article that indicates the subject is notable. Closest thing maybe would be the Bronze Star, but that's been discussed in the WP:BIO talk page archives more than once with a strong consensus that medals at that level do not bestow notability. (As opposed to something like the Medal of Honor, which would indeed make one notable.) Mwelch 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sad, but so is every one of the 2,000 + deaths in Iraq. Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless, for example, there was some equivalent to this person as a character in Blackhawk Down. FrozenPurpleCube 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Sr13 (T|C) 03:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT#MEMORIAL CitiCat 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, particularly Mwelch re: Bronze Star and FrozenPurpleCube re: Black Hawk Down (no, he is not portrayed in the film, see Black_Hawk_Down#Cast). --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As wikipedia not a memorial. Davewild 07:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Looper5920 10:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, fails WP:BIO. Bronze Stars aren't quite given out as readily as candy, but they're not particular notable in of themselves. Ravenswing 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. No assertion of notability is made other than the Bronze Star. --Cyrus Andiron 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. Goodnightmush Talk 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per comments above. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless better evidence of notability can be shown; Wikipedia is not a memorial. Actually, a WikiMemorial might be an interesting use of the Wiki software. But Wikipedia isn't it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dariusk 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no references to demonstrate notability and there is no assertion of notability in the text. --Kevin Murray 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO; as always, I would be willing to reconsider if additional evidence were offered. --ElKevbo 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT (memorial). --PaxEquilibrium 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. It's tragic but dying in a war is not unusual. There is no evidence presented that this person meets any of our established inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sad, but wiki is not a memorial -- Whpq 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article provides no proof of the subject's notability. -- Black Falcon 17:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A review of the material yielded by Google search does nothing to augment subject's notability, and WP is not a memorial. Fishhead64 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Being so involved in so many of America's most recent conflicts, in addition to surviving cancer, combines to make this person notable. Academic Challenger 04:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claims of notability other than normal memorials for the dead. Sorry, but he's no more notable than any of the millions who have died in other wars or survived cancer before the advent of the internet. -- Necrothesp 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the commenters above. My sympathies go out to his family, but alas Wikipedia is not a memorial. Yamaguchi先生 01:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vilno programming language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable, when googled few hits come up, of those many are Wikipedia and it's various alternate languages, with most referring to a different subject matter entirely. PeteShanosky 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Crystalballery comes in as the author presumes that it will be successful, but it appears to be nothing more than a relatively new programming language that's still under heavy development. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "When integrated with ..., Vilno will be comparable ..." Definitely slight on substance and heavy on circumstances, like the cities. It is not notable yet. Shenme 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence here or elsewhere that anyone has ever used this. The fact that the main development site is an Opera blog doesn't speak well of it, either. Neither does the fact that most of the related Google hits are blog comments by the author. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and comments from Dennisthe2. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any evidence that this is a notable piece of software. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, NN, at least at the moment. Pavel Vozenilek 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of actors who have played in trilogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Indiscriminate information; Any actor who has starred in a trilogy. Or any actor who has played the same role (however small) in a trilogy. Or any actor who has played the same character in four films in a series (ie Lethal Weapon), because four films are a trilogy if you don't count the fourth film. Or any actor who has starred in six films in a series (ie Rocky), because that's a trilogy if you ignore the last three films.
Anyway, the point is, appearing in more than two related films is not significant enough to justify a list of actors who have done so. Saikokira 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What does this list add to the encyclopedia? If being in a trilogy is somehow significant to the actor, great, mention it there. What is notable about this circumstance? Shenme 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:NOT.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - indiscriminate list of information-EMP 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NOT. Sr13 (T|C) 03:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, per all of the above. Goodnightmush Talk 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. bd2412 T 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see why this list would really do any good. Each actor/actress should have a listing on their page of the movies they have been (or at least the most notable), which technically would incorporate this list on each of their pages separately. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indiscriminate, WP:NOT, pretty self-evident, this one. Arkyan • (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. Under what circumstances would anyone need this information? -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it's an indiscriminate load of information. Acalamari 23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal: What if it were renamed to "List of actors who have played in serial films", or "List of actors who have played the same role in three or more films" to eliminate the ambiguity of what is or isn't a "trilogy"? Trilogies seem to be the most common example of this, which was the reason I named the page this originally. But I could see how a list of actors who have played serial roles would be as useful, and less ambiguous than this. Lurlock 03:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indicriminate. How is this information useful in any way? Fishhead64 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not useful to you. I've got at least 20 people who seem to be interested in it, according to the edit history. Who are you to decide what is and isn't useful to other people? A list of actors who perform serial roles is definitely of interest to enough people that I think it's worth keeping. Lurlock 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abject (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article doesn't assert any notability, totally unverified and unsourced. All google turned up for this band was the myspace, and the wikipedia article EMP 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as no assertion of notability. I'm gonna tag it as such. Goodnightmush Talk 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Church of the organized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Been tagged for notability for several months now. It's apparent that the notability will not be asserted. If the group is notable, this page should still be deleted so that a proper article can be started. Sources are entirely self-referential. The asserted "source" of the Church of the Subgenius website makes no mention of anything in this article. To summarize WP:N and WP:ATT are simply not met. i kan reed 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ghits 12 that are not duplicate. fails WP:N Signed Jeepday 02:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MSJapan 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as failing WP:ATT, WP:ORG, WP:NN, WP:BULLSHIT, and, oh, add WP:COI as well; check the ID of the creator. Ravenswing 16:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is stunningly lacking in notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per 12 ghits, etc. GoodnightmushTalk 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is explained clearly that this is a made-up church. And then it is explained that the joke is known only in a small area. Well known jokes of this sort belong in WP, and this is totally unknown. By getting in here even temporarily it has perhaps achieved its object of getting better known. There are 21,000 ghits, of which almost all are mirrors and internet archive searches on words from the original articles. DGG 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ravenswing. GreenJoe 21:18, 15 April 2007 (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 [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion rev
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn Rosvold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Has all the hallmarks of an autobiographical vanity piece.RJASE1 Talk 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Myspace 'r' us, not. Events in his life, but nothing significant enough in effects to warrant an encyclopedic article. He has enough web presence (as mentioned in article), not needed here. Shenme 01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I started to speedy, but I guess since Jay Thomas is a legitimate celebrity, laying claim to being Thomas's show's exec producer could be seen as a claim to notability. I still strongly reject said claim, though. Mwelch 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N signed Jeepday 02:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; fails WP:BIO big time, and definitely cracks skulls against WP:VAIN. Jay Thomas' butler, shoe shine boy and 8th grade English teacher don't get to claim venereal notability either. RGTraynor 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Snoop Shawnie Shawn as lacking in sufficient notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:53, 12 April 2007 (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Yusuke Oeda pupils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. As the intro says, a list of pupils who have been taught by Yusuke Oeda in the game of Go. Yusuke Oeda is apparently important in the game, but that doesn't mean his students, or a list of them, are. Saikokira 01:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge If this list is worthy of mention (which is not evident) then at best it could be part of the article Yusuke Oeda. Signed Jeepday 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MSJapan 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability is not associative. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 14:52Z
- Delete as non-notable, although a category to be used for notable Go players who were his students might be interesting and appropriate. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think we need an expert here, as he apparently is one of the highest ranked players in the world, if I understand Go_ranks_and_ratings correctly. Having such a teacher might make a player notable enough to be on a list. DGG 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be preferable if the information on this page were moved over to the main article on Yusuke Oeda, famed Go professional and teacher. I would prefer that to be done before the page was deleted. It does look pretty non notable to me.--ZincBelief 11:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Yusuke Oeda. The list is incomprehensive in content. All the "pupils" are in red link except for three. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of fictional misanthropes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Highly subjective and POV list was apparently salvaged following the deletion of Category:Fictional misanthropes and Category:Fictional human misanthropes at the Categories for deletion discussion last December. All the same reasons for which the categories were deleted also apply here. Any list that includes Montgomery Burns, Bob Kelso (from Scrubs), and Godzilla is bordering on the ridiculous. Saikokira 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Inclusion of almost anyone in this list requires a point-of-view judgment.--Xnuala (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pretty useless. What's worth saving can be incorporated into Misanthrope#Misanthropy in literature. I'm not sure what POV means in this context. Neutral Point of View policy is meant to prevent us taking sides in a controversy, not from using our judgment to make decisions about what should or should not go into the encyclopedia. To label some character misanthropic is something that can be proven or not, not a decision to be avoided. As editors, we're all permited to use our brains and our footnotes.Noroton 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --RaiderAspect 05:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bah, this list is almost completely worthless, indiscriminate and POV-choked. The non-human list is largely and uncritically composed of generic fictional villains like "orc," "uruk-hai" and "Silurian." RGTraynor 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - wayyyy too subjective and open for heated debate. Not encyclopedic. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as previously deleted material- recreating the deleted category as a list doesn't change any of the original reasons the category was deleted. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Actually relevant characters e.g. from de Sade novels are missing. Pavel Vozenilek 11:03, 13 April 2007 (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, no consensus to create a category straight-out. Anyone who wishes to proceed with turning it into a category is more than welcome to as a normal editorial action. If you do wish to do so, and are a non-administrator, please ask me and I'll make the text temporarily available to you. Daniel Bryant 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Neighbours and Home and Away actors turned musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
It's Original Research to combine two unrelated TV shows into one article this way. Also fairly indiscriminate, and innaccurate; some of these "actors turned musicians" were musicians before they were actors; some of them aren't even musicians, but pop singers; and some of these actors were cast members of other series before - why not list those shows as well?
I was interested to learn that Russell Crowe is "Male", so there is some encyclopedic information here. But seriously, this was nominated for deletion last year, with a No Consensus result, although the only 2 attempts at a "keep" argument I could see were "useful and interesting" and "appreciated by Australians". I think it should be deleted this time. Saikokira 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sr13 (T|C) 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. OR. MSJapan 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. And by the way, why does this article exist? Is there a purpose to it? Noroton 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A word of explanation: in Australia these two shows are often mentioned in the same breath - they are basically the only two shows in the category "Australian soaps", so the combination is hardly OR. The movement of stars of these shows into the music industry has been a much-discussed phenomenon in Australia. Especially given the varying levels of success.
- Some of them aren't even musicians, but pop singers. Oh well. StAnselm 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, so source this much-discussed phenomenon. Pending that, this fails WP:ATT, so I can be counted upon for a Delete. RGTraynor 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOT Indiscriminate. Dallas and Dynasty used to get mentioned together, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article listing any comparisons of Dallas and Dynasty cast members. Regarding the above comment; "they are basically the only two shows in the category "Australian soaps"". That's funny, because there are actually 40 different shows in Category:Australian television soap operas, not two. Pufnstuf 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Response: Yes, but these are the only two shows on the list that are currently still being aired! I could make up a category "current Australian soaps" if you like... StAnselm 06:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except that this is an encyclopedia that shouldn't make reference to a "current" anything, because we don't use a "current" point of reference. It's hardly an article that can age well. zadignose 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete perhaps merits a mention in Music of Australia, but a table of data such as this is the epitome of WP:OR. Potatoswatter 07:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, soap-stars-turned-pop-singers are a notable phenomenon in Australia. Some of our most famous musical acts got their start on Neighbours (eg Kylie Minogue) or Home and Away (okay so mainly Neighbours). The ones from Neighbours often make it big in the UK too. --Candy-Panda 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If they're a notable phenomenon they'll have their own articles (and they do). This article simply isn't required - this is what we have categories for. EliminatorJR Talk 14:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per StAnselm. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Candy-Panda. JRG 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom and ors. As noted it's original research and WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As for StAnslem, being mentioned in the same breath does not justify an article. It would be like me creating a list of people who've received heart transplants. It's useless information and of no encylopeadic benefit. Thewinchester (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and create category - Create a category called "Australian Soap Stars who are also musicians" if desired. This is definitely what categories are for. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per both WP:OR and WP:NOT. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT, WP:OR. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unfortunately, seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information although a noticeable phenomenon. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as a compromise to get rid of indiscriminate lists, why don't we merge the content (verified of course) into the separate Home and Away and Neighbours articles? That way it is a notable part of the shows, that some of their ex-actors have gone into music careers, rather than a list that is a bit random and doesn't really add anything special to WP. JRG 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason that shouldn't be done now as a matter of course. RGTraynor 06:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Sr13 above. Lankiveil 11:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, perhaps categorise as per Alucard. There is no reason for a list of people who meet a set of arbitrary and somewhat unrelated conditions. Orderinchaos 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Sr13 above. not yet another pointless list. Rimmeraj 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete turn it into a category if it must exist, but as above, its just another bloody list. Nomadtales 06:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge into the program articles. The music/soap star link is interesting but not enough for its own page. Euryalus 09:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and create category per Alucard (Dr.). Fishhead64 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, pointless list, anyway the list is basically covered by the category "Before they were stars" Bandwagonman 14:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and don't even consider a category or else get ready for an immediate CfD which can hardly fail. This is a bizarre intersection. Even categorizing "Neighbors Actors" is highly questionable. Categorizing them as "turned musicians" is worse. Intersecting the various performers who played some part in one of two different shows because they are "current," soap operas, and Australian is going WAY too far. This is all in addition to the facts that we shouldn't use a "current" time frame, the actors listed aren't all current members of the cast of either show, and many are more noted for other career achievements than their participation in these shows. The practice of telling editors to turn bad lists into categories, then telling them to turn bad categories into lists is a bad practice. It simply forces us to do more work while endlessly shuffling our problems back and forth. zadignose 23:41, 16 April 2007 (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 by User:Anthony.bradbury
Useless Contribution ReTSeM 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and so tagged. Jeepday 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. So tagged. Sr13 (T|C) 03:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I usually prefer to userfy non-notable autobiographical articles, but this one is probably not worth userfying. --Eastmain 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Greatest Hits (50 Cent album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Pure speculation about a 2008 album that is two ahead of the current release. No sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NPswimdude500 (Talk|Contribs) 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep it is an album because he said it was in that interviewTru Soulja 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although I did most of the editing so far for that article, I would not oppose it being deleted, it can easily be created again later. If you want proof, see here. Last questions he talks about it, but once again this is not to convince you to keep it, it is just some proof. --- Efil4tselaer 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No prejudice to recreation - once the album's release information becomes a bit more concrete than a single interview. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as crystal ballism. Very little can be certain at this point, including the year and whether it even gets made CitiCat 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for now as crystally. When it gets closer to release or there are any real details, it can be recreated. What is the hurry to have the article now. It's not like we have a deadline to meet. --Cyrus Andiron 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until it's more than crystal ball speculation. Goodnightmush Talk 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, and recreate when more reliable information is available. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why hasn't this article been deleted yet? --- Efil4tselaer 14:25, 15 April 2007 (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly nonsense and self-promotion; term seems to mostly appear on the web with respect to how silly this article is Jonathan Williams 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. It also fails the "n year test" for any n>3. YechielMan 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete eh sounds like people on forums complaining about music that gets too mainstream for their tastes? I dunno. Article is a bit incoherent and leaves out details... such as anyone other than forum posters/bloggers using this term. Published sources would be helpful here. --W.marsh 03:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The nature of the term makes it difficult to guarantee that there are no reliable sources- googling turns up a lot of unrelated stuff. If there is a real argument for notability, the article creator is invited to add the sources to demonstrate it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as no reliable sources are provided asserting its notability. --ElKevbo 22:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Blog House Must be Saved, the real problem is that this term was created by the internet for the internet. In all reality this is a joke term used to describe a certian type of house listener not really a type of house music. For the people creating this type of Electro they take it really serious and are probably offened by the term. But for people who listen to House music this has turned into a semi slang word to talk about people who will not be listening to this music in a year. Its kinda a toss up if you want to keep it around on wiki, its kinda like New Rave. But I would say go for it. holler at me on them emails to discuss this. I have been working on some more text too, casikroth@gmail.com--casikroth 9:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the text that's the problems, it's the lack of citations or references. I would vote conditional keep, since there is some distinct material on the internet, but the entry needs to be more encyclopedic, esp. with respect to citations which would determine notability. Fishhead64 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No endorsement either way, but you might want to remove your email address from this page unless you like junk mail. Yamaguchi先生 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not the text that's the problems, it's the lack of citations or references. I would vote conditional keep, since there is some distinct material on the internet, but the entry needs to be more encyclopedic, esp. with respect to citations which would determine notability. Fishhead64 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is incoherent and there are not any verifiable sources. Just linking to blogs and bands does not an article make.THE evil fluffyface 15:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has been fixed up and should now comply with Wikipedia standards. 12:27, 16 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.253.54 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I'm sorry, but the changes don't make me change my vote. Almost none of those sources actually use the term 'blog house,' let alone discuss the genre in any meaningful detail. It sounds like it's a style that may be becoming more significant, but for now, I don't see the sources verifying the widespread use of this term. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:59, 16 April 2007 (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 Convert to disambig by User:Vicarious per consensus. PeaceNT 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a glorified dicdef, it might need to be replaced with a disambig page afterwards (including a link to wiktionary), it's current content needs to go. Vicarious 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- borderline clenaup. needs to e completely rewritten. SYSS Mouse 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The slang applications in the third paragraph and the "see also" provide a bare minimum of notability, but for me, WP:WINAD wins the day. YechielMan 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Treasure? Seems like the same basic concept. --W.marsh 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, after this is decided I'll make the page into a disambig page for booty call (slang and movie), bootylicious, treasure, wiktionary link, etc. I just wanted consensus before I trashed the current content. Vicarious 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, dab away then. We need a better process for this than using an AfD to establish consensus... happened just yesterday with the article Tomorrow (paging Abbott and Costello...) --W.marsh 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, after this is decided I'll make the page into a disambig page for booty call (slang and movie), bootylicious, treasure, wiktionary link, etc. I just wanted consensus before I trashed the current content. Vicarious 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to disambig per nom. From a look at the sparse edit history, I doubt anyone would have cared if you just boldly did it without all this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to disambig as suggested. You may withdraw your nomination and be bold. --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to disambig, which I guess has already been pretty thoroughly agreed upon, but here I am to pile on anyway. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to disambig given my experience creating Dime (slang), I believe this article could be improved into an article, but for now a disambig is appropriate. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it's been done, this afd can be closed now. Vicarious 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Princess Diaries 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
There's no evidence the film was even in pre-production. Crumbsucker 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a magic 8-ball. MER-C 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with above post. No imdb page, and no real information on this movie. If it is to be made, then when it is announced, we can recreate and source. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article acknowledges that this movie is cancelled, so not even WP:CRYSTAL applies. WP:ALTERNATEUNIVERSEINWHICHTHEREISAPRINCESSDIARIES3 appears not yet to be policy, but I appeal to it nevertheless. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per MER-C. DBZROCKS 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article acknowledges that plans for the movie were cancelled. Possibly could be mentioned in Princess Diaries 2 article. <3Clamster 02:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Due to Hathaway's nudity in Havoc, her contract was dropped, and so she definetely wouldn't be acting in this. I do like the idea of putting this in the PD2 page if any verifiable sources can be found. Mastrchf91 02:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. She never had a contract with Disney (thus never dropped by them). She said in several interviews that she would voluntarily decline to do another PD film. But that's besides the point since there's no evidence that PD3 was even planned. Crumbsucker 15:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until someone actually has a source indicating otherwise.Ezratrumpet 01:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per this sentence: After being cancelled, the PD3 plot line remains a mystery. Without any sources, it's simply [{WP:CRYSTAL|too mysterious]]. -- Black Falcon 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rajeev Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unverifiable. Of the movies listed which appear on IMDB (Devdas and Kal Ho Naa Ho), Mr. Prasad appears nowhere in the credits. If these were minor Bollywood flicks, I could understand, but given that IMDB's credits for KHNH list parts down to "hot dog vendor", for example, this starts looking like some sort of hoax. Even if it isn't, though, we're still left with a biography with no sources and no verifiable claims of notability. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 09:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't checked the Devdas credits to verify that this actor played that part, but it was an exceptionally bit part. If I recall correctly, the character had one line "Pranām Choti Ma" (basically paying respects to his new Step mother) and then was in the backround for a few moments. Generally I would say delete unless there is verifiable evidence of his importance to a film or something else. The Devdas appearance doesn't qualify, but coverage focused on him in a reliable publication would. - Taxman Talk 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, where are you getting what part he played? I wasn't able to find him credited anywhere, period. Zetawoof(ζ) 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was added in an edit to Devdas (2002 film). But like I said I haven't had a chance to check, and my copy of Devdas is scratched beyond repair. I may be able to get ahold of one tomorrow, or perhaps someone else can check. - Taxman Talk 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... that just showed up, along with a similar addition to Kal Ho Naa Ho, by the same editor that created the article in question. Most curious. You'll have to excuse me for not being a little suspicious, especially given that IMDB doesn't list this actor. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was added in an edit to Devdas (2002 film). But like I said I haven't had a chance to check, and my copy of Devdas is scratched beyond repair. I may be able to get ahold of one tomorrow, or perhaps someone else can check. - Taxman Talk 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, where are you getting what part he played? I wasn't able to find him credited anywhere, period. Zetawoof(ζ) 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Smells a bit of selfpromotion, and no apparent notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the current article fails WP:BIO and lacks references. --ElKevbo 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources for verification. utcursch | talk 04:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). EliminatorJR Talk 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- HRH Princess of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete or Merge to her parents pages: Non-notable bio. Baby girl born on April 10, 2007 doesn't seem to be notable unless she does something notable. Tat Meng 03:14, April 12, 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep, the subject is of royal blood - that alone is notable, as far as I can tell. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, her sisters have articles, and she is a royal princess. This article will be moved by Friday morning when her name is officially announced. She is notable because she is the daughter of the heir to the throne of the Netherlands, granddaughter of the queen, and will probably be future daughter of a King, and later, sister to a Queen. Morhange 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major royal family members are certainly notable CitiCat 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - if the phrase "heir to the throne of " appears in an article, the person is probably notable. --Haemo 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. How do pages like this get proposed for deletion, anyway? I imagine the whole country is talking about her. StAnselm 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone else. Maxamegalon2000 05:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone else.--Prof.Thamm 07:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep HRH is the future daughter of a King and sister of a Queen, of course she is notable enough to have her own page. Idiotic to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep - interesting socio-political nomination, which should have taken account of WP:notability first. Rgds, - Trident13 10:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, ridiculous nomination. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's also ridiculous that this baby gets so much attention, but since she does, she deserves an article. By the way, do we have a category or list of "people whose real name is unknown"? Then we could add her next to Jack The Ripper and similar creatures :-) . Fram 11:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - royal. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 13:35, 12 April 2007 (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. Majorly (hot!) 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Horton Edward Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable author per WP:BIO. Sounds like a great guy, though.RJASE1 Talk 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable minor historian/teacher. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete CSD:A7 article makes no claim of notability, no evident basis for such a claim. Pete.Hurd 05:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability. --RaiderAspect 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In the region of Appalachia where he lived he is notable. Seems a bit like systemic bias to delete when Wikipedia keeps articles of very minor characters in TV shows like the Simpsons and Pokemon characters. Understood that WIkipedia is not a directory or just a collection of information - but this article does provide some helpful context to Avery County. Possibly a merge of his contributions into the county article would be an alternative to deletion.Brian0324 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.amazon.ca/North-Carolina-Mountain-Folklore-Miscellany/dp/0930230183 http://www.townsendthepeacefulside.com/cadescove/cultrural_history/curtural_history.htm http://www.library.appstate.edu/appcoll/manuscript/find.html http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ollis/MISC-OLLISES/averycountync.html
- That there is cruft in WP is not an acceptable argument for a race to the bottom by adding more cruft, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your links above to his books do not show him coming anywhere close to the WP:BIO guideline: "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pete.Hurd 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. I'll try and incorporate the info that is relevant to Avery County into the article if it is agreeable by all to delete the bio.Brian0324 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, there is a relevant quote and reading list on Avery County, North Carolina, now.Brian0324 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That there is cruft in WP is not an acceptable argument for a race to the bottom by adding more cruft, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your links above to his books do not show him coming anywhere close to the WP:BIO guideline: "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pete.Hurd 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold On The author says that the subject is notable within his region, but how is this demonstrated? There are no sources yet identified, but that's not a specific requisite for continued inclusion. We just have to have a reasonable expectation that we could find some sources in the future to prevent an immediate deletion. Since we use the existence of other publications on the topic as a surrogate for determining whether a topic is notable for WP, the author should convince us that someone has probably written about the subject or his book before - newspaper, magazine, government documents, book on the region. That he wrote books is irrelevant, unless the book(s) received written recognition in the form of reviews, awards, or are very widely cited. Good luck, and if you can make a case, contact me I'll vote keep. Read WP:N for some ideas. --Kevin Murray 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main reason that could be argued for his notability (as he was obviously not famous) is that he wrote a definitive history of a county that has been cited by geneaologists and researchers for the last 35 years. It is difficult to speculate on how significant his body of work was, but if it were the difinitive history of Los Angeles - it might make the cut methinks.Brian0324 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've looked at the offered sources, and not one makes any serious argument for notability; googling didn't turn up any better sources to verify notability. I see no evidence that he is notable even regionally. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- G-hits are just not an indicator of notability for a minor historical figure. He wasn't on a reality show, he was reality in building a nation. --Kevin Murray 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and that's why I said "I looked at the sources," and not "I counted g-hits." Not one of the sources provided above is an article that discusses this person as its main subject, which is what WP:BIO calls for. The provided sources are:
- an amazon.com page which says that the author's book is unrated by amazon and out of print.
- an article about local history that cites the author's book as one of ten sources, but doesn't specifically talk about the book or the author.
- a library catalog confirming that a copy of the author's book is held by Appalachian State University
- a genealogy web page which I just can't bring myself to spend the next half-hour searching just to see if this author is one of the names in the family tree.
- absolutely nothing else, and nothing that even provides any information to verify the accuracy of what's in the article under discussion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' does not seem to be notable as an academic under current standards.DGG 05:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per FisherQueen and merge to Avery County, North Carolina. Fishhead64 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep this is a cleanup and expansion candidate, not a delete candidate. rushing to deletion without encouraging cleanup and expansion first, unless the article is clearly so minor, seems bad process. I suspect that this article is perfectly notable regionally, and just needs improved, so i think we should give it time. --Buridan 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On what basis is this a cleanup and expansion candidate? Doesn't even assert notability, much less source the said notability. --RaiderAspect 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you'll never know if you delete it will you? and neither will other readers, that is why we give things a period of cleanup unless they are terrible and wrong. --Buridan 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On what basis is this a cleanup and expansion candidate? Doesn't even assert notability, much less source the said notability. --RaiderAspect 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Horton's alright by me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H Bruthzoo (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 April 2007 (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. Majorly (hot!) 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Black/White people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Similar lists and cats have been deleted: multiracial people, Multiracial Americans, etc. Also, the title of this one is more problematic and criteria harder to define. It was previously redirected/merged to the multiracial people list, but recreated after that list was deleted. Crumbsucker 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if by any chance it's not deleted, move to list of people who claim multiple ethnicities. But probably not necessary. CitiCat 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but rename to something more PC. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per CitiCat and nom - the sheer number of people who could belong on this list is ridiculous. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- not necessary. Virtual Cowboy 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the recreation under a new name of previously deleted material. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Move to List of multiracial people. More notable name. Clearly notable topic.--Sefringle 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not only does that broaden the scope, no reliable sources could possibly exist for such an insanely huge group of people. Ergo NN. Potatoswatter 17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment didn't "List of multiracial people" just get deleted, and per consensus that the topic was inappropriate/too broad? So I don't think that moving there is appropriate. In fact, this article looks eerily familiar, perhaps an admin can verify if it is substantially different than that deleted list. Anyway, I generally support lists like this organized by occupation, but in this form, I'm neutral. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and only restore when an article called List of White/Black people is created and survives an AfD. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Oh my. 219.89.3.146 08:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Filipe Araújo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. The article has a major COI issue; the creator's username is the same as the article subject's production company.RJASE1 Talk 03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 04:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - plenty of "links" (spam), but no actual sources. Also per WP:COI. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete this trash. --Kevin Murray 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until when (or if) this person actually achieves something noteworthy. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. blablablamedia ;-) Pavel Vozenilek 11:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enterprise Web 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is a buzzword with no meaning -- Nexaweb uses this term on their own entry, which I suspect is an advertisement itself. Then, this page reads "Nexaweb says...". This is not a commonly used term, with any real definition, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Klondike 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete for having no sources and failing NPOV (the "a better definition..." thing.) - Chardish 06:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2.0 Advertising 2.0, buzzword 2.0 —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 14:56Z
- Delete. I'd say delete as non-notable dicdef, but it doesn't really even define the term. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 3.0. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above 2.0 Mystache 00:47, 15 April 2007 (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.