Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 20
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheJazzDalek (talk | contribs) at 13:42, 20 March 2010 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Hahn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Renaming of Wikipedia:In the News
- Renaming of WikiProject LGBT Studies
- Review of the RfA discussion-only period
- ArbCom election RFC 2024
- Mobile fundraising experiment
- Subject-specific notability guideline for species
- WMF asking for ideas for annual fundraising banners
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Hahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Member of a notable music group who has not achieved his own notability outside of that group. While he has worked professionally outside of the group, taken on its own it is not enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to Linkin Park. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, redirects of this group's members' articles are promptly reverted until there's been an AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, school them on WP:EW. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes two to edit war! ;) Zagalejo^^^ 08:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, school them on WP:EW. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, redirects of this group's members' articles are promptly reverted until there's been an AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to pass the GNG. There's this, this, this, and this. He also has a profile here. And if this article is correct, he was on the cover of KoreAm Journal in 2003. (Can anyone confirm?) The page does need some serious cleanup; I'll try to do some of that soon. Zagalejo^^^ 08:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every instance is "Linkin Park DJ..." and in many cases it's about his aspirations to work in film, not about something he's actually done. In the 2nd link, despite the headline, less than a quarter of the article is about Hahn directing, and even then most of that is about a music video he directed for the band. Any of those links would be a great reference to add to the Linkin Park article but I don't see that it shows Hahn's notability outside of the group. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, his short film The Seed is a finished product. You can watch it online. But anyway, I don't see why he has to have notability outside of the band, as long as we have enough to say about him. Details about his early years and education (such as those available here and elsewhere) are difficult to incorporate into an article on the band. Factoring in the info on his short film work, toy designs, and Hollywood aspirations, I think an independent article, even if it's only a couple of paragraphs, may be the best route here. Zagalejo^^^ 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every instance is "Linkin Park DJ..." and in many cases it's about his aspirations to work in film, not about something he's actually done. In the 2nd link, despite the headline, less than a quarter of the article is about Hahn directing, and even then most of that is about a music video he directed for the band. Any of those links would be a great reference to add to the Linkin Park article but I don't see that it shows Hahn's notability outside of the group. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources exist, per above. fetchcomms☛ 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Zagalejo's points above, it is quite obvious that he is notable independent of the band. He has accomplished enough outside deeds that are noted in the references. SilverserenC 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of coverage from MTV. Str8cash (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I added his IMDB. I know some idiots will discredit IMDB, but he does have credits outside of the band. I also sourced that he has directed videos for bands other than Linkin Park. He also has appeared in multiple bands--side project bands that themselves have been successful and notable, another passage of WP:MUSICBIO. This is a no-brainer.Trackinfo (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Larry Page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucinda Southworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Why should Southworth have an article based on the reasoning that she is the wife of a billionaire(Larry Page)? Un-notable. She hasn't even done anything 'important', other than marry Larry Page, of course. BejinhanTalk 12:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Larry Page. She is clearly a remarkable woman (Stanford Ph.D.), but she has not achieved notability for anything other than marrying Page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and also added in two new EL's. SilverserenC 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Larry Page per MelanieN. I see no sign that she passes WP:PROF or has any other independent notability, and notability is not inherited. But a merge and a redirect are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect to Larry Page. Deletion would inconvenience the thousands of readers who look at her article each month. Abductive (reasoning) 09:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Concur with the above reasoned arguments. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge. As above. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (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 G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Charlie Brown and Charlie Bucket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be a hoax -- at least I can't find any source to confirm it. Can anyone else confirm or deny this is a real cartoon show? Warrah (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is a blatant hoax. No ghits outside of Wikipedia. If Johnny Depp was supposedly appearing in an upcoming Peanuts television special, there'd likely be something else out there by now. Even on the very slim chance this isn't a hoax, the article still does not cite reliable sources to prove the existence of its subject. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A very elaborate HOAX, but a hoax nonetheless. The author's first creation, "The Wizzard of Krudd", apparently seemed real enough that nobody has yet nominated it, and even this weird "Charlie Brown and the Chocolate Factory" story apparently seemed real enough that people weren't sure. My hat is off to Edd Maker. Mandsford (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax. CTJF83 chat 19:25, 20 March 2010 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Free Beauty Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-encyclopedic essay that seems to cross into original research territory. Warrah (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Violates WP:NOTHOW. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Certainly non-encyclopedic, and close to CSD G11 as it's kind of advertising a few links. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. Irredeemable WP:NOTHOW. — Rankiri (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. CTJF83 chat 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wikipedia is not a guidebook RadioFan (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2010 (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. Now cleaned up in response to this AfD and appears to be a useful dab page Black Kite 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interstellar (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Invalid disambiguation page, per guidline WP:DABNOT#Partial_title_matches. This applies to all entries except Interstellar (film), which again is only a redirect for a not-yet-existing movie. -- Theoprakt (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Theoprakt (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Now Neutral with a weak tendency towards delete: it's a close call, but the new version seems to be a valid disambiguation page. However, both main entries are still not articles, but only a redirect respective a very short mentioning of the term in another article. -- Theoprakt (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since none is a complete match. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stellar delete The sole reason for this appears to be to call attention to a movie that may or may not come out in 2013, may or may not have that title if it does, but hasn't merited its own article. For now, "interstellar" means only one thing, which is "between two stars". Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are several other possible targets: Intastella should be added to the list (and should have an article), the band having had four top-75 singles in the UK in the 1990s, appearing on national TV several times and releasing 2 albums, one on MCA. There's also an album called Intastella by Trevor Loveys, who appears may be sufficiently notable for an article. There is also Intastella Records, the label run by the Goa Trance group Dimension 5. All of these are plausible results for a search on 'Interstellar'. I'm not sure there's a better way of linking to these despite the different spelling.--Michig (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Interstellar' is also the name of several albums, by artists such as Vitamin String Quartet, The Super-Phonics, Molecule, and there is also Amin Bhatia's Interstellar Suite.--Michig (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clean up (done) and Keep -- I removed the partial title matches and added in the entries suggested by Michig that had Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are only two seemingly acceptable entries, and neither has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for the delete !voters: If this is deleted, how do you propose we deal with the situation where someone types 'Interstellar' looking for, say, the String Quartet album or the band Intastella? One option would be a very messy dab hatnote on the main article, but would that really be better?--Michig (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My answer is that #1 would be caught by the text search, and #2 does not require any dealing, because "intastella" is not "interstellar". -- Theoprakt (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But disambiguation should be there to help someone searching for the band but typing 'interstellar'.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. A disambiguation is a precising definition that extends the lexical definition of a certain word. A word with another spelling is another word, and it is not the job of an encyclopedia to help people get their spelling right. That's what a dictionary does, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Theoprakt (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of disambiguation pages and hatnotes is to help the reader find the article that they are looking for. Simple as that. That's why we need a disambiguation page.--Michig (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DAB sums this up nicely: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."--Michig (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. A disambiguation is a precising definition that extends the lexical definition of a certain word. A word with another spelling is another word, and it is not the job of an encyclopedia to help people get their spelling right. That's what a dictionary does, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Theoprakt (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But disambiguation should be there to help someone searching for the band but typing 'interstellar'.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some of the partial title matches are actually, complete title matches, since "interstellar" can mean "interstellar medium" and "interstellar space". They should not be in the see also, they should be in the regular section. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2
- "interstellar" does not mean "interstellar medium". "interstellar" means "between the stars", period. It does not mean "interstellar medium" or "intersteller space", just like "cheesse" does not mean "cheese grater" and "bull" does not mean "bulldozer". -- Theoprakt (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2010 (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 both. WP:CSD#A7 - no credible claim of significance or importance - and WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Schuyler Feigen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable musician. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Only included reference is to a music sales site. Google news search brings up nothing, Google web search brings up primary sources such as Facebook. RadioFan (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following album article on this artist:
- ? (Schuyler Feigen album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Invincible (Michael Jackson album). per WP:NSONGS (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unbreakable (Michael Jackson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promotional release only. Not released as a single in any country, did not chart in any country Paul75 (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Mild notability. More references are needed though. IJA (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-charting song, no sources. Why argue "more references are needed" if you can't be arsed to try and dig any up, hmm? It's always somebody else's problem. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NSONG. As already stated, the song did not chart, and I have been unable to find any significant coverage of this song. Google searching turns up lyrics, downloads, and videos, but no significant mentions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (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. Maybe some content can be merged back to Wilhelm scream article, if there are any volounteers, let me know. Tone 18:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of media that employ the Wilhelm scream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list appears to be a response to the removal of uncited examples fomr the parent article, Wilhelm scream. Virtualy none of these are cited, and many of those which are turn out to be based on sources which are speculative or unreliable. What encyclopaedic purpose is served by saying, without sources, that a particular sound effect was used in [an unspecified number of episodes of] a TV series? It's an indiscriminate collection of almost entirely unsourced information on an completely arbitrary intersection between a sound effect and other media. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No way could it ever be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced original research. No encyclopedic value. — Rankiri (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Screaming merge back to Wilhelm scream, from which it was spun out on October 29, and where it continues to exist in historyspace anyway. At some point, a list may be perfected to the point that it overcomes the problem of unverifiable and difficult to explain even when it is verifiable (to its credit, it does pretty well by describing a scene in some of the films). Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It really isn't possible for this information to be cited since no production team is going to blatantly advertise the use of it. However, it serves as a useful tool to highlight the popularity of the Wilhelm scream. I really don't see the harm in keeping it - I don't see any blatant instances of people adding nonsense to the page and the majority of recent entries have included detailed entries on where in the movie/feature the scream has been employed. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 18:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no need to merge all this original research RadioFan (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I must say that this article was a very interesting read for me and a friend of mine. I believe that the specific references to the scenes in the films is a good source, too. I mean, this doesn't come from anyone else's research, as do websites. It's pure original. These references cannot be unreliable. Besides there are so many films, TV shows, games, etc. that employ this scream that I believe it is a necessary article. Thanks and God bless! Master Frederique (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this is a bad example of a list being used as a platform for original research. Lists should not be based on hearsay, speculation or unreliable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not sure either way if this is not up to Wikipedia's standards but I remember using this specific article in the past. The Wilhelm scream is notable in my opinion (as you can see by the numerous references in film, etc). Such a large list could not easily be merged into an article. Keeping this list as its own article is the best suited placement. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivial and impossible to source, almost every entry is original research. While the scream itself is certainly notable, every use of it isn't. Rehevkor ✉ 03:14, 27 March 2010 (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. Black Kite 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AL (actually laughing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deproded. A non notable neologism. "external" links aren't really persuasive either Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any references for this, or any mentions in the external link(s). Seems to be a made up word, which isn't in common usage (per the article itself). - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Delete as a WP:NEOLOGISM that irreparably fails verifiability. I can't find any reliable sources for this neologism, and I doubt that we will be able to find any. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Defense against deletion Because of how recently AL has become a part of everyday lingo, there has not been much research or academic study on "AL" YET, therefore there are not very many credible sources for its legitimacy, that much is true. The UrbanDictionary external link has been added, which states blatantly that in 2004 someone, other than myself, stated that AL indeed does stand for "actually laughing", and that its use does in fact match up with the use that is described in the Wiki article. This article definitely does not deserve to be deleted and is a work in progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altox012 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point is well taken. I'm concerned that you're a brand new account after another brand new account nearly got blocked. But I want to make clear, for purposes of this AfD that's irrelevant to me. Your reasons are persuasive, except that they need some reliable sources to back them up. If you could produce those it would be appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: appears to be made up, I have certainly never heard or seen this neologism used. Inherent lack of reliable sources means that this will never pass the general notability guidelines. UrbanDictionary is one of the weakest sources I have ever seen. -- BigDom 08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Delete - Work in progress or not, the bottom line is that the term is not notable. It's simply a neologism that hasn't caught any mainstream attention. Any alleged notability for the term has so far been unverifiable. I couldn't find any reliable references either. New slang is made up all the time, and we can't have an article on everything. Come to think of it, I think that the only term similar to AL that actually has an article is LOL. —LedgendGamer 08:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources I understand where you are coming from, but with a matter such as this, an acronym that has been proven to have been in circulation as far back as 2004, there is not going to be many scholarly or credible (by normal standards) sources. Even if one was to search for sources to back up "LOL", the vast majority, if not absolutely every piece of information out there would be judged as non-reliable and not credible, because the standards that are in place for what constitutes a credible source do not apply to items such as a text-message based acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altox012 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment However, the difference is that the article on LOL does in fact have reliable sources. No, not every source that turns up in a google search will be reliable, but they exist. Fact of the matter is that I cannot, nor can others, find a single reliable source for this term. The policies of notability and verifiability apply to every single article on Wikipedia, and unless they can be met (i.e., a reliable source can be shown for this term), this article cannot be kept. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It needs to be notable in terms of having caught mainstream attention and being referenced by reliable sources (see WP:RS), and that does not appear to be the case (I know personal experience is not sufficient to judge, but I've never received an email, a text, an IM, or any electronic communication with "AL" in it myself - though I've had thousands of LOLs, LMAOs, ROFLs etc) . However, if some reliable sources can be found, I'd then suggest making it a redirect to LOL, in the same way as LMAO and ROFL - there is far more WP:UNDUE detail in the article as it stands (There's no "Official Origins", for example, as there is no official text acronym body, and some of it is just talking of text acronyms in general) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional The article also seems to be largely WP:OR - it contains quite a few specific factual assertions that are not sourced, eg: "Recent history has shown..." - where? "research has shown..." - let's see it. "AL was started several years ago by two teens in the small town of Walker, Minnesota" - who says? "The abbreviation was first used in a Windows Live Messenger conversation" - how can you know that? etc -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NEO, WP:OR. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. — Rankiri (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Rankiri took the words right out of my mouth. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per being not notable. I think that sometimes people say "ALOL" (particularly if they're talking to someone named Allen or Alison or Albert or Alex), which is nothing more than a variant of LOL. Just as the AL and the NL go together in baseball, in this case I'm NL (not laughing). Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2010 (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. Needs better ref format but seems to meet the criteria. Tone 18:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Thin Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded. No apparent nobility given WP:BAND. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Band leader Everett True is notable (formerly recording for Creation Records under the name The Legend!), and the article includes ample evidence of significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that Everett True (his article has a picture) is the "band leader"? Maybe he is, but the article doesn't say that outright. The article says at the end "The Thin Kids debuted on MySpace on 2nd December, 2009...True sent the recordings to the Head of A&R at Domino Records...who promised to give them a listen “in the next five years or so”." Look at the actual paragraph too because there's a lot of promotional language. In addition, even if it is his band, that doesn't necessarily make it notable, and there still aren't any WP:RS talking about it in the article or here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See this ("Were this a regular band, you'd call True “the vocalist” and Guglielmino the “guitarist”"), this ("True and his band The Thin Kids amble through a set of the nonsensical punk-poetry, drearily filling the slot vacated by Sydney’s Bridezilla."), this ("A couple of tall tales soon gave way to actual music as he (Everett True) introduced new band mates Edward Guglielmino and Margaret Collins, who form half of the debut quartet The Thin Kids (along with The Gin Club’s Scotty Regan, who was absent until the very end)."), and this ("The band proclaim on their MySpace page “we’re better than you”, but vocalist Everett True explains that this is most likely being taken the wrong way"), all of which are external links in the article. I could go with a merge to Everett True but deletion? No way.--Michig (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that Everett True (his article has a picture) is the "band leader"? Maybe he is, but the article doesn't say that outright. The article says at the end "The Thin Kids debuted on MySpace on 2nd December, 2009...True sent the recordings to the Head of A&R at Domino Records...who promised to give them a listen “in the next five years or so”." Look at the actual paragraph too because there's a lot of promotional language. In addition, even if it is his band, that doesn't necessarily make it notable, and there still aren't any WP:RS talking about it in the article or here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not satisfy the criteria at WP:BAND. WWGB (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am seeing notability of the band's leader, Everett True. There is also enough source coverage of the group itself, such that the page could be improved with citations from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Planck particle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no evidence this term is in widespread serious use. The article's sole reference does not use the term. Top hits on Google are this article, followed by an article from an apparent crank journal denying any such thing exists, then several apparent crank sites and Wikipedia mirrors. A Google Scholar search turns up what appear to be largely crank papers; one can see how this term might be frequently invented by numerologists, but if the article is to be about that, we need a reliable source documenting such use. The concept itself is more notable than that of a "1 kg particle," on the grounds that the Planck mass is a plausible natural mass scale, but only barely. All this article does is confuse people into thinking that Planck mass is the mass of a hypothetical particle rather than part of a system of units. A much better-written version of this content already exists at Planck mass where it belongs. Jim E. Black (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep I have heard of the term, but only used in the context of defining the Planck mass - and I can't find any references to it other than in that context. Agree that the description in Planck mass is better. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changed my view in the light of the new sources found, below -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Planck mass--most is already there anyway. Owen× ☎ 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I easily found multiple notable documents and journals talking about Planck particles. I have added them to the article. They clearly pass WP:N. SilverserenC 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those were not reliable sources. Just because the "Journal of Theoretics" calls itself a journal, doesn't make it reliable. That the term is in wide (but not necessarily consistent) use by numerologists is clear, but it's not at all clear that there's significant serious use. Of the eight sources you added, five were papers in highly questionable journals, and one appears to be just something someone posted on the Internet. I argue that we should ignore those.
The usage in Sachs et. al. is clearly specific to the theory they are proposing (a theory which doesn't appear to have caught on), and has nothing to do with black holes as written about in this article.All that remains are Jonghwa Chang's nuclear physics lecture slides, which uses it to define the Planck mass as Boing! said Zebedee described. If we can find more references using the term in this manner, preferably in better sources than lecture slides, it would support that the term is in widespread serious use and deserves either an article or perhaps an entry over on Wiktionary. I'm not sure the one is enough, though.Jim E. Black (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- And how is the Journal of Theoretics and the General Science Journal unreliable? You never said how. You just stated they are without any evidence. Furthermore, "Planck Particles and Quantum Gravity" - Google Docs, is a completely valid source as well. SilverserenC 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its name is a made-up word, and its website complains of "Bias in the Scientific Literature" against "dissident scientists." Those are huge red flags. Progress in Physics and the General Science Journal make similar statements. Almost always such journals are created to publish work that was rejected by reputable journals due to incompetence, not bias.Jim E. Black (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is the Journal of Theoretics and the General Science Journal unreliable? You never said how. You just stated they are without any evidence. Furthermore, "Planck Particles and Quantum Gravity" - Google Docs, is a completely valid source as well. SilverserenC 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that the lecture slides have some calculational errors; for example, they miscalculate the particle's ratio to the proton mass. But they are do substantiate that someone outside of woo-woo land calls such a thing a "Planck particle," justifying a
merge and redirectto Planck mass instead of the deletion I originally proposed. The Planck mass article has a somewhat better source[1] for most of the material here, although its source doesn't use the term "Planck particle."We don't need a whole article about this, because it's just a brief pedagogical exercise, and arguably a poor one, since there's no reason to believe the formulas used continue to work at the Planck scale.Jim E. Black (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Redirect to Planck scale. 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Planck scale links to Planck particle in its See also section. Paradoctor (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added some new links that are from the CERN Document Server, which only publishes approved, peer-reviewed and reliable stuff. Also, something from SpringerLink, also notable, and a book. The new EL's are another book, another CERN document, a published paper from Stanford, a article from Ingenta Connect, also notable, and another slide from the University of California, San Diego. If you need me to find more, notable links, let me know, because I can do it. SilverserenC 06:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This batch looks better, thanks. Now we've got some decent sources using the term talking about a possible role in early cosmology, rather than just playing unit games. So this is a real term; it's just that the signal-to-noise ratio in texts using it is particularly bad. I withdraw the nomination. Jim E. Black (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Google Scholar 180 hits Scirus 77 hits, among them articles in Foundations of Physics Letters, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Progress in Physics (doesn't look terribly "mainstream", though) , Astroparticle Physics, Physical Review D, Astrophysics and Space Science, Astrophysical Journal, MNRAS, European Journal of Physics. Passes WP:N with flying colors, everything else is about content.
- As far as the merge proposal to Planck mass is concerned, I oppose. The two are about different concepts. Planck mass admits that a Planck particle need not even have Planck mass: "This is not quite the Planck mass", referring to the estimate given for the Planck particle's mass. Paradoctor (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Farewell (band). Black Kite 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't This Supposed to Be Fun!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Already deleted twice (AfD, then db-spam) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So apparently it keeps being recreated because people don't understand why it doesn't exist? Suggests to me that its better to keep the article, or simply include the track listing for the band's releases on the band page.--Milowent (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Début album by a notable band. IJA (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with band or delete. (GregJackP (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bee Ami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. This footballer fails WP:ATHLETE having never played a fully-professional match; he was previously a youth player with Accrington Stanley and has recently joined Galway United in the semi-pro League of Ireland. Lack of coverage outside general sports journalism means that he also fails WP:NTEMP. -- BigDom 07:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence he has yet played for Galway Eldumpo (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only is there no evidence that he played for Galway, his profile on the clubs webpage confirms that he has never played for them. As such, he fails WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Needs to play fully-professional match per WP:ATHLETE, as and when he does then it can be recreated. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Swami Sivananda Radha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Heavy COI when i first saw it come through New Pages, IP also edits pages from the area where this woman's Enclave is. Google Scholar Pulls up her own works Checked Melton Lewis nothing. Tagged with multiple issues, one month passed no improvement added PROD. Kyle1278 removed PROD recommended formal AFD. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose/wait As noted on User talk:Kyle1278 I happen to know the subject is the founder of a notable religious sect, Emissaries of the Divine Light; I agree COI sources are a problem but that's true of LOTS of religion-related pages (ditto political party and political bio pages). More citations are needed, and a purging of the article's COI/advert content, but she's definitely notable.....note teh article, just linked, on her teacher Swami Sivananda.Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment related links re the Emissaries their website, news item about a hotel owned by one of its members, other googles for the Emissaries. I haven't read through these pages yet to see if she's mentioned; I know about her relationship with them by a visit to their ashram/campus/convention centre on Kootenay Lake in the summer of 2007.Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- issue here is i dont see her name in any of those, Whether or not her movement is notable or not if there are sufficient RS for an article on her movement we can incorporate there . we have several articles that limit it to just the movement and the founders without a fork. Not being in Melton and Lewis's books is usually a good threshold for notability of an individual in the New religious movement field. It seems you argument is too is she is notable because she is a disciple of a notable individual? My mentor is Nicholas Honerkamp but that does not mean i am notable if i go Start A Cultural resources management firm that gets in the paper?
Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand what is requested for notability. She has studied with Swami Sivananda from Rishikesh, she is one of the first women Swami to come to Canada. She started an ashram and wrote about 10 books, she appeared on some tv show and was teaching about yoga and the mind during her time. As I realized there is not much trace of her on the internet - and by the way the emissaries of the Divine light is not affiliated with her at all. What type of content is needed to prove her notability ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.70.105 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IP 207.194.70.105 is under investigation on COI notice Board
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 03:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Why keep unsourced artciles that are in effect are just ads. Wikidas© 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to IP (COI notice Board) -- If a biography of her was published by a reputable publisher, if her books were reviewed by some reputable journal or if she was the subject (not mentioned in passing) of a number of good articles, excluding articles by the followers, that would make her notable. At the moment she is not. Wikidas© 18:39, 6 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drum Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent reliable sources in the article. No independent reliable sources found. Sole Soul (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a guide to the Internet. The article fails notability guidelines for Websites. dissolvetalk 02:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Herman Lochner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable web developer. DimaG (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possibly even speedy A7, as it doesn't assert anything of note -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DigiVault Remote Backup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources suggesting notability. Note when searching for sources that there seems to be an unrelated company/product also named "DigiVault" that does MS Exchange backup. Cybercobra (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is another completely independent and separate company based in New Zealand called DigiVault. That company is not listed in Wikipedia. The suggestions for reliable sources and notability are appreciated and will be worked on. DigiVault, Inc. is notable in that it is the only listed Canadian based remote backup solution provider. It offers similar and in many cases superior backup protection for its Canadian clients. Which is relevant for professionals such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. that have highly confidential information with the requirement to store their backups locally on Canadian servers protected under Canadian law. There seems to be an inconsistency in scrutiny in this area as well. There are at least two other similar remote backup companies listed - BackMii, and PowerFolder - that have similar recommendations, but no deletion request. All three are relevant to the remote backup service category. And I would think any Canadian users would like to see remote backup solutions specific to their locale. wperdigao —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC). — Wperdigao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Regarding the other similar articles, see WP:OTHERCRAP. Without evidence that this satisfies the notability guideline, this is practically an advertisement. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I further note that BackMii has been deleted anyway, and PowerFolder survived a deletion attempt as significant coverage was found. You have presented no such coverage and I haven't found any either. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage about this company in reliable sources. Note that the company was founded in 2009 according to the article so it is very new. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable software. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heavy String (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend delete. No references. Concept doesn't seem to show up on Google, except this article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to University of Manchester. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whitworth Park Halls of Residence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable university residence hall. All references are self-published by the university itself, no evidence of independent sources which cover this topic in an indepth manner. Jayron32 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge key information to University of Manchester#Residential campuses, unless someone wants to create an article about the University's accomodation in general. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge key information to University of Manchester#Residential campuses.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- I was going to suggest something similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Sometimes there can be decent coverage of Halls of Residence, but the best I could come up with is this, which is a decent source in itself, but I don't think shows enough notability for an individual article. Quantpole (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Wong (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find too much coverage on this comedian--and I very much doubt that an appearance on the Late Show is of and in itself enough to merit an article. Blueboy96 04:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Boston Globe discusses his work here: [2] and This google news search turns up plenty of reviews and interviews in many reliable sources, there seems to be plenty here. Some are behind paywalls, but I see enough in the abstracts to indicate that there are many articles that discuss him and his work. --Jayron32 04:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't find him very funny but [3] and [4], along with many other news results in conjunction with his appearances on Ellen and the Late Show establish him has notable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Only one comedian is invited to entertain the White House Correspondents Dinner each year. The fact that Wong was makes him notable. Also, besides his appearance on Letterman, he's a regular on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. MyPOV (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agreed with MyPOV, hosting the Correspondents' Dinner makes him notable. WLGades (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reservoirs and dams in the Commonwealth of Independent States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page duplicates List of power stations in Russia, List of hydroelectric power stations, List of largest hydroelectric power stations, and others such as List of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations, and probably List of reservoirs. Additionally, the page is also orphaned and almost ignored. Rehman(+) 03:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is probably nothing wrong about deleting this aritcle; but if one deletes it, one should make sure that all non-trivial information has been transferred to appropriate country-specific articles, e.g. List of power stations in Tajikistan, List of power stations in Georgia, etc; when one does not exist, it probably should be created. Also, the development of hydroelectric power industry in the USSR 1922-1991 is certainly an encyclopedic topic, and may deserve its own narrative line (so that stations in different ex-USSR states can be discussed along a single timeline), but the current article is not a particular good example of covering that topic. Vmenkov (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The CIS still exists as an organization, but one might as well write an article called "Reservoirs and dams in the Organization of American States". Rather than trying to figure out which of the former Soviet republics is represented in the CIS (Russia, yes, Georgia, no, Belarus, yes, Estonia, no) one could write an article called Reservoirs and dams in the Soviet Union (which is, appropriately, a "red" link. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HSS-114D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional(!) scanner from the TV series. Maybe merge somewhere in the Andromeda article, if needed. DimaG (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - fictional technobabble item without a grain of notability. Theoprakt (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Someone invented a portmaneau word that also happens to be a double entendre. It got used on a message board on the internet. No evidence of significant coverage. The use of a neologism on a message board doesn't, by itself, catapult it to notability. --JamesAM (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and transfer to urban dictionary, where anyone can make up their own words at will. Dew Kane (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GoMyPlace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable software. DimaG (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete latest version came out 3+ years ago and that version has under 1000 downloads. Total downloads is under 3,000.[5] Far from notable. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable per ZacBowling Acebulf (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per subject's request, and failure to produce reliable sources to back up the assertions in this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chancery_Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is not notable (a self-published author with no other credits), text is written by subject, and references are unsubstantiated (see the discussion page)
I am Chancery Stone and I think you should take down this page. It is annoyingly flat and dull; had I written it it would have been much more interesting and colourful, but I appreciate that's not particularly valid as a reson for deletion. Therefore I want to point out that The DANNY Quadrilogy is the only novel I have ever written and only two volumes are in print (although honesty forces me to admit another two volumes are due out this year, and I have written a non-fiction book on writing, but I think we can safely discount those too). The DANNY Quadrilogy has no sizeable fan following to speak of, therefore it cannot be notable in any way. No-one famous has ever read it. If no-one famous is talking about it, and it hasn't been acknowledged by anyone famous, then why should it be included on here? Wikipedia is a fan-compiled website. If my book has no fans then there is no reason to include it on here. Contrariwise, there are several 'fans' (of other things assumably) pointing out, quite rightly, that my work has no place on here. I agree with them. I would go one further and ask that should the book ever become famous, or be mentioned by anyone famous, that you please not include it on this site. I think it's better to be consistent. If a book's not worth anything before it gets famous why should it be worth anything after? Looking forward to losing my 'entry'. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.156.9 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete subjects snarky comments aside, no indication of how this person might meet WP:BIO, self published works rarely get 3rd party coverage. RadioFan (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RadioFan, as far as "reliable secondary sources" goes my work has only been mentioned in passing by The Times Literary Supplement and more fully on Grampian TV. That one was (much) longer admittedly, but Grampian is only watched by the Scots, and they have only produced a handful of famous people, none of whom count for much (like Lorraine Kelly), or are dead (like Robert Louis Stevenson). Other reviews and write-ups have all been on internet sites, and they aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I have been mentioned relatively recently, in 2009, in several Really Big Newspapers (oh - and The Bookseller) along with Max Scratchmann when the scandal blew up over his book, Chucking It All, but that was only because we are published by the same publisher. So that's really because I know someone notable rather than I AM notable. You really do need to delete.
P.S. Forgot to mention last time, my 2 fan sites only have about three members each. I think that clinches it really. --81.155.156.9 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Chancery Stone[reply]
- Delete Still no reliable independent sources on TLS mention other than the puff by author's publicist/publisher, who is creator of the page in the first place. Nor does Chancery Stone provide any further supporting evidence despite her claims of being recently mentioned in 'Really Big Newspapers'. Page is a blatant piece of self-promotion, subject entirely non-notable. Be best (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The entry which we placed on Chancery Stone is in no way "a blatant piece of self-promotion". It adheres strictly to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic guidelines and Chancery's work satisfies notability. Chancery Stone's work has been reviewed in various newspapers and magazines and was, indeed, discussed in the TLS - see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tlskeywordsearch.tls?queryKeywords=chancery+stone&x=0&y=0 - Also the launch of Chancery's first novel was covered on Grampian TV (now STV North) - see our site to replay the broadcast: http://www.poisonpixiefilms.co.uk/danny_movies_launch_large.htm As for "Nor does Chancery Stone provide any further supporting evidence despite her claims of being recently mentioned in 'Really Big Newspapers'" please see The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/shelved-the-book-that-outraged-the-orkneys-1712238.html and The Daily Express - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/128689 Our book, Chucking It All, was also featured in The Sunday Express, The Bookseller, The Press & Journal and the Scottish Review of Books (where Chancery was also mentioned but there is not an on-line source for that.) I am at a loss to understand how being discussed in The Independent, TLS, The Express and The Bookseller, plus being covered on TV, fails to meet the criteria for "reliable secondary sources". Poisonpixie (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Poison Pixie PublishingPoisonpixie (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "discussed in the TLS" - The only ref to Stone from that link leads to a subscriber only page. However, from the talk page on the original article, someone who has seen the item states - "The book was mentioned as part of an article on "The New Disgustingness" in 2005, but it was not reviewed and was only briefly described, with no particular opinion given. I can find no information from reputable sources about sales or reviews in print." Mere mention in newspapers, or being reviewed, is not an indication of notability. Furthermore, you, as promoter/partner/publisher of Stone's work, are demonstrating a clear [of interest] - "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Be best (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Suddenly Chancery Stone's lack of "reliable secondary sources" has changed and become "mere" reviews and newspaper features. Now that we have provided the required "reliable secondary sources" the goal posts have been moved yet again. What would be an indication of "notability" if being discussed in the TLS, national newspapers and national TV do not qualify? Perhaps 'Be best' now requires a royal decree or an affidavit from the Pope. As a final thought, we find it strange that the statements in Chancery Stone's "discussion" page are taken as gospel and no "reliable secondary sources" are ever required from these 'contributors' for their assertions. Perhaps 'Be best' has a conflict of interest which she is not declaring - such as a personal mission to remove Chancery Stone from this site and that she is more concerned with "advancing [her] outside interests" rather "than advancing the aims of Wikipedia." Poisonpixie (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Delete? Just let it go already! I have tried to delete my 'entry' from Wikipedia only to find it immediately reinstated. Why? The 'entry' is up for deletion. I do not have notability. This has already been well established through extensive hearsay. The national media bona fides offered by the Poison Pixie publicist will never compete with unsigned opinions (I warned him). Why, oh why, then is the 'entry' still here? Why reinstate something no-one wants – especially me? This insanity smacks of power-play. Surely such an upstanding online resource as Wikipedia is not indulging in acts of ego? Please remove the entry. I've asked you nicely; I don't know what else I can do. You won't hear from me again. Chancery Stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.156.9 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2010 (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. Tone 18:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of books on non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very incomplete list of books, with very broadly described subject. The division looks like evolutionary books vs the rest. Orphaned article (only 1 link from main space) Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Where is the Iroquoi creation theory? They hypothesized that the earth was created on the back of a turtle.--Milowent (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this is not a list of creation myths.Mercurywoodrose (talk)
- coulda fooled me.--Milowent (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i suspect that most of these books dont fully deny evolution. title of article is too vague, inclusion criteria may be impossible to define. is this books which question some aspect of evolution, all of it, books by religious fundamentalists or skeptical/fringe scientists? both? awkward. darwins black box author does NOT deny evolution, just questions whether evolution can fully explain biochemical change/diversity. this may be a hatrack type list. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's synthesis (WP:SYNTH), as the title of the article itself is an analysis of the contents of the books - and I think it's an inaccurate analysis of at least some of them -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous two comments andy (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Aside from the suggestive title and other mentioned problems, it's also largely a fork of List of works on intelligent design. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not that the topic of non-evolutionary explanations isn't notable, but Wikipedia is not a directory and it's not a reading list either. This can be part of the bibliography of one of the creationism articles. Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete synthesis in the form of an indescriminate list. Unmaintainable RadioFan (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Middle-earth characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While a list can do things that a category can't, this list doesn't. Completely redundant with Category:Middle-earth characters. DES (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It provides a single alphabetical list, which is a lot more useful if you just know a character's name and want to find who he or she is. Using categories, you will probably have to search a number of sub-categories to find the one you're looking for, especially if you don't know any details of the character (which species, what book they were in, where they live, etc) - look at all the sub-categories of Category:Middle-earth Men, for example. Or without knowing anything about who he/she/it is, try and find Muzgash using Category:Middle-earth characters. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:CLN, WP:ATD. It's clear that the quality of the list can be improved. — Rankiri (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per above reasoning. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One centralized repository where these articles can be found can only be of the utmost benefit to this project. North North-West (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Saintloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I work in the IT industry in NYC and I saw this person actually speak at several start up events, the references and external links point to a compliment of activity as well related to software and the startup he runs. It thus stands up to wikipedia publishing policy. I think for those reasons it should stay...if all new entries are deleted so early in their create stage how do they ever get to grow? 24.189.131.99 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — 24.189.131.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – Please review WP:BIO and reliable sources and advise how this article meets the criteria for notability and is supported by reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the other poster, I have read many of the blog posts on software design and signed up for beta of the startup. He is notable enough to me, I don't think this profile violates wikipedia rules so it should stay.Imomeena (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — Imomeena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – Please review WP:BIO and reliable sources and advise how this article meets the criteria for notability and is supported by reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The gist of his claim seems to be that he has a blog (like perhaps tens of millions of people worldwide) and that is an officer at a business and a think tank. Those entities don't seem to be notable (they lack their own articles and lack significant coverage), so it's hard to see notability deriving from that. We don't have anything here from independent sources of awards, accomplishments, remarkable financial success. Merely being an officer in a business is not enough. And speaking at some identified event doesn't confer notability either. --JamesAM (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete What I see by searching is someone who is active in blogs and web communities, but the only possibly notable reference I can find is one patent, and that alone isn't really enough -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I didn't comment on this first time round because it was such an obvious "delete". I don't understand why this had to be relisted, as the "keep" opinions above say nothing about how this might meet Wikipedia standards. Since when was being seen to "actually speak" a reason for anyone to have an encyclopedia article written about them? I have also "actually spoken" at IT industry events, but that doesn't make me notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Edmonton municipal election, 2010#Ward 7. JForget 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brendan Van Alstine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable political candidate for low level municipal office. Autobiography. Some media mentions, although at least one of them undermines rather than supports any claim to notability as a candidate. Prod declined by IP without changes. Hairhorn (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance, fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Edmonton municipal election, 2010#Ward 7. WP:POLITICIAN requires redirecting candidates to the election page as a "general rule". I see no reason to depart from the general rule here: the candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN and the coverage of the candidate is not significant despite the multiplicity of sources cited in the article. Additionally, the guy might win, and his name is a viable search term, so a redirect for possible restoration later.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. 117Avenue (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Mkativerata. RayTalk 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gingerbread Economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book DimaG (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, can't find any sources, no Gnews. Article needs cleaning up if it stays, but without sources it is a delete DRosin (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find anything notable about the book, the author, or the publisher Speartip (which only seems to have published this one book). -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous two comments --Rirunmot 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghana Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable band. DimaG (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomDRosin (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Sluggy Freelance. Tim Song (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Get Nifty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable card game. DimaG (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom DRosin (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sluggy Freelance. No reason to delete when there is an obvious merge target. Hobit (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Hobit. Tisane (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was BOLD and merged the article. Acebulf (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2010 (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. Black Kite 12:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of allies and other characters in Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced list of trivia. It is almost entirely original research and plot summary, and places undue weight on a minor aspect of a TV cartoon show. Reyk YO! 05:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember that article. I was to size of some KND-related article down. Nevermind. Go and delete it. -- JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 04:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perfectly legitimate spinoff article to keep the main article from growing too large.Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete character lists are usually acceptable for fictional subjects, but four (!!!) lists for this relatively minor show is excessive. This list appears to deal primarily with characters who appeared in just an episode or two. Also, no sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the solution be to delete the whole article, then? Swarm(Talk) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's what we do with material that isn't sourced and (in all reasonable likelihood) never will be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Swarm(Talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Reyk YO! 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cute. My original question to Starblind was more related to their argument of "character lists are usually acceptable for fictional subjects, but four (!!!) lists for this relatively minor show is excessive." They essentially say the article content is legitimate, but the information is excessive, so they support the deletion of the whole article. That rationale just didn't make sense to me. Swarm(Talk) 22:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Reyk YO! 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Swarm(Talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's what we do with material that isn't sourced and (in all reasonable likelihood) never will be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; completely original research and plot summary with zero refs to back it up. Airplaneman talk 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Any sourcing can be done from the episodes themselves (i.e. like plot summaries of novels). North North-West (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivia. None of these characters are major, nor is the list of minor characters notable outside of the TV show. There is no real-world commentary about the list of allies, it is all regurgitated plot summary. ThemFromSpace 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list fails WP:NOT#DIR as it has no verifiable source, without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A definition or list title needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of original research, and looking at the content of this list, it contiains unattributable statements of opinion that suggest it is entirely original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Some of the characters listed, such as the Hamsters and Bradley have recurring if minor roles throughout the series. At the least, the list of persons themselves should be kept in another article relating to KND even if their descriptions are removed as original research. --204.100.184.166 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (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. Article hasn't been touched since March 11. If the book and magazine references do exist, the article can be recreated. Will be happy to userfy if requested. Shimeru (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel O'Hara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO. Those sources that do discuss him are either 1) unreliable or 2) and more commonly, intimately associated with him. The remaining sources do not discuss him, but instead his company; while this may be notable, notability is not inherited. Ironholds (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your objections since I had a great deal of trouble finding verifiable resources - which is partly why I am trying to write some articles. I've noticed that there is very little information in Wikipedia or on the web that I could find that in any way attempted to preserve the knowledge and information relative to the Life Insurance industry and evolution of the various systems and companies, I had hoped to author some. It would be a shame if this information was lost. The article on Mr. O'Hara was a manageable test case. He is a pioneer in this industry and prominent figure in the data migration circles which accounts for 100s of millions of dollars in annual revenues. I do have partial information from a book and several magazine articles I could cite but I have no way of linking them to anything online and so I view them as not verifiable. Should I add them? I was encouraged when I compared what I had to other bios (the one for my brother Tim Commerford, for example). I noticed that many contained few references and that often the ones that were provided were hardly authoritative. Before this article is deleted, can you give me some advice and an opportunity to improve it? Lcommerford (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The books and magazines would be helpful, but such things have to be about O'Hara. Showing the notability of say, his company, would not be helpful. Ironholds (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add the book and magazine references when I return after next week. I will also try to massage the content maybe to separate Daniel O'Hara from UCT. Thank you for your patience. Lcommerford (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 02:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Hopefully we can get rid of the unnecessary sources and be left with things that do matter, though he does appear to be notable. SilverserenC 02:25, 28 March 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Altan concert tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is pure WP:FANCRUFT. It cites no sources and therefore fails WP:RS. Wiki is neither an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory, and something merely being true - in this case that Altan put on these shows - is not enough to warrant inclusion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the wikipedia article Altan concert tours is a relevant and useful article such as Rolling Stones concerts, List of The Beatles' live performances or Paul McCartney's concert tours articles and many other articles about other artists' concert tours ! Altan is a famous irish traditional music band who deserves such article! I spent hours to build this Altan concert tours article: it would be unfair to delete it! Lurulu (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This isn't a fan site. We have criteria for what should and should not be included. As a side note, I see that you also created Capercaillie concert tours, which was deleted. It's the same thing here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Info can easily be found elsewhere. Airplaneman talk 19:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No : Info CANNOT easily be found elsewhere! Lurulu (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Save it for the fanwank. I mean, fansites. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per "Thou shalt not tolerate an Inclusionist to include worthless screed, lest we become a Uncyclopedia." (GregJackP (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- This is not helpful at all, I suggest you refactor your comments. It is inappropriate to disparage those that have a different view than you personally do. Okip 03:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it help if I linked to the site I pulled the quote from? It is from a humorous article on Wikimedia about deletionists. It was not intended to offend, I thought it was humorous. In any event, the article should go. (GregJackP (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- This is not helpful at all, I suggest you refactor your comments. It is inappropriate to disparage those that have a different view than you personally do. Okip 03:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Altan is a major band. This article is a spinoff from the main article section Altan (band)#Tours and so the worst case is that we'd just merge back into that section. But this would not be sensible as their extensive touring makes the schedule somewhat lengthy and it seems reasoble to have it as an appendix. The tours are covered in numerous sources and referencing these is just a matter of routine article improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But just because the band is notable doesn't mean that all of their tours are also inherently notable. And just because it's verifiable that they went on tour doesn't necessarily mean it gets included. Why do we need a listing of every single show the band ever played? Isn't that what the band's website - or some other third party website - is for? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All our content is based upon material found elsewhere - this is an essential consequence of our core policy WP:NOR. Your argument is therefore contrary to this core policy and so is invalid. Moeover, touring is a fundamental part of the work of such a band as it consumes much of their effort and provides much of their revenue. The composition of the band and their repertoire during these tours will naturally be a significant part of their history and so deleting this completely is not sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A band this notable has its tours get mentioned in the news media, obviously. The Google News search at the top of the AFD, will show over a thousand results for "Altan" and "tour". [6] These articles talk about various tours they have been on. You can search for the country "Japan" to learn about their Japanese tours, and so on. This is perfectly encyclopedic content, and it wouldn't all fit in the main article for the band, so best to put it in a side article here. Once more we have rude deletionists not bothering to take a few moments to even look for reliable sources, just declaring at a glance something is worthless, stating it should be deleted, and then rampaging off to another article to do the same. Dream Focus 02:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On WP:NMG, it says that "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." Just because there are sources to show that the band went on tour a bunch of times does not mean that there should be a list article that lists every single show the band ever played. This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. But you're right that there are sources, but their tours would be better summarized on the Altan article in the Tours section. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the Washington Post article titled "At Wolf Trap, Altan Wraps U.S. Tour With a Flourish". A major newspaper calling it a flourish [7] would certainly make it notable. They played at Harvard university to great reviews. If you only mention the tours that got great reviews, and that was a fair number of them, too much to fit well on the main page, would you be against this page existing? Dream Focus 04:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In the ideal world, this article would really just be a top-level list of tours, and each tour would have its own article complete with background, development, response, reception, that sort of thing. In that way, the articles themselves assert their notability, and this page is a wrapper for all of them. But assuming an unideal world, I would want this article to be more than just a set of tour dates. Merely being a list of tour dates is just unacceptable to me, as I think it violates WP:NOTDIR. And again, I'm not saying that there isn't valuable information out there, and I would definitely want to include it where it's appropriate. The article you mentioned above would be more at home as a paragraph in Altan (band)#Tours. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the Washington Post article titled "At Wolf Trap, Altan Wraps U.S. Tour With a Flourish". A major newspaper calling it a flourish [7] would certainly make it notable. They played at Harvard university to great reviews. If you only mention the tours that got great reviews, and that was a fair number of them, too much to fit well on the main page, would you be against this page existing? Dream Focus 04:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On WP:NMG, it says that "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." Just because there are sources to show that the band went on tour a bunch of times does not mean that there should be a list article that lists every single show the band ever played. This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. But you're right that there are sources, but their tours would be better summarized on the Altan article in the Tours section. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete: the only real source so far is http://www.mfyi.com/a/altantourography.html which either means the page is redundant to that (in which case, yes the information can be found elsewhere) or it fails WP:V. Cites or it didn't happen (i.e., either fix it, or scrap it). --Geoff Capp (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the list is not the subject of any reliable, third party sources in accordance with WP:BURDEN. There needs to be reliable form of external validation to provide a rationale for inclusion, otherwise this list fails WP:NOT#DIR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The aforementioned page http://www.mfyi.com/a/altantourography.html may disappear some day ! Besides, it's not complete: it doesn't list all Altan tours dates!!! Lurulu (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Lurulu (talk · contribs) previously left a comment at 21:56 on 12 March 2010. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus is that the proffered sources are sufficient to establish notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hit Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability substantiated by citations to reliable third-party sources. Might be okay at ru.wiki, but not here. --EEMIV (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The same. IMDB and Allmovie is not notable? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope they are not. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS (linked above). --Crusio (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeepno reliable sources.Change to keep - reliable sources established below. (GregJackP (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable film with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Being listed in diretory sites like IMDB and Allmovie does not confer notability, and IMDB is user-edited. Film fails WP:NF and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMDB is most assuredly not user edited. Users might submit informations, as do production companies... but users do not have access to their database's editing tools. That clarification being made, Collectonian is correct in that simply being listed on IMDB or Allmovie does not impart notability. If any Russian reading Wikipedian can translate these news links and then show enough notability in Russia as a Russian film, that notability could be enough for en.Wikiedia, as we also do not have bias against UK films, Itallian films, Indian films, German films, etc, if proper notability, even if only in those countries, can be shown though even non-English RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMDb not be user edited, but under WP standards, it is explicitly stated that it is NOT a reliable source for articles. (GregJackP (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- We are not in disagreement. Which is why I hope that a Russian-reading Wikipedian might help with the search for possible sources, as I do not read Russian. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have a few. Books and printed periodicals:
- (in Russian)Soviet featured movies: Annotated catalogue
- (in Russian)Today's cinematography, vol.3 - 1985
- (in Russian)Art of Cinema, №1-4 - 1982
- (in Russian)Home cinematics: Russian cinema 1918-1996
- (in Russian)Country Youth, №.1-6 - 1999
- (in Russian)Our cinema
- (in Latvian)(in Russian)Chronicle of Print
- and in English: Historical dictionary of Russian and Soviet cinema - Page 742
- and web-media, of course [8] -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in good faith acceptance of sources found and provided by User:SerdechnyG since this AFD was initiated. I would encourage that the sources be added to the article itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to In the Zone of Special Attention, to which this is a sequel. Together they might actually become a decent article. --Crusio (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They might be a decent articles without merging. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found by User:SerdechnyG - seem to establish ample notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Chatroulette. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrey Ternovskiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am listing this article for deletion on grounds of notability. While I agree that there has been a fair ammount of secondary coverage, this emanates from the website featuring on the Daily Show rather than Andrey Ternovskiy being notable in and of himself - I believe the website to be notable, not the founder. To me this would appear to be covered by WP:BLP1E, he should be covered at Chatroulette, which seems to be the website de jour - he is not Jimmy Wales or Mark Zuckerberg, who are regular features in the mainstream media and are notable independently of their websites. Rje (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Chatroulette. Does look like a BLP1E case, with a fairly minimal amount of biographical coverage available. Can be adequately covered in the Chatroulette article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would note that coverage of this person goes far beyond The Daily Show, though surely all limited to Chatroulette. E.g., New York Times. But since his notability is so limited at the moment, a redirect is the best way to organize any content about him right now. Good precedent: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Tew--Milowent (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Chatroulette. No real notability other than what can easily be covered in the history of his company. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 20 March 2010 (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanuatuan records in athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A near empty article, and the sole athlete cited here has made no impact whatsoever in international track and field. There should be no prejudice for recreating this when Vanuatu becomes a global sports power, but at the moment this empty page makes no sense. Warrah (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear that the article's creator has no source of information of whatever the national record might be in Vanuatu.The intro says that "The following are the national records in athletics in Vanuatu maintained by the Vanuatu Athletics Federation", but there is no link to the Vanuatu Athletics Federation, so I'm not expecting anything. Basically, there's an athlete named Moses Kamut who did quite well in six running events, so it appears that the assumption is made that he holds the national record in those events as well. While that's probably true, there's no indication that anyone has information about people other than Moses Kamut, nor that we would ever know it if another Vanuatan runs faster than he. The entire content can be summed up as MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut. That can be mentioned in the article about... Moses Kamut. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you create an article about statistics you can't even get with just a mouse click on a federation's web site sometimes it depends on the help of other wikiusers and: patience... If you have a look at the development I hope this will be answer enough. Apart from that, the information is based on the official record documents of IAAF dated on September 2009. This document includes all national records and it's a pdf about 300 pages... to big for a reasonable reference I think.. This is an example for what is wikipedia sometimes about... to be the first information web site. Montell 74 (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was wrong, and change my !vote based on the information compiled by Montell74. I do think that there ought to be a link to any reference that's available online, if the 300 page .pdf is available for others to refer to. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that argument is problematic. These cannot be considered as national records if the track meets take place outside of the nation in question. And none of the athletes (with the shaky exception of Moses Kamut) qualify for notability as per WP:ATHLETE. Warrah (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. Do you mean, national records have to be broken just inside of the nation????? And do you just accept very known athletes???? Can't follow your arguments....Montell 74 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the article. Almost none of the tracks meets are identified. And unless I am misreading this, none of the runners cited here have broken any recognized records. Warrah (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is saying they broke recognized records internationally. They are saying that they have achieved the best times/distances of any national of Vanuatu. It doesn't have anything to do with events meeting in Vanuatu. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the article. Almost none of the tracks meets are identified. And unless I am misreading this, none of the runners cited here have broken any recognized records. Warrah (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt is exactly correct. As an example, see United States records in track and field (for instance the U.S. record for the 100m dash was broken last September in Shanghai-- not Shanghai, Indiana but the one in China). Mandsford (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. National records in athletics indicates that the topic is clearly notable. Not keeping Vanuatu's article would be a case of WP:BIAS against smaller nations. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cleary defined list on a notable subject. Lugnuts (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that User:Montell 74 removed the AfD tag, but it's now been restored. Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Leathley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is for a school teacher who's only notable achievements are in ameteur sports (from some time ago) with low ranked teams. It is not noteworthy enough to be listed on Wikipedia.
There are no footnotes or refences to prove any claims other than for low ranked local cricket. (For example international basketball is mentioned but no proof is given through references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjvinegrad (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: nomination was incomplete (step 2 was incomplete, step 3 was missing). I'm completing it, but not judging the rationale or providing a !vote. tedder (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm intrigued that he played basketball for England in the 1970s, but unless any reliable sources verify that (and I can't find any), it is a fail of WP:ATH and WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[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. There is a consensus below that at least some of the information in the article should be kept. There is not consensus as to whether it should be as a stand-alone article or merged to coverage of the serial. Further talk page discussion may be helpful. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- El Shaitan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence given that the character is notable outside of the single serial he appeared in. The writing style is not terribly encyclopedic, and I'm not sure it could be suitably rewritten. Merging it into the serial's article would seem to give undue weight to the character. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I haven't read the books myself, but, on the face of it, it would seem more than likely that coverage in books with titles such as The bad guys: a pictorial history of the movie villain, The encyclopedia of super villains and Reel bad Arabs: how Hollywood vilifies a people would be more about the character than about the films. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell exactly from Snippet View, but it appears that Reel Bad Arabs merely quotes El Shaitan, rather than treating him in depth. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So... -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, what to do with Jeff Rovin's "The encyclopedia of super villains" and William K. Everson's "The bad guys"? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Wikipedia has load of articles about fictional characters, so clearly there cannot be an objection in principle to having articles on fictional characters. The serial was made a long time ago and so is little known today. This actually makes the article potentially more useful than one on more recent fictional characters - i.e. it being old does not make it irrelevant. Given that there are sources on this subject, there is no reason why the article cannot be developed to become a good article.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the name merely means "the Devil" or "Satan", there are almost surely several if not many villains with a variant of thsi name. For example Lord of Samarcand and other adventure tales of the old Orient found by a Google book search on this name uses it for a place. DES (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Dare Miss the Next Thrilling Chapter By Anthony L. Fletcher appears to summarize the plot of the serial with several mentions of the character, and to discuss the serial as a whole critically but not much discussion of the character as such. DES (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The vanishing legion: a history of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935 by Jon Tuska discusses how the character was played, and in particularly that multiple actors played the part or provided the voice at different times in the serial. DES (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The discussion in the article on the series is totally inadequate. A proper merge might be an alternative, since what matters is retaining the content, not how it is divided into articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Frazer played in more than two hundred movies, a lot of different roles. So it wouldn't be proper decision to merge. Besides there were three another men involved in portretizing El Shaitan. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Three Musketeers (1933 serial), probably in a paragraph below the cast list. Deletion should never have been considered but rather a discussion to merge. The film serial article could use more meat. It would be uneven with the addition of this character information, but it is best to preserve the content and to work on adding content about other characters and other aspects of the serial. Erik (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just realised that I didn't give an opinion about disposition above, so I'll say this should be either a keep or a merge to The Three Musketeers (1933 serial), but whichever is done the content should be preserved. If merging leads to an imbalance in the serial article then the solution is to add more content about other aspects of the serial, not to remove good content about the character. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't cope you, Phil. Your answer was to keep or to merge? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion: If majority will decide to merge, I'm asking the administrator, who will resume this discussion to delete this article and replace it in my space for further edit. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus is to merge, then the article cannot be deleted. The page history must be preserved. You can follow the redirect, access the page history, and develop the content in a user sub-page. Erik (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's much more difficult to face and disentangle the consequences of merger than to improve the deleted article in private space. I hioe you understand what I am talking about. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do, but if the consensus is not to delete, the article will not be deleted. I do know what you mean and recommend not trying to work in the user space. Work with the merged content at the main article to provide information about not just this character, but the serial in general. If the main article eventually gets too big to cover all the details, a sub-article, like a character article, can be created. The main article can have a summary section about the character and have a {{main}} link to the character sub-article. It's very strange to see sparse main articles and such developed character articles. Most characters will be discussed in context of the film, so it seems that information about other elements of the topic is overlooked in a very specific research focus. Erik (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's much more difficult to face and disentangle the consequences of merger than to improve the deleted article in private space. I hioe you understand what I am talking about. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (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. Tone 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrowhubbock South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced stub on a thoroughly non-notable townland (small local area, usually only a few hundred acres) in County Sligo Ireland, about which there is little to say other that it exists and has a few posh houses. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Thoroughly non notable place. Mind you stumbling on rocky shores, sounds quite painful. Snappy (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's an official geographic division, which is generally considered notable. It is used as a geographic location and point of reference in some book sources [9][10][11], and the usual policy of keeping established geographic locations should apply here as well. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a townland. Much as I like the townland system and hate postcodes, here are more 60,000 townlands in Ireland, and there is next to noting to say about plenty of them. A list of townlands in the Eniscrone area might be of some use, but this is just a factoid which belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. --02:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derry, County Sligo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there isn't much verifiable information about the place, it could be redirected to Enniscrone or Kilglass. snigbrook (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am not familiar with the townland system in Ireland, but the fact that there are 60,000 of them in Ireland doesn't tell me much. (How many CDPs are there in the United States? Every one seems to have an article). TheCatalyst31 makes good points. While article needs some cleanup, how would deletion of this article improve wikipedia?--Milowent (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Milowent.Red Hurley (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2010 (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 as a hoax. How this lasted six years on here is beyond me. Blueboy96 04:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Genre Balkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable product. Also, might be a hoax, since I can't find anything on google. DimaG (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Genomatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable film. DimaG (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. I had begun a cleanup to the article, but stopped when I was unable to find any reliable sources that might show notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. Unless someone can find sources demonstrating notability (and if MQS can't they probably don't exist at least in an easily accessible form) the article should be deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Invocation of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demo by redlink band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability or coverage by reliable sources. Orderinchaos 06:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as A9 (album by redlinked artist). Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Onward to Mecca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Album by redlink band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability or coverage by reliable sources. Orderinchaos 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as A9 (album by redlinked artist). Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lindsey Stamey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed. No reliable sources to establish notability of a musician. Google News didn't turn up anything promising. Plenty of sources are given as references, but they are blogs, facebook/myspace links, or alternative papers (MetroPulse). tedder (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like a vanity page, insufficient sourcing leads me to believe the subject is non-notable, better sourcing and this could be better DRosin (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND, Google shows little, and the use of blogs as references is wholly unacceptable. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 06:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7, fails WP:BAND. Lots of references, none are reliabel. RadioFan (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- ThrashIRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability with little hope of additional content. Google hits only show download locations and unreliable reviews. The only content I could find was this message. While such a blog is not a reliable source, it does give us some insight into the level of notability of this IRC client. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There does not seem to be any reliable sources out there for this. Aiken ♫ 00:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is just someone's home project. This type of program was old hat about 8 years ago, I used IRC back then and this type of client. Brings back bad memories of dial up modems. It was crap. I doubt there is a single IRC program in the world that is worthy of a page on WP. This one certainly not. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, there are numerous notable IRC clients that have pages. Aiken ♫ 12:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment. Fair enough. A Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients shows many haven't been updated for years/months. It is hardly a happening part of the software industry. Anyway this client just isn't notable, it'll be gone within a week as i'm sure you also know. Szzuk (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm Anthony, the author of ThrashIRC, I didn't create the wiki page for ThrashIRC, and was surprised to find it in Wiki, but I have edited it today, Mar 17, 2010 because the description was wrong, and the page was basically blank. There isn't much on the web about ThrashIRC because I've never promoted it. I have no interest in promoting it in wikipedia, either, and if wiki editors feel it fails notability, that's okay with me. And I feel Szzuk's remark should be addressed...it's ridiculous of anyone to criticize ThrashIRC based on their personal low opinion of IRC in general. If any editors have questions regarding my client, feel free to email me at developer@thrashirc.com (sorry for not signing my post, this week was my first time writing anything on wiki)--AnthonyThrash (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You've admitted IRC has a low opinion in general. Notability to some degree cascades. If IRC isn't terribly notable then an IRC program is likely to be even less notable. There are many programs such as yours that have been confined to the archives a long time ago. This isn't a reflection of how good the program is or your ability as a developer. Szzuk (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This remark was edited after I'd replied, changing its meaning. You said "it's ridiculous of anyone to criticize ThrashIRC based on a low opinion of IRC in general." Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I edited the remark to clarify it's meaning, since it was misinterpreted.--AnthonyThrash (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep **I love the fact that ThrashIRC is on Wiki. It is a great client and I use it often. ThrashIRC should definitely remain on Wiki and not be deleted. Special:Contributions/ (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — 205.142.197.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable source, WP:ILIKEIT votes above notwithstanding. Pcap ping 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ** ThrashIRC is a great reliable software and his maker Anthony has put a lot of time and effort on it, he is always open to suggestions and accepts feed backs with enthusiasm, ThrashIRC deserves a place in wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.61.43 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — 24.201.61.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Why was this relisted? The only keep !votes either fail WP:ILIKEIT or WP:COI. This is unremarkable software, no indication of how it might meet WP:GNG, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable software. GHits show no RS. (GregJackP (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sirius Backstage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable online forum. Ridernyc (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete insufficient evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No one can care enough to argue for a keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- E-mu Proteus X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable product. Ridernyc (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Em-u. The Proteus was an important instrument in its day but not so much to warrant a dedicated article RadioFan (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the above comment--if it wa important in its day it remains appropriate for a Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May want to read what he said or make an actual argument, since he clearly says it was not important enough to have it's own article. Ridernyc (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Carlton Samuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable session musician. Ridernyc (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much to say about this guy's work beyond sessions for more notable acts. Possibly redirect to Burning Spear because he has contributed to several of that artist's albums. Otherwise delete due to lack of independent notability per WP:MUSICBIO. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish independent notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uziah Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable session musician. Ridernyc (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Non-notable session musician" is again a ridiculous description. The most important reggae musicians have worked as session musicians, and Thompson is important enough to have his own entry in David Moskowitz's Caribbean Popular Music: an Encyclopedia of Reggae, Mento, Ska, Rock Steady, and Dancehall.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He also received significant coverage in David Katz's book People Funny Boy as well as coverage in most of the other good books on reggae, and this gives some idea of how many recordings he has contributed to, and it only covers his album work up to the mid-1980s. He played in Bob Marley's band, and Marley described him as a "legendary" musician.[12] More recently he has worked with Anen,[13], Sinead O'Connor,[14], and Michael Franti,[15] to name just a few. He is one of the most important percussionists in the history of Jamaican music.--Michig (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Given that I have demonstrated significant coverage, your !vote makes no sense.--Michig (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An easy one, given the indicated sources reflecting notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources show an extended career working with artists whose notability is unimpeachable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Woolard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG - no evidence of having played in fully professional league Steve-Ho (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Fails inclusion criteria for athletes (WP:ATH) and the general inclusion criteria (WP:N). --217.43.246.210 (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails ATHLETE having not played at required level, fails GNG with no in depth coverage, merely passing mention in routine sports coverage--ClubOranjeT 10:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Modern Gold Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Was PRODed by Tedder but there is a declined PROD in the history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE. I didn't look in the history- doh. Obviously, delete as a neologism and an essay. tedder (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've rewritten it and added a number of sources. The modern gold rush is a documented term for the current rise in gold prices. And the term itself has been around for a while. SilverserenC 20:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gold. Silverseren did improve the article (it was absolutely hopeless before) and added good links. But the term remains vague and undefined. Even the links that mention the term "modern gold rush" seem unclear what they mean by it: do they mean the price going up, or increased mining activity, or what? It's not a notable, defined event like the California gold rush so I suggest putting the information in the "Gold" article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gold is far to long of an article to have more crammed into it. SilverserenC 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The topic, the rise in gold prices in the last 40 years which along with increased demand has driven an increase in mining, is notable and should have an article. The expression "modern gold rush" seems to be to just be a fairly obvious thing to say which has been used a number of times, but no clear meaning. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then shouldn't you be asking for a renaming of the article, rather than a deletion? SilverserenC 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea. On the other hand there might be other articles on the general topic already. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should look for them and use them in your argument. You shouldn't vote delete merely on the premise that there "might" be other articles. SilverserenC 18:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea. On the other hand there might be other articles on the general topic already. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It was originally an article called Gold Websites, listing websites to sell gold, and clearly a commercial. Then after someone prodded it for deletion, it was renamed by its creator to Modern Gold Rush, still including the list of websites that sell gold, and still sounding like a commercial. One person has changed it from the article it was, to what it is now. [16] I don't see the difference between an old gold rush or a modern one. All sources are about different unrelated things. A gold rush is people rushing to where gold is at to mine it. "Like a modern gold rush" is an expression that is commonly used, but I don't think we could make an article about that. Dream Focus 10:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just had a good look at the article gold rush. It list all the gold rushes throughout history, including modern times. No reason to have this page at all. Dream Focus 10:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cherese N. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comically peacock-term laden biography of an American activist, with no evidence of notability: nearly all the references are to websites of organisations she has worked for.
I haven't seen such a blatant puff-piece for a while,and while it appears that she is someone whose career puts her on the cusp of notability, I don't see any evidence that she is there yet. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references given do not indicate notability. (some are dead ends or dont mention the person). If this is the best that an advocate for the woman (or herself) can provide to show notability, then she is not.Comment recent vandalism removed some references which show more notability that i at first observed. i restored the section vandalised. i am ambivalent about deletion now, leaning towards keep until we can sort out what is happening. I hate when people remove material during an afd. just wait, or add stuff, or remove absolutely uncontroversial material.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete If you can pick your way through the peacockery (worst I've ever seen; looks like a cut-and-paste of an overblown resumé), she turns out to be a mid-level executive with the NAACP and later with the Progressive Majority. In that type of position she might someday become notable. But so far, independent sourcing about her is unimpressive. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at the history: the original article was a much more straightforward, encyclopedic entry. The peacockery was added later by a couple of WP:SPAs: first by User:71.246.74.67 and later by User:Cherwil7. Also, a post on the Talk:Cherese N. Williams page, and this User talk:12.186.233.18 response from User:Cherwil7, imply that the subject is no longer working for the Progressive Majority but rather is looking for a job (as of December 2009) - and that she is pointing everyone to this Wikipedia page as support for her job search. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After the comment above by Mercurywoodrose, I have looked again the references, and I can see nothing which comes anywhere near WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the refs are to organisatiosn with which she was involved, and the few press articles barely even mention her. Can anybody see anything which might be relevant to GNG's test? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the record, i tried various google searches: news, name, etc. i cant find any mention of her outside the confines of naacp. her title may in fact be a significant one within the org, but i suspect for our purposes she would have to have some media contact as a spokesperson or public activist. unless someone with more familiarity with her can provide a really solid ref right now, i say delete. no prejudice towards recreation (sans ALL the puffery) if evidence is found later, or of course if she gains more notability after this discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When Brummies Met Sindhis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film lacking GHits or GNEW. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even accepting that documentary films rarely get the coverage that do big studio blockbusters, I am unable to find any RS for this film. No awards. No coverage. Perhaps suitable for a redirect to the filmmaker Azfar Rizvi ...maybe... but an article on him does not exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep Modified my opinion per the continued efforts of User:EssRiz, which are underscoring the terrific difficulties faced in sourcing a Pakistani film, documentary or not, with English sources. I am willing to accept in good faith that he will continue his search for sources and will present them as he finds them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I certainly understand the importance of including worthy subjects; however, notability has not been established via the use of reliable sources. I've seen the argument used in conjunction with other articles in AfD that the lack of normalized support avenues used by Wikipedia are few and far between; however, that argument is never supported by valid alternative avenues of reliable sources that might approach the Wikipedia criteria. As I review the references associated with the article I see only one that might independently support the article - the Dawn Newspaper review. All the others do not reference the film or are not independent sources. I just don't see how this meets the criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ User:Ttonyb1: Yes, at en.Wikipedia we have many problems in showing English-notability for films from non-English countries. It is an unfortunate bias inherent in that the majority of editors at en.Wikipedia are themselves from English speaking/reading countries... not all.... but a great majority. Such is the problem of even an unintended anglo-centricism, and I am not tossing mud at anyone... only acknowleding the problem. For instance, consider WP:NF's stating "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". As written, the caveat gives greater weight to films that have the bigger budgets or the greater press toward commercial profit through their theatrical release and distribution... unfortunately assigning a greater burden to films from non-English countries and to documentaries that are not themselves theatrically/commercially released films. While accepting that such a caveat is fine for a domestic release of a major studio's or even an independent's film, the guideline seems specifically inclined to give preference to those films intended for a commercial market, it would be quite tough for a Pakistani educational documentary to get reviews from "nationally known critics". We do have at least one RS that sources the article and an an editor determined to improve the article. WP:CSB was set up in attempts to level the playing field... and I do understand how very difficult is their task. Given this, our setting aside Anglo-centric doubts would serve to improve the project. I believe that since we do have at least the one RS, it serves the project in this case to be patient and allow additional, even if non-English, sources to be brought to an article as they become available. Few article are created already perfect and without flaw. As this one is showing itself to be a work-in-progress that is getting better edit-by-edit, why not let it continued to be worked on? The Article might always be revisited in a few months and returned to AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Oh Michael, you are just too wonderful! Thanks so much, once again. I have been in contact with the university officials from Bahria University and Greenwich University, which are both established private universities in Karachi. They have confirmed that filmmaker Azfar Rizvi is a professor of media and communication studies at their respective schools, and that When Brummies Met Sindhis (among some of his other films) is a part of their curriculum in that department. However, there is no system of posting the curriculum online, in order for it to be visible by everyone. This is understandable but rather unfortunate. I am working with them on this, though, and hopefully something can materialize soon enough that will supplement the current sources available. On a separate note, it's crazy over here. I am originally from Canada, and the system is incomparable - media, education, you name it. Fundamental structural flaws manage to cripple whatever little progression is made in any of Pakistan's facets. There are exceptions, but very few. In agreement to your response, the only thing I can say is that expecting articles on films from a 'developing' third-world country to live up to the manageable standards available in and of that of a developed first-world country is unfair. And I am truly grateful for the good faith that you have in me :) just one, tiny correction - I am not a 'he'! Warm wishes :) EssRiz (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thanks Michael for pointing out that documentary films rarely get the coverage that big studio blockbusters do. Add to this the fact that this is a third-world production with just a fraction of resources and media presence available to us, when compared to that of big players like the States or the UK. I'm still in the process of working on this article to add more information about the film, and the ways in which it has contributed to society. This will cater to the very argument that there is no coverage. There are many documentary films, pieces of written work, paintings, other forms of creative expression all the across the world that I may be unaware of. But I am aware of the disparity that exists in terms of accessibility and media presence for different countries. Hence, just because I don't know about it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't notable. There are many things that I have learned just by browsing Wikipedia, as opposed to coming across them somewhere else. As much as this may sound like an ode to Wikipedia, that is just how good this information portal really is! Please bear this mind while recommending your chosen course of action. Thanks much! EssRiz (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To EssRiz... With respects, I have a pretty decent personal track record for rescuing articles just like this... articles about minor or documentary or independent or short films... films with small or non-existant budgets and/or from non-western filmmakers... this through my researching, sourcing, cleaning up, and ultimately delivering back to folks in these discussions the results of my labors. Yes, the big films get the press. Yes, their articles are usually quite easy to improve. But it is because their lessor brethren do not get the coverage of their big-monied cousins that I work extra hard... and is why I can sincerely appreciate that you are working as hard as well. If the article is not improved in time to meet the concerns toward sourcing and notability, by all means please request from whomever closes this discussion that it might be userfied to you in a workspace such as User:EssRiz/workspace/When Brummies Met Sindhis. I do not anticipate any problems in it being moved so that improvements can continue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, I commend you for everything that you have accomplished in this regard. It is very inspiring to come across people who are willing to invest time and energy for a worthy cause, without getting anything of material significance in return. I've been collecting more information in the past few days. The notability factor seems a tad bit limiting but I am working on researching, as well as sourcing. Thanks for everything so far. I really appreciate both your kind words of encouragement, and the advice that you have given. Warm regards :) EssRiz (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I'm on it! I am trying my best to ensure that I use only that research and resources which on some level, follow the Wikipedia advisory. Thanks for your patience! EssRiz (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, I commend you for everything that you have accomplished in this regard. It is very inspiring to come across people who are willing to invest time and energy for a worthy cause, without getting anything of material significance in return. I've been collecting more information in the past few days. The notability factor seems a tad bit limiting but I am working on researching, as well as sourcing. Thanks for everything so far. I really appreciate both your kind words of encouragement, and the advice that you have given. Warm regards :) EssRiz (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – There are certain criteria that need to be met in order to insure the quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are supported by reliable sources that support verifiability, not truth. There is a difference between "real-world" notability and Wikipedia notability, per Wikipedia guidelines if it cannot be verified, it is not notable. ttonyb (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To EssRiz... With respects, I have a pretty decent personal track record for rescuing articles just like this... articles about minor or documentary or independent or short films... films with small or non-existant budgets and/or from non-western filmmakers... this through my researching, sourcing, cleaning up, and ultimately delivering back to folks in these discussions the results of my labors. Yes, the big films get the press. Yes, their articles are usually quite easy to improve. But it is because their lessor brethren do not get the coverage of their big-monied cousins that I work extra hard... and is why I can sincerely appreciate that you are working as hard as well. If the article is not improved in time to meet the concerns toward sourcing and notability, by all means please request from whomever closes this discussion that it might be userfied to you in a workspace such as User:EssRiz/workspace/When Brummies Met Sindhis. I do not anticipate any problems in it being moved so that improvements can continue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA significant amount of information about the film and several contextual components has been added to the article. Notable resources, following the Wikipedia advisory on notability have been added as well. Please keep the article! Thanks much :) EssRiz (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note to EssRiz. With respects, I have struck your second !vote, while keeping your comment. I will revisit the article now, but please know its only one vote per editor, but you are always welcome to coment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Michael, no worries :) I actually wasn't aware about the one vote limitation. Take care! EssRiz (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EssRiz, as you may have noticed, I just went through the article... giving it some cleanup, correcting the reference format and the internal wikilinks. The film seems to be a very worthwhile project... but an issue that editors will point out is that the film itself does not (yet) have reliable sources speaking specifically about it or reviews about the film itself. As this may easily change as the films is further distributed, I would still encourage it be userfied to you for continued care. One of the things to keep in mind is that notability criteria for films allows that even without significant coverage, it might be found notable if it proves to be historically notable, wins awards, is accepted into a national archive, or becomes part of the sylabus at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Michael, thanks for the cleanup! It looks much better now. I have a question for you. After reviewing your comment, I have highlighted the film's review by Bina Shah, who is a renowned Pakistani journalist and writer under the film's synopsis. Maybe I am not using this source efficiently enough for it to be considered? As well, I am pretty sure that the film is also part of the curriculum across media studies courses at several universities in Karachi. I will have to look into that though, and update the article as soon as I come across something. Thanks for all your help so far :) Take care! EssRiz (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews best belong in a "Reception" section. I moved it there and included a direct quote from Bina Shah. Keep up the good efforts. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Michael, thanks for the cleanup! It looks much better now. I have a question for you. After reviewing your comment, I have highlighted the film's review by Bina Shah, who is a renowned Pakistani journalist and writer under the film's synopsis. Maybe I am not using this source efficiently enough for it to be considered? As well, I am pretty sure that the film is also part of the curriculum across media studies courses at several universities in Karachi. I will have to look into that though, and update the article as soon as I come across something. Thanks for all your help so far :) Take care! EssRiz (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EssRiz, as you may have noticed, I just went through the article... giving it some cleanup, correcting the reference format and the internal wikilinks. The film seems to be a very worthwhile project... but an issue that editors will point out is that the film itself does not (yet) have reliable sources speaking specifically about it or reviews about the film itself. As this may easily change as the films is further distributed, I would still encourage it be userfied to you for continued care. One of the things to keep in mind is that notability criteria for films allows that even without significant coverage, it might be found notable if it proves to be historically notable, wins awards, is accepted into a national archive, or becomes part of the sylabus at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Michael, no worries :) I actually wasn't aware about the one vote limitation. Take care! EssRiz (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to EssRiz. With respects, I have struck your second !vote, while keeping your comment. I will revisit the article now, but please know its only one vote per editor, but you are always welcome to coment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just crept over into Keep - cognizant of the efforts of two editors to bring up to standard the background and information on this documentary. Both the subject matter and the form are worthy of interest, though I would suggest rearranging the entry into more standard format, starting with a synopsis of the film, factual background, and then the British council funding arrangements in that order. Moloch09 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – What bothers me is the lack of reliable sources. As I review the references associated with the article I see only one that might independently support the article - the Dawn Newspaper review. All the others do not reference the film or are not independent sources. I just don't see how this meets the criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm bothered too - but not to the point of 'delete'. I'm waiting for more substance and cross references, but the article seems to be receiving the right attention from editors, so my inclination is to let them continue with their work, Moloch09 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Dear Moloch, thank you so much for your appreciation! I will get to work on the rearrangement as per your suggestion as soon as possible. Unannounced power outages have taken over this city! I really like your idea of following the standard format. Thing is, I am new here, and learning just a little bit more every day! Take care and have a good one! Warm wishes :) EssRiz (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – What bothers me is the lack of reliable sources. As I review the references associated with the article I see only one that might independently support the article - the Dawn Newspaper review. All the others do not reference the film or are not independent sources. I just don't see how this meets the criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, This Documentary is not noteable enough to have an article on the English Wikipedia IMO. The Director/producer have no real fame; maybe wait and see how this film does at these festivals. Lets at least hear some critical feedback and please get some realiable sources.--intraining Jack In 18:52, 4 April 2010 (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. Although the version nominated [17] was dubious in respect of WP:CRYSTAL, the additional information and sources that have appeared over the course of the AfD eventually lead to a clear and obvious consensus to keep it. ~ mazca talk 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazin' (Trina album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage of substance. Article mostly sourced from YouTube, Twitter, and a fan site. Fails WP:NALBUM (see also: WP:CRYSTAL). TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Essentially unsourced. Hasn't charted. Don't see significant coverage. Fails WP:NALBUM. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep but needs work. The album is confirmed, but there are better sources out there than what has been provided thus far.Strikerforce (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being confirmed is not one of the criteria at WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." So, the question now becomes, is Trina considered notable? If so, then it can be reasonably assumed that this album may have sufficient notability to have an individual article on Wikipedia. Strikerforce (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "...officially released albums may have sufficient notability..." This does not say that albums by notable artists are notable; it allows that there is a good chance that they are. The album still has to meet notability guidelines. Remember, "notability is not inherited". TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." So, the question now becomes, is Trina considered notable? If so, then it can be reasonably assumed that this album may have sufficient notability to have an individual article on Wikipedia. Strikerforce (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being confirmed is not one of the criteria at WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This album is released by a notable artist, on a notable label (EMI is the biggest in the world, last time I checked), featuring other notable artists (I dare you to try telling me Sean Combs is not notable). If you delete this album, then you have to delete all the other albums she released (they've all been on major labels). Plus there is a source I put in which provides plenty of info. Tom Danson (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct—Trina is certainly notable, as is EMI, and there are indeed notable guest artists appearing on the album. Where you are misguided is your thinking that all of her other albums need be deleted if this one is. You see, this particular album has not yet been released and so, none too surprisingly, has not been reviewed or garnered any other media coverage of substance; her other albums have. I suggest you check the criteria at WP:NALBUM, paying particular attention to the part that says "unreleased albums are in general not notable". TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's less than two months before this album is released. Most of us don't want to have to try restoring it again after it's been deleted. If you must do anything, redirect it to Trina (rapper) until we get the final tracklisting (which a good deal is sourced and covered here) and cover. Tom Danson (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct—Trina is certainly notable, as is EMI, and there are indeed notable guest artists appearing on the album. Where you are misguided is your thinking that all of her other albums need be deleted if this one is. You see, this particular album has not yet been released and so, none too surprisingly, has not been reviewed or garnered any other media coverage of substance; her other albums have. I suggest you check the criteria at WP:NALBUM, paying particular attention to the part that says "unreleased albums are in general not notable". TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Atama頭 17:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It feels good to be a member of the Wikipedian Inclusionist Party, doesn't it? Just be patient, deletionists; the album is set to drop in 39 days, so I think that pretty soon, an official tracklisting and cover will be released, rendering enough information to make this notable and rendering this debate moot. Conservata Veritate/Wikipedia is not paper, Tom Danson (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And here both the cover and the tracklisting are. This should be a Strong Keep now. I'm not worried about the 3-2 margin for deletion, because AfD is not a vote. Tom Danson (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NALBUM now that title, track listing and release date all have been confirmed by the record label. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Tom Danson and User:Paul Erik - album is notable and confirmed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nachtblut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable musical group; self-released albums - not signed in any major label; refs are in german and unclear if considered reliable sources. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are three problems at work here. First of all, though there's never really been a consensus on foreign-language sources, I believe that there should be at least [i]some[/i] English-language sources for any article here because otherwise the pool of Wikipedians able to maintain and improve the article becomes too small. Second, the German Wikipedia has the corresponding page; while their standards for inclusion are stricter, I believe that we should give some credence to their decisions regarding topics where the available sources are in German. Finally, the subject fails to pass WP:MUSIC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Al Manara Jewellery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This reads like an advertisement for a non-notable jewelry business. Warrah (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no independent evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (a7) sounds like blatant advertising for a small business. Dew Kane (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SLUDGE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to pass WP:Notability. Could not find any reliable sources for WP:Verifiability. Marasmusine (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to meet the minimum requirements of WP:N. For filtered Google results, see [18] and [19]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added a scientific article mentioning SLUDGE and an interview with the creator, as well as a text input tool for SLUDGE. Some coverage of Out of Order, the game for which SLUDGE was originally developed, I put on the Talk page. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The scientific paper only contains a single fleeting mention of the subject. The Just Adventure+ article is practically a primary source. — Rankiri (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I'm afraid the sources mentioned aren't enough to establish notability as what Rankiri said above. –MuZemike 00:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- José Bonilla Observation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too obscure for its own article (the subject of a few paragraphs in a 19th century astronomy journal). Lacking third-party sourcing and independent acknowledgment outside of the community of proponents who dug up this observation in the first place that Wikipedia requires of fringe proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Bonilla observation has been written about in many books [20]. However, the article should be rewritten to focus on Bonilla's life and career. Warrah (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These books are all poor sources: unreliable UFO sensationalism and one book that actually uses this article as a source. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the publishers of these "poor sources" include Science Digest and a pair of peer-reviewed university presses, University Press of Kentucky and University Press of New England. Warrah (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Going by the first source, we should redirect this article to goose. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly significant mention in either of those texts, I might add. The first attributes it to geese unequivocally and
- Keep Unsure what is meant by the wording "requires of fringe proposals". I would think this incident has been covered in numerous locations over the past 127 years. Wouldn't it be better to put the emphasis on digging up references that are likely to exist rather than moving for deletion? __meco (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can point to someone who isn't a credulous ufologist discussing this, that would help. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any independent sources covering this "observation". It doesn't have any traction outside of a few UFOlogy publications desperately trying to interpret it as a UFO related milestone or Fortean mystery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The aforementioned Google book search [[21]. Warrah (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Books whose titles use phrases like "unsolved", "unexplained", "secrets revealed", "conspiracy", "monsters, mysteries" etc. aren't authoritative sources for notable astronomical events. What remains from University Press of Kentucky and Science Digest are trivial passing mentions of the subject, maybe worthy of a Merge with UFO, but not a separate article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some other sources and translated the French one. It appears to be a notable event, especially if it is the first ever photographically recorded sighting of a UFO. SilverserenC 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Obama has promised to tell the whole truth about extraterrestrials" ??? That's one of the links that was added. Not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Occidentale is a legitimate paper, regardless of the title of the article link. If you do not have any legitimate reason to remove the link, some legitimate concern about L'Occidentale, then it should remain, as disliking the title of it is not a reason to discredit it. SilverserenC 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should explain why you feel that L'Occidentale is a reliable, trustworthy source for objective facts. The story is about Obama preparing to "reveal the truth about space aliens", and is clearly a hoax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the rest of the sources are then as equally unreliable? SilverserenC 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That only counts for two of the titles, what about the other two? SilverserenC 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which two? You might want to specify which titles you feel represent an independent and objective discussion of the subject, and why they are of significant depth and detail to warrant its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That only counts for two of the titles, what about the other two? SilverserenC 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the rest of the sources are then as equally unreliable? SilverserenC 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should explain why you feel that L'Occidentale is a reliable, trustworthy source for objective facts. The story is about Obama preparing to "reveal the truth about space aliens", and is clearly a hoax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Occidentale is a legitimate paper, regardless of the title of the article link. If you do not have any legitimate reason to remove the link, some legitimate concern about L'Occidentale, then it should remain, as disliking the title of it is not a reason to discredit it. SilverserenC 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reading the article I would think that this would be notable, but without independent in depth coverage ... - 2/0 (cont.) 17:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and Improve - Reading this article it is small but you can easily improve it. It is obvious this observation location is real, it is semi-notable and if you just add some more bulk onto the article it will become more notable and 'readable'. Whenaxis (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bingo (Gucci Mane song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Single which barely charted and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Fails WP:NSONG. Redirecting it to the album it's from was reverted with the reasoning that "it has charted and has a music video". TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has charted, its by a notable artist, and its music video is currently on BET's top 10 line up. Str8cash (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from WP:NSONG: a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 20 March 2010 (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. JForget 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
5 month old Bio that does not cite a source and notability is a huge concern here. This also was deleted two years ago. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note, the previous AfD was for a football player, and not a martial-artist. Just in case anyone was planning on bringing WP:CSD G4 to the party! Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. I guess I should have read more carefully. I just saw athlete and assumed it was the same guy.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added a ton of sources that I found from a Google News search. They easily establish notability. SilverserenC 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A lot of unreliable 'external links' there (PRweb!) but I'm willing to take a punt on the Saipan Tribune being reliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Mkativerata, and because he's won some awards. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has some news coverage in English sources [22] and if we searched for news sources from Brazil, I'm sure we'd find more. Dream Focus 05:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stan Romanek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural AfD. This article was recreated some months after it was deleted without undergoing a proper WP:DRV. There is evidence that the article is self-promoting, but there is also evidence of a lot of original research debunking of this guy's equations. In short, not a lot of evidence that Romanek is particularly notable outside the community of UFO-believers. A few news-of-the-weird pieces does not meet our threshhold here at Wikipedia, normally. See WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for creation group has confirmed that the article was recreated out-of-process and inappropriately: Please see the discussion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently I created the article for AfC. It's been over 5 months and I really don't remember this one. For that part of the dicussion, see the link above I guess. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Strong keep Clearly notable. Romanek is a frequently mentioned name in ufological lore. I also strongly contend that the references are quite sufficient to provide notability. __meco (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent sources are required, not just those associated with "ufological lore". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don't ABCNews and Rocky Mountain News count as reliable sources? Also if its true that he appeared on Larry King (coverage), I think we can presume he's notable. That said, we shouldn't have an article that mirrors his web site. A factual stub is probably appropriate. I don't think the reliable sources support anything too much longer than that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some more sources, though there were a bunch from a Google news search. More than enough to easily establish notability. SilverserenC 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep the ABC stories show he is considered notable to the general public, total nonsense though it sounds. Even if they did the story on the basis of his being the most absurd of his genre, still he's notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why is your keep "weak"? That seems to me like a taint of irrationality from the usually very sensible DGG? __meco (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I use "weak" keep or delete to indicate that I don;t propose to argue about it if anyone thinks the opposite. In this case, I almost said weak delete because it would equally well be seen as a violation of NOT TABLOID. Not everything that a tv station or a newspaper chooses to fill up time or space with is notable, sometimes it can be merely curious. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why is your keep "weak"? That seems to me like a taint of irrationality from the usually very sensible DGG? __meco (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seascraper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. While the concept of a "seascraper" is an interesting topic, I believe that this article fails WP:CRYSTAL as there are just not enough reliable sources to verify the content and/or expand on a basic definition of what the word means (most likely due to the fact that no such "seascraper" has been built or even begun real planning stages). Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a seascraper could also be a dragnet, or some underwater mining or construction equipment, such as a dredge, or sand siphon, etc. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have another reason to want to delete it? Do you believe anyone reading the article might be confused by what it is? Do people call other things Seascrapers? If so, you could have a note at the top of the article linking to those articles instead. I've never heard anyone use that term before though, so doubt its necessary. Dream Focus 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Whether or not a seascraper has been built or begun initial planning stages is not a reason to delete. It is as real as dragons or hoverboards (both in wikipedia). Neither are in existence but does that make them irrelevant? It's only a matter of time before a seascraper is a reality but why wait till then? The more interest we build the sooner we can all be living 50 floors below sea level. And the name seascraper couldn't be more appropriate. From the material that has been gathered, it seems that this is more than just a throwaway thought. Long live the future, long live the seascraper.Detroitsprinkles (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) — Detroitsprinkles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- {{CB-keep}} Article has adequate refs to meet WP:RS and WP:N. It could use improvement but not deletion. Ikluft (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment could be merged into underwater habitat, which briefly covers potential future large-scale underwater structures, or if kept should at least be referred to there. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, despite statement in the lead, the linked examples of 'waterscrapers' are all floating buildings rather than underwater buildings. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should probably be changed (and have one of the refs attached to it). SilverserenC 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources show various floating buildings, not underwater buildings that the article describes. I also hate the word "seascraper" but that's not a reason to delete. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, as I stated above, the lead should be rewritten to say floating buildings instead of underwater buildings. This is an edit you can even do yourself if you dislike what it is currently. SilverserenC 03:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are enough sources that this seems to pass notability and verifiability. More importantly, it's a pretty coherent topic with good scope. It needs to be edited to be clear that it is mostly a science fiction idea. Quantumelfmage (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it does say conceptual. SilverserenC 08:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:NEO. Although the earlier comments claim that the article is sufficiently sourced to meet WP:N, it is simply not true.
- [23]'s "coverage" of the subject is limited to the following user comment: "should call it a "seascraper" instead of a "waterscraper", sounds cooler".
- [24] has no mention of the neologism.
- [25] discusses the Gyre Seascraper—the proper name of a conceptual building, not a common noun.
- [26] is a "geek blog dedicated to the scientific study of gadgets, gizmos, and awesome"[27]. Not a reliable source.
- GNews, GBooks and GScholar return nothing but trivial mentions. Google returns 133 unique results, none of which appear to be reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will respond to each of your comments in turn.
- 1. The entire article is about seascrapers. Just because they do not explicitly use the term does not mean that they aren't talking about it. Reading the article and just seeing the picture shows what they're talking about.
- 2. Again, they are talking about seascrapers without explicitly using the term. He's the guy who primarily builds them, for goodness sake.
- 3. Just because it's more specific, we can't use it? Let me give an example. I looked up tunnel. Which, clearly, gave me the article on tunnel. Then I looked up Gotthard Base Tunnel, there we go. Now, since the Gotthard Base Tunnel is more specific, does that mean that it cannot be referenced in the tunnel article? Of course not, as it is mentioned there. Now, what was your argument about being specific is wrong?
- 4. Which explains why, oh would you look at that, it's gone. Poof.
- There are already enough reliable sources that talk directly about the subject to make it notable. You're too caught up in the term. SilverserenC 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. As for renaming the article, I'll have to take another look at the available sources. — Rankiri (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I want to rename it. SilverserenC 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy This topic has potential. A better title might be Amphibious building, which was used in one of the sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm in agreement with the idea, it would make more sense to people who find the article. SilverserenC 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Amphibious Building I realized I hadn't actually voted yet. The sources for the article make it pass WP:N almost handily. The term is not really applied directly, so I feel that the article should instead focus on amphibious buildings in general, with seascrapers being a specific subsection. SilverserenC 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I object to the above renaming proposal. For one, it's patently obvious that the mentioned Gyre Seascraper is anything but amphibious. The other problem is the seeming lack of significant coverage. Again, a term doesn't belong to WP unless it's specifically covered by at least a couple of reliable sources. If we want to rename it, it's better to rename it to something like Floating building. Google Books has a number of WP:RS sources for this one, including [28], [29], and [30]. — Rankiri (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But so does Amphibious Building, [31], [32], [33], and [34]. SilverserenC 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a source puts the single mention of the subject in quotes, it's probably not that good of a source. These are all trivial mentions. Besides, you don't seem to realize that the word "amphibious" means "able to operate both on land and water". That company's idea of an amphibious building is one of a small house floating on high tides or floodwater but resting on a solid platform when the water recedes. A building about the size of the Empire State Building obviously wouldn't operate in such a manner, would it? — Rankiri (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep Google news link shows four results. [35] proves it does exist, and is rather cool. If the article needs to be renamed, then discuss it on the talk page. That isn't a reason to delete something. Dream Focus 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a link to an architectural magazine in the article. [36] Even more notable coverage of this. Whatever the designers call it, is what the article should be named. Instead of Skyscrapers, most call them Waterscrapers. Dream Focus 23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there is a product named Marzocchi Super Monster doesn't mean that we should have an article on Super monster. Once again, unless you can come up with better sources, Seascraper and Waterscraper fall under WP:NEO. I could consider a compromise with a clear consensus on a better sourced title, but if it comes to keeping this version of the stub, there's really nothing in there worth saving. If you feel that you can make it encyclopedic, try userfication. — Rankiri (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the product gets multiple independent news coverage in notable reliable sources, then yes, it does get covered. Dream Focus 05:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD's are not the place to have discussions about name changes. The talk pages of articles are supposed to do that. The point of the discussion at hand is to determine if the subject is notable, not the name. If you are admitting that the subject is notable, but that you don't agree with the name, then you should be voting keep and discussing a name change on the talk page, not here. SilverserenC 09:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't you read the comment? Although I see some coverage for a more general concept of floating building, the article and its contents deal with the particular subject of seascrapers, which I find not notable. — Rankiri (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs may indeed discuss renaming, as well as other alternatives to deletion. See WP:ATD. Ikluft (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We do already have floating buildings - house boats and cruise ships. The term seacraper shows up in works like Reinventing the skyscraper and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book doesn't seem to contain any significant coverage of the term. You can browse it through Amazon. — Rankiri (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It demonstrates that the term has some currency and so we should have something to offer when our readers search using it. We should keep this and develop it further in accordance with our editing policy. Deletion would not be constructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage like "[it] is like a horizontal floating skyscraper or "seascraper"" isn't demonstrative of anything. Please reread WP:NEO and WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage explicitly shows the equivalence of floating cruise liners and skyscrapers in scale and function. Taken along with the other sources that we have, it demonstrates that we have a topic worthy of note. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe I'm forced to quote it again, but a new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. Your interpretation of the above sentence is irrelevant WP:SYNTH. — Rankiri (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is irrelevant because our topic here is the concept of large floating structures of this sort, not the words used to describe them. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we must focus upon the topic, not the words. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with your argument is that it could just as easily be applied to Oceancondo, Watermansion, Aquahouse and dozens of similar neologisms. We're not discussing the concept of large floating structures. We're discussing a particular subject of "seascrapers" that apparently hasn't received enough direct coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with your argument is that it is a straw man. This is not an article about word(s), it is an article about a topic. It would work just as well under another title such as Floating skyscraper just as we have numerous articles about the similar concept of a Floating city. We have adequate sources to support the topic and so deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't mind, I'm not going to continue this repetitive discussion. My objections are based in concrete policies and guidelines. Your desire to keep the article is based on the existence of a completely unconnected subject of a much larger scope. If you feel that immense underwater structures deserve an article, try creating one that doesn't conflict with WP:N and WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article I have in mind is not "completely unconnected" - it is the selfsame one that we are discussing here. You argument seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of the WP:NEO which is a style guideline, not a reason to delete. Its point is that we should write with clarity and so avoid words which our readers will not understand. Reworking and rewording to improve clarity is performed by normal editing, not by deletion and so there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides. The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Articles on neologisms that have not yet caught on widely are commonly deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. — Rankiri (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an article about a neologism - the focus of the article is the topic, not any particular word. Various authorities describe the topic in various ways. We have to pick one of them as the nominal title of the article but this is not the point of the article and so the guideline you quote is not applicable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of WP:DICDEF. Aside from the unsourced definition, the article only has two descriptions of concept buildings that no one (except one of the building's authors and a couple of blogs) ever actually called seascrapers (see [37],[38], [39], [40], etc) and some irrelevant information on the mentioned "amphibious" buildings. — Rankiri (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two is enough to establish notability of the concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of what? I'm saying that the article has no relevant content except for the unsourced definition. — Rankiri (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have two good examples of the proposed structure. It is this architectural concept which is our topic and its notability is established. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be
intentionallyignoring the facts. The proposed structures were submitted to skyscraper design competitions[41] and were called skyscrapers by nearly every single source. Only one of them ever used the term "seascraper" and only because that happened to be a part of the project's proper name. Mention them on skyscraper if you must. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be
- Comment. I agree with Colonel Warden that the article is about the concept of a seascraper, listing waterscraper as an alternate name that has been used for it. It is not trying to be a dictionary definition, and should not. WP:NEO does not apply. WP:N is satisfied by the existing refs. Having qualified for notability, the article is a stub which should be retained and expanded over time. Ikluft (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep-This doesn't fall under WP:CRYSTAL as the article is describing a possible building structure, it is not speculating about a future event. Rather, a more appropriate nomination would be under WP:Neolgism. I, however, do not support the deletion of this article as this is a term that is indeed used, and is not vague in its definition. There are articles relating to what future seascrapers may look like for example:
- The Water-Scraper: I would live on it without a huge eco-disaster, CoolestGadgets.com
- Gyre Floating City for inhabiting the oceans, CoolestGadgets.com
- Seascraper – Floating City, Evob
- Floating city kicks off colonization of the oceans,Dvice
- Underwater Seascrapers Of The Future,Geekologie
- This topic would fall under Seasteading.Smallman12q (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2010 (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. Tone 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Zanja 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability. No reliable sources. No usable sources found in Google. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. At this point, I wouldn't oppose a speedy deletion under A7, but I'm not going to go so far as to tag it. I'm just not that WP:BOLD :) --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of sources, some of it fairly in-depth coverage (for example) but it's all in the Redlands Daily Facts or The Sun, which are local newspapers. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article, as written, lacks sources and covers a subject that fails WP:MUSIC. It is unclear whether the local news sources mentioned above are truly independent. The example cited appears, stylistically, to be an except from publicity material. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Woman in Love (Van Halen song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreleased song doesn't meet GNG or WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 04:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per CTJF83. Here it is briefly mentioned, but I can't find any significant coverage for this unreleased demo recording. The song this evolved into ("Women in Love") is a redirect, and this demo does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow Talk 01:10, 27 March 2010 (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Islamic Emirate of Waziristan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No organization claims this name. It was mentioned as a hypothetical name in a 2006 Newsweek article and has not appeared since. Shii (tock) 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominator's analysis is simply incorrect. GNews shows usages running through 2009; GBooks shows the term showing up in more than 20 recently published books; and GScholar shows its use in more than a dozen recent works. The existing article needs attention from someone with more specialized knowledge than I have. The initial AFD reached the right outcome, and no reason to overturn it has been provided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Contrary to the nominator's statement, there are plenty of reliable sources that refer to the "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan", and this was covered in the last AfD. Lexicon (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands the article is nonsense. I challenge anyone to improve it based on the references on Google Scholar. Shii (tock) 07:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (crickets chirpin) Seriously, I will just merge this article into Waziristan regardless of the AfD outcome. It's disgraceful in its current form. Shii (tock) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't do that. If this is to be merged anywhere then there are several better potential targets, such as Taliban#Taliban in Pakistan, War in North-West Pakistan or Waziristan Accord, and, anyway, if you do merge it against consensus then it will be quickly reverted (I have watchlisted the article just to make sure). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Waziristan Accord, the relevant context, outside which this entity has no notability at all. rudra (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Waziristan and Waziristan Accord, pick a name out of those three for the article and redirect the others to it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article was gutted of sources in mid-February. I have restored it. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable article IJA (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Resident Evil. A merge of all related articles into Music of Biohazard might be a good consideration at some point. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Biohazard: Symphony Op. 91: Crime and Punishment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This soundtrack article neither establishes its notability nor has a corresponding artist article. Recommendation: Speedy delete per A9. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Administrator Dlohcierekim has already rejected speedy deletion per A9 on the pretext of automatic inheritance of notability from Resident Evil. However, contrary to this assertion, WP:MUSIC does not mention that notability may be inherited from anything other than a composer or musician. Fleet Command (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. I would argue that either Resident Evil or CAPCOM would be considered the artist here as far as WP:MUSIC is concerned - both of which scream notability - but FleetCommand makes a good point. Perhaps that policy should be reviewed to specifically mention situations like this one? As per notability - I think that because the music is heavily featured in reviews of these particular games, it lends some extra weight to an officially released soundtrack. I would not be opposed to this information simply being merged into the article about the game specifically. Addionne (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is so, Addionne, you have seven days to assert notability by providing citations. However, as for considering Resident Evil or CAPCOM as an artist, there is a void of policy support and much doubt of validity on my part. For the time being, the policy says that Resident Evil and CAPCOM may both be notable topics, but notability is not inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All six other Resident Evil soundtrack AfDs that I nominated are now closed with a Merge consensus. Here is a list of them:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biohazard: The Umbrella Chronicles Original Soundtrack
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biohazard 2 Complete Track
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biohazard 2 Original Soundtrack
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biohazard 3 Original Soundtrack
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biohazard Code: Veronica Complete Original Soundtrack
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biohazard Sound Chronicle
- Wouldn't it make sense to merge all the mentioned articles into Music of Biohazard for instance? –MuZemike 00:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. But we need more consensus for those soundtrack articles which aren't nominated for deletion at all, don't you think? There are four of them:
- Biohazard Original Soundtrack Remix
- Biohazard 5 Original Soundtrack
- Biohazard Outbreak Original Soundtrack
But as for the pressing concern of the moment: Should this article be merged or deleted?
Fleet Command (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- More reasons to have a discography article: I have discovered that there is already a Discography of the Resident Evil film series article whose link was not on the navigation template. I am beginning to think that we need more parity and consistency here than consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO these should all be Merged to their parent articles as collapsible track lists. --Teancum (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Resident Evil as a collapsible track list, since it's the soundtrack for the Dual Shock Edition. --Teancum (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dual Shock? Didn't you mean Resident Evil (video game)? Fleet Command (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the article: "The soundtrack covers music from Resident Evil: Director's Cut Dual Shock Version." But yes, I meant the video game. --Teancum (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (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 - Altenmann >t 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Enochlophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No such medical term. Heck, there is even no such Greeek or Latin word 'enochlos' or 'enochlon' to derive from. Looks like some ignoramus coined it. It is amazing how it not only infested the 'net, but even books!. Xuz (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That it "infested the 'net" and "books" is basically a hint that it has notability :). That is has no proper derivation from Greek and Latin is entirely irrelevant, as is your argument that there is "no such medical term." GNews has a substantial amount of reliable sourcing to offer, much of which confers notability, as does GScholar. I might argue that the article should make reference to the term's dubious origins, if that is the case, but the term is clearly notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence here of reliable sources. It's being presented as a medical term, but apart from a blog link on the article, we have no evidence from any online or print sources that this is actually used medically. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A quick GNews and GBooks search returns a plethora of coverage from multiple reliable sources (there are books devoted to phobias that cover this phobia, and newspapers like the Miami Herald talk about it, too...I'm just plucking random examples). As for whether or not it is presented properly as a "medical term," I do not have an opinion. But that's a matter of adjusting the content in the article and has nothing to do with a reason to delete this article. There is not only "evidence" of reliable sourcing, there is a bona fide mountain of it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Wouldn't this be covered under agoraphobia? Perhaps the article should be incorporated there? TreacherousWays (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think they're quite the same. One is a fear of large spaces, the other is a fear of large crowds. I personally find endless phobia-creep a bit silly but they have distinct definitions and my notability argument is above. Also, if there is some concern that "enochlophobia" is not an actual medical condition and that's a problem (I have no opinion on this), I think redirecting or merging to agorabphobia, which I believe is a legitimate condition, would be problematic. Just my two cents. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ah, yes. I misread "fear of public places". As an uninvolved, uninformed layman, perhaps my views should be taken with a grain of salt, but if this is a legitimate phobia then won't psychologists be treating it and (more importantly from our standpoint) writing about it in reliable sources? Is this a neologism to be avoided? TreacherousWays (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the contrary, I think being an "uninvolved, uninformed layman" makes your views very important. I am pretty much completely uninformed on the topic as well, although I've managed to involve myself now, hehe. The neologism point is interesting. GNews coverage doesn't turn up much of anything on this term prior to 2003. However, coverage is steady starting in 2003, just based on the mention rate graph they supply. In my opinion, it clears being a neologism -- it doesn't seem like a "fad word," if you will.
My opinion is that just because the word "phobia" is in the title doesn't mean it has to have reliable sourcing from psychologists, nor does it have to be about a medical term. I don't think a fear of something has to be a medical term before it can have a "phobia" attached to it. Does that make any sense? My overall point here is that the lack of reliable sourcing from medical professionals seems irrelevant, to me. There is notability-conferring sourcing available, and much of it goes deeper than simply defining the term. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the contrary, I think being an "uninvolved, uninformed layman" makes your views very important. I am pretty much completely uninformed on the topic as well, although I've managed to involve myself now, hehe. The neologism point is interesting. GNews coverage doesn't turn up much of anything on this term prior to 2003. However, coverage is steady starting in 2003, just based on the mention rate graph they supply. In my opinion, it clears being a neologism -- it doesn't seem like a "fad word," if you will.
- Comment Ah, yes. I misread "fear of public places". As an uninvolved, uninformed layman, perhaps my views should be taken with a grain of salt, but if this is a legitimate phobia then won't psychologists be treating it and (more importantly from our standpoint) writing about it in reliable sources? Is this a neologism to be avoided? TreacherousWays (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think they're quite the same. One is a fear of large spaces, the other is a fear of large crowds. I personally find endless phobia-creep a bit silly but they have distinct definitions and my notability argument is above. Also, if there is some concern that "enochlophobia" is not an actual medical condition and that's a problem (I have no opinion on this), I think redirecting or merging to agorabphobia, which I believe is a legitimate condition, would be problematic. Just my two cents. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to define and promote new disorders which have not been discussed scholarly. I got no hits in pubmed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2010 (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. NW (Talk) 19:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Galla Ramachandra Naidu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod way back in September '09. Non-neutral, mostly unsourced, unwikified BLP of a south Asian CEO, looks like it might have been copypasted from somewhere. Notability is questionable, I suppose someone can salvage this by stubbifying it... I don't think it's worth it though. Hopefully someone more familiar with Indian topics can help here. Ϫ 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —œ™ 20:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is most important family for the people of andhra pradesh india. how can we mark for delte.let us edit if this is not standard format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.93.76.100 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Clearly no editors seem to care about this article, but I see a number of google news hits from indian news sources that discuss him. So I can't conclude he's non-notable.--Milowent (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable spam. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find significant coverage. None of the Gnews hits is nontrivial. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whorecore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Protection (Whorecore album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Mundane Corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Only sources are primary or unreliable. Fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable band and albums are self release and fail WP:NALBUM -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I looked through about five pages of links on Google, and the only things I can find are self-promoted coverage through Myspace and YouTube, and some blog notes, nothing that would make it pass WP:BAND. -- Nomader (Talk) 05:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable 3rd party references IJA (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of clearing the WP:BAND notability bar. No references from third person reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough; Myspace is only reference, as far as I can tell. Pilif12p (contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2010 (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.