Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 23

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang Haijie

< 22 March	24 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Pooktre

delete Griseum recreated the Pooktre article by copying and pasting from Tree shaping creating a stub. With the stated out come of removing the Pooktre content from Tree shaping and then getting the Pooktre article deleted. Playing politics

There is a huge discussion going on at Tree shaping and it is locked down by administrator SilkTork, which is why Griseum didn't just remove the content from Tree shaping. I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre and in the original discussion about deleting Pooktre I asked for Speed delete because I realized it didn't meet the Wikipedia criteria. As this new Pooktre page is just duplicate content from Tree shaping it should be redirected back to Tree shaping (I am pretty sure once Griseum reads this he add some more content to the page, to try and save it.) Blackash have a chat 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pooktre

cannot be written from a NPOV view because the primary page author is closely connected to the subject matter; and (by his own admission on the talk page) the method for bending the wood (which is the only real point of interest) is "secret" so cannot be turned into a good article. OTOH, the primary author has shown a respectable amount of Good Faith, as evidenced on the talk page. But it boils down to one thing: without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have litte notability Robinh (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not 100% sure that I followed the instructions properly on the AFD Log. Could someone verify that it's right please? Robinh (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You initially messed up the capitalization of the page, but you fixed that properly. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IAR. ~~Merge useful infos into arborsculpture.~~ Redirect AfD hero (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is more complicated than I thought. Apparently there is no generally agreed-upon name for the practice of shaping trees. Arborsculpture appears to be associated with a single artist's work and book on the subject, and Pooktre is the method of another single artist. The proper course of action here is to move arborsculpture to a neutral name like Tree Shaping (as MgM suggests), and then merge and redirect the Pooktre article there. AfD hero (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a neutral name is used then yes, that would be better. There are other people in the field of shaping trees that would be part of helping if the name is neutral. Blackash (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, neural term is needed, plus some rewriting to give a historic overview & different methods developed. Rror (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping, added in the informations from the Pooktre article, and done some edits. AfD hero (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on I disagree, where is the discussion on the move ? in the afd box of pooktre ? Perhaps a discussion at a afd box on arborsculpture ? or am I missing something ? Reames (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a core principle laid out by the foundation. How do you suggest we can keep this and still meet the rules? WP:IAR is supposed to be applied when following the rules stops us from improving Wikipedia. Adding unverifiable information doesn't improve WP. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tree shaping (especially bonsai) and Tree trimming should be looked into as alternative less secret topics. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect and merge any useable information into Arborsculpture (if any). This is not so secret after all and definitely NOT a streak of 'firsts' and in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world'. Follow the second link on the Axel Erlandson article ([1]) - looks familiar? Rror (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Speedy delete~~
~~The basic consensus seems to be there is not much more than a ad. Just Delete.Blackash (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment I agree with AfD hero,Mgm and Rror that a neural term is needed and would be better than a deleting.Blackash (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally started this page, so that it could be recorded somewhere in history about the first grown mirror standing on its own roots. It is from this perspective that I have been editing the page.

~~:::* 1. Without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have little notability~~

2. Not as streaks of firsts

3. Not so secret, and Complete isolation from the rest of the world

4. Merge useful infos into arborsculpture.

Here is my rebuttal of above points

~~1. To suggest that this page would have little merit without the tree shaping methods is under rating the value of the historical achievements.~~

What else is left then? Some guys are shaping trees and roots - the rest is an advertisment but no real content. Many others are also shaping trees. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Which leads us to the second point.~~

2.

We have the first recorded trees shaped into people trees. Which were displayed at the world Expo 2005. We do have several first either harvested or growing in our garden. Any of the first listed on Pooktre page plus more can be photographed and put up.

All of Axel N Erlandson's trees except two (which was a chair and ladder) were abstract shaping rather than representational or functional.

Majority of people who attempt to shape trees initially shape chairs or buildings. This certainly leaves a large area of things that are not grown before.

~~This is what I was referring to when I said Pooktre has a large number of firsts.~~

Some guys are shaping trees into people trees. Is that WP:NOTABLE? I can't find any reliable independent sources. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~3. Axel N Erlandson never published, or told anyone how to shape his trees. Some people have attempted to back engineer how he did them but have not had the success that Axel N Erlandson did.~~

"Axel N Erlandson considered his methods "trade secrets."" the quote is from Axel N Erlandson page [[2]]

"Axel never told anyone much at all about how he accomplished it. He considered that his "trade secret," even refusing to tell my mother or me how it was done as he thought we might somehow give his secret away." Quote from My father "Talked to Trees" by Wilma Erlandson page 4

So this knowledge was lost.

For the first 10 years of our shaping trees we didn't know of anyone else in the world who did it. This was an advantage because we didn't know it could be done, so we didn't try to back engineer someone else's work. We developed our own techniques.

~~This is what I was referring to with the line in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world.~~

How can I WP:VERIFY that? Stating that your method is different, but you won't tell is not very interesting for an article. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4.

If you google Arborscuplture and then Pooktre, Pooktre actually rates a little bit higher.

As there is no consensus that Arborsculpture represents the art-form as a whole. I don't think it's appropriate to merge Pooktre with Arborscuplture. They are two very different techniques with two very different results.

~~Blackash (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment I strike though my points Blackash (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't necessarily make something notable. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to arborsculpture. The article for pooktre is half an ad and half puffery. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Delete Creator of the page has requested deletion.[3] This may even be a G-7 speedy deletion, although I'm not sure. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I started copy-editing the article following a link to a section (grammar ouchies)... then scrolled up and saw the flag... then read the rest of the article. Not notable. Secret method (the method might have made it worth having even though Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Pure advertisement.sinneed (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I've just looked at the arborsculpture article and the salient points of this seem to have been transferred. However, people will probably try to find Pooktre, so I feel a redirect might be in order. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not new in the least, and is pure spam. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naelee Rae

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This child actress has barely any credits to her name, and basically nothing in Google News. Fails WP:BIO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and send to WP:Cleanup. Yup... a youngster with a short career... but she seems to sneak up on WP:ENT with 19 episodes of The Backyardigans and 4 episodes of The Guiding Light on top of her film and stage work. While nothing major, sources appear available to verify the informations in this BLP.[4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still on the fence about this one, but here's a question. Are voice roles considered equivalent to live acting roles? To me, voicing 19 eps of The Backyardigans isn't very notable. Voice roles aren't specifically mentioned in WP:ENT. Regarding her soap opera role, 4 episodes as a 10-year-old is what I would call a very minor role, and not notable.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... she has other roles, but yes... she's quite young. In other deletion discussions about voice actors, some have been kept and some deleted... and this because while ENT does not list voice acting, it does not specifically exclude them... and it might be seen that voice actors could reasonably fall under ENT's "or other productions". Does The Backyardigans have a significant cult following or large fan base? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 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) 00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not thrilled about the article being kept in its current state of sourcing, but there are enough sources out there to verify that she passes WP:ENT. I see no need to create a distinction between screen and voice actors. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:08, 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 delete. Sandstein 04:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

François Raffoul

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a full professor, not a terribly prestigious university, not many publications with many citations[5] - doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. For that the two books with the most citations, he was merely the translator.[6][7] Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites are 27, 8, 3, 1, 1; h index = 3. Not remotely anough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 8 pubs with citations: 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, ... for an h-index of 2 using the query "Author=(Raffoul F*) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". WorldCat shows that his book "Heidegger and the Subject" (1998) is held by ~200 institutions, while "A Chaque fois mien" (2004) is held by only about 30. This seems like pretty average impact for a (presumably) tenured professor. (His most recent book published in 2010 is held in only 4 libraries, but that number could increase in the future.) The article is unapologetic in its name-dropping attempt to try to link Raffoul to more famous figures like Nancy and Derrida, going so far as to actually recite who was on his dissertation committee. The obvious problem here is WP:NOTINHERITED. It's admirable to try to save this article, but the subject seems to satisfy none of the WP:PROF criteria. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, puffery cannot overcome failure of WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 09:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should consider importance relative to research area.Ehmhel (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Agricola44 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

impact ratings need to be considered relative to other scholars within the same area, as significance of work in French philosophy is not apparent from general impact ratings. It is also problematic that many French libraries and publications are not included in such rankings. Further, translations are a central part of working on French philosophy in the English-speaking world. They should not be so easily dismissed as they shape and inform the reception of philosophers such as Nancy and Lacan. 98.216.66.197 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like special pleading. Can you source these claims? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Without some sort of evidence, I'm afraid that statements of the type "significance of work in ______ is not apparent from general impact ratings" are indeed nothing more than special pleading. The inclusion statement above is patently false. For example, WorldCat does indeed index books from libraries around the world, including France (hence the "World" part of the name). French journals are indexed as well. For example, WoS indexes >170 journals published in France (easy to check) and presumably a larger number that are published in the French language (apparently harder to check). If the commenter's argument were true, we might expect to find a similar "bias" against some of the other French philosophers that WP considers notable, but this is not the case. For example, WoS shows Derrida to have published 155 articles with citations counts of 83, 74, 63, 60, 56, ... plus an enormous number of books (listed in the article). WorldCat shows that holdings are also large, e.g. Derrida's "Acts of Literature" is held by >800 institutions and "Aporias" in >500. (The latter seems to have been a translation from French.) No, I think the true explanation is that Raffoul is not notable. May perhaps be one day, but not now. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 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 speedy delete to allow requested page move A League of Their Own (Game Show) to A League of Their Own (game show). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A League of Their Own (game show)

A_League_of_Their_Own_(game_show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Page already exsists here: A League of Their Own (Game Show) Tsange ^►talk 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move A League of Their Own (Game Show) to A League of Their Own (game show). The qualifier should be in lower case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Metro sums it up best-- the other article has the better content, but this article has the more proper title. The person who created both articles was right the first time. At the moment, the move can't take place because this is in the way, but an administrator can take care of that. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 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) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EVANSON: The New Leader (novel)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable work by non-notable author. "Has yet to be self-published" pretty much says it all. Too bad there's no speedy delete criterion for books. Woogee (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A case study in what isn't notable. Yet-to-be-self-published NaNoWriMo novel by a non-notable individual consisting of a plot-only summary plus promotional details. The article crashes through WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MADEUP and WP:NOT in its headlong dash to epicly fail WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[8] - I don't know what happened, but I did step 3. Woogee (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article of a yet to be self published and non notable book.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:35, 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) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Silver Sox (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Dab page with only two articles; disambiguation is accomplished with hatnotes on both pages and this article with the parenthetical disambiguation is not a plausible search term. Note: The pages were recently moved to Reno Silver Sox and Reno Silver Sox (Golden Baseball League) per my request at WP:RM. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DISAMBIG--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation properly handled with hatnote from primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - RfD tag on article shows a redlink instead of a bluelink to this discussion. I had to go through a contributor's history in order to get here. Such impediments to an AfD discussion taint the process. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try clicking on that red link. It works for me. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for a disambiguation page with only two targets - and I can't find a third viable target to add, which sometimes happens as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidate for Template:db-disambig. Boleyn2 (talk) 16:46, 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 speedy delete. Pick a reason... Tone 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax audit under section 44aba of indian income tac act

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Appears to be nothing more than a guide on how to complete a tax audit and fails WP:NOTAGUIDE NtheP (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a textbook (or a tax code, for that matter). This looks like someone was experimenting with Wikipedia one day and copied out the nearest thing handy. Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tax assistance center. — Rankiri (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Speedy - Copyvio of [9]. Canterbury Tail talk 13:57, 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) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerknobs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some third-party coverage (at first- and second-party sites), but no indication of actual notability. If this is deleted, they have four album articles that should be deleted as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can do is that they were produced by the same guy that worked with the White Stripes and what other is listed in the main article. But I understand the rules, do what you must. Thanks. Satan165 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not pass WP:BAND as written.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the albums did any significant chart action (not surprising since the first three were self-releases, the fourth was a tribute album released by an independent label, and the fifth essentially escaped from a label that can be generously described as "obscure"). Unfortunately, local fame does not always translate into meeting WP:BAND. I would recommend userification should the originator of the article turn up evidence of the band's performing on a national or regional tour. B.Wind (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What B.Wind said. Siind (talk) 19:18, 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 Speedy Keep The nomination advances no argument for deletion, preferring a redirect instead. As there is nobody advocating deletion, this qualifies for a speedy keep and discussion on whether or not to redirect can be continued on the article talk page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until You Were Gone (song)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Redirect to Chipmunk (rapper) until the song is released or becomes notable, it does not need to be deleted. RyanG222 12:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t see why this should be deleted, it is his next single, the video premiered a few days ago. Chrixl (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2010
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:07, 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.

Delete, the song is not released yet. Will be notable from April 19th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.194.228 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work aversion

~~I closed this afd, the previous one ended 6 days ago. Ariel. (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)~~ Reverted improper (and incomplete) non-admin closure Gigs (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the notability guideline and should be deleted. "Work Aversion" is not listed as a disorder in the DSM-IV nor is is listed as a symptom of any disorder. Many different people are adverse to many different things - I myself have a broccoli aversion - it does not warrant an encyclopedia article.Poorfriendme (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept of "work aversion" does not particularly exist as a distinct phenomenon. The topic itself is a synthesis of various sources (as well as most of the content). Gigs (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Old noms here and here Gigs (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Much of the information in this article is verifiable, not as synthesis, but exactly as the sources say. I already changed the title back to its old one. It is not a disorder, obviously not in DSM-IV. But that's not what this article is about. It does not cleanup. I agree about that. But I feel there is no deadline to do that. The previous afd was just closed less than a week ago and I haven't had much time to yet. Regardless, it seems that the nominator here did not see WP:BEFORE, which requires that an article be cleaned up as opposed to proposed for deletion. Hellno2 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- also . . . as someone mentioned below, the nom appears be a single purpose account for this deletion. I have just opened a sock-puppet investigation as a result of these suspicions. It seems awfully strange that less than a week after this was closed as an overwhelming keep, that it would be proposed for deletion again, and User:Gigs is the only one who seems to be obsessively trying to say it should be deleted (rather than just making a fly-by comment). Hellno2 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Please don't try don't try to influence the participants and keep such comments where they belong. — Rankiri (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF does not have to be 100% of the time, especially when there is not good faith (see WP:IAR). I have evidence that Gigs dislikes this article in particular. You can find it here where he actually rants about it. He just wants to get rid of it. Meanwhile, there are other people who wish to fix the surmountable problems this article has. Per WP:PROBLEM, there is no deadline for doing so. Reproposing it for deletion in less than a week when there was an overwhelming consensus to keep is disruptive. Hellno2 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 to 4 with a mid-AfD rename is not "overwhelming consensus to keep". I dislike it because it is a blatant violation of several major Wikipedia policies. Poorfriendme probably did not realize it had been so recently nominated, and it seems they did so in good faith. Gigs (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are plenty of sources on the topic, going all the way back to ancient times and up until now. This may not be listed in the DSM, but that is not required by the general notability guideline. Tatterfly (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's useful, and referenced. Ariel. (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just survived an afd less than a week ago by a 2:1 margin. Improvements have been made since. Nom appears this time appears to be a single-purpose account for this proposal. Could possibly be a sock puppet of the previous nom, who happens to be the first to comment here, as the only delete so far. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have accusations to make, make them at WP:SPI. You are way out of line. Gigs (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Block nominator as vexatious SPA. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is probably 69.86.106.167, who had commented on the talk page just prior to this nomination, and appears to be acting in good faith. It's not surprising that random people happening upon this pile of crap will want to delete it. It's a disgrace to Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anyone commenting on this AfD should actually take the time to look at the "sources" and how they are used. The author of this "article" has simply linked to every occurrence of the phrase "aversion to work". Gigs (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and ask the keep voters to actually look at the sources. Most of them are simply "places where the phrase work aversion has been mentioned", not "places where the phrase work aversion has been mentioned... as a distinct phenomenon". Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:COATRACK. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, and the article's sources don't cover the subject in any detail. Although the page's title was changed, with sections like Causes, Complications, and Treatment, it's obviously a coatrack article for the imaginary "work aversion disorder". I still don't find descriptions like "the term work aversion does not refer to immature teens or young adults who "slack off"" in any way encyclopedic, and most of my arguments from WP:Articles for deletion/Work aversion disorder still apply. — Rankiri (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep looking at the sources, they do cover work aversion as a concept. This article should definitely be kept. 2/3 wanted it kept in the last nomination, and given that it was renominated so soon after, probably by a sock of the previous one, it all looks in bad faith. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note This "probably by a sock of the previous one" meme needs to be shut down, now. It's in bad faith, unsupported by anything, and deeply unfair to both the nominator of this AFD, and the previous one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Concept seems to be notable in academic literature (article cites ex. Rosen P (1988). "Dumping or work aversion? and Rosen P, Markovchick V, Wolfe R (Jan 1989). "Academic productivity or petulant work aversion?" - I don't see them being debunked in arguments above; also see: this book). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Academic productivity or petulant work aversion" is classified as an editorial in pubmed, and was written by an ER doctor. I can't access the full text, but I highly suspect that it does not support the claim it is being used as a citation for. "Dumping or work aversion?" is likewise classified as an editorial, again, written by an ER doctor. "Dumping" surely refers to "patient dumping" so the work aversion in question would be referring to an ER staff trying to lighten their patient load, irrelevant to the subject of this article. The book you linked to is apparently a satirical autobiography, the title is intended as self deprecating humor. [10]. If you'd like any more of the supposed sources debunked, please let me know. Gigs (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks :) I cannot access those articles to verify the information, unfortunately; without being able to read them, I think AGF should require us to treat them as valid (but I agree two editorials don't make a concept encyclopedic). I do note that there are no other works using this phrase in titles, but there is a bunch of articles using this term: [11]. I would still like to give the creator and the article benefit of the doubt, as the concept seems encyclopedic, but I have to admit the sources are relatively scarce, and we really could use one source which clearly defines this as a concept. I am changing my vote to "weak keep" for now (I justify my keep as the concept does appear to be used in some academic works). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep in mind too that multiple names may be used, but some of the sources found in this article do indeed describe the topic of Work Aversion as this article describes. Some of them may not use that exact term, but they do indeed describe the concept, and are article solely devoted to that purpose. Plus there are some books that describe it. Some use the term "aversion to work." Some do not use either term at all, but still describe the concept. Nevertheless, they are enough to allow for inclusion without being OR, SYNTH, or the like. Hellno2 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete What good content there is on this page is swamped by unsourced, WP:OR-laden content which does nothing to help the encyclopedia. Complete removal of everything unsourced or dubiously sourced would create a barely passable stub, but the article history shows that this would not be accepted so I have no choice but to support deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:PROBLEM, articles with issues like this can be cleaned up and modified. Hellno2 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but the history shows that attempts to remove unsourced content have always been reverted [12], or has led to citations that don't support the text being reinserted in an attempt to show that it isn't OR [13]. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to say that the arguments in favor of keeping sound a lot more reasonable. They seem to demonstrate the validity of the concept. But I am highly offended by all the sock puppet accusations. In case you do not know, I have made perhaps thousands of contributions to Wikipedia over the years under numerous IP addresses. But I do not use an account for them because of my difficulty in remembering passwords. Occasionally, I have created an account just to create an article and used it just that one time. But I soon forget the name of both the account and the password. Yes, these are single purpose accounts I create. But I do it all in good faith. I'm sure there are many other memory impaired users just like me. Wikipedia allows editing without an account for a good reason. I have trouble enough using email because of my problem. As one who strongly believes in assuming good faith, I disagree with deletion but I do understand the reasons behind creation of an account for deletion. 166.216.130.86 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) — 166.216.130.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You don't need an elaborate password for your account. Make it simple or write it down on a piece of paper and keep it nearby. — Rankiri (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A natural companion to this article appears to the workaholic article (which has survived one AfD), and this article is far better sourced (and I did peruse the sources, and most of them include more than a passing mention of the term alone). Of course there is room for improvement, and I think the authors have made great strides in that direction and should be allowed to keep working on it. Verkhovensky (talk) 19:47, 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 speedy delete under criterion G7. The editor who started the article has requested its deletion. Had he not done so, I would have deleted the article under WP:SNOW. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Football Record for Average Yards Per Catch / Season - Career

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Un-notable topic, no references, probably written by the subject. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nominator. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 15:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jeff Rife, who at one time is said to have held a national record among high school football players, still does not appear to be notable enough for his own separate page. One could mention this in the article Point Pleasant, West Virginia. I'd point out that we don't have an article about Point Pleasant Junior/Senior High School [14] or Mason County Schools. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National Record for Average Yards Per Catch - Season/ Career as instructions by wikipedia have been followed User:Jedii2012

The one instruction that hasn't been followed is the requirement for a source of the information. Other persons who attempt to track such things (for instance this one declare that the record for a season is 25.8 yards per reception, set during the 1996 season by Greg Washington of Nashville, Arkansas, based on 90 receptions totalling 2,321 yards. That's based upon a minimum of 75 receptions in a season. I haven't found anything that refers to Jeff Rife holding a record. Mandsford (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page Jeff Rifehas already beenDeletedUser:Jedii2012

The primary issue is that the article does not establish notability of itself. It needs to reference a book, newspaper article, webpage, something of that nature where this topic is discussed. Check out WP:RS and WP:V for a lengthier explanation. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious hoax, most likely an autobiography. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax~~Keep~~ most organizations have differing criteria for record eligibility as does NOF. We are deeply offended by these ignorant postings as to the facts that are presented. The statistics are there and we added this article because of its significance.user:jedii2012

Comment - Then prove it. And who is "we"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? I am reading it out of the book and as to "we" you would be embarassed as you probably are of the Eagles, I know I would be. This story will appear in several national publications in the near future so your opinion doesn't matter. The statistics we compile are based on true facts and we are sorry if you are offended by our style. Maybe you should help the New York Times with their editing. We do not operate according to your timelines. This article was constructed under the guidance of wikipedia not clowns from the peanut gallery. We will be leaving wikipedia and deleting the article due to the ignorance and impatience of certain others. User:Jedii2012

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Moline

Unremarkable personage on his own; he's the divorced husband of someone notable. Also, this reads like a press release copyvio. His mention on the Kathy Griffin page should be sufficient Tenebrae 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Holdek ^(talk) 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete marriage to a celebrity does not confer notability on you. Gwernol 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moline is listed in IMDb, and he runs an IT consulting company. So he's notable in his own right. TruthbringerToronto 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: His IT consulting company is a freelance home office. Hundreds of thousands of people would be included in Wikipedia on that basis. -- Tenebrae 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: he is only listed on IMDb as the former husband of Kathy Griffin. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since being listed on IMDB is the Hollywood equivalent of what being listed in the phonebook is to the rest of us, I fail to see what an IMDB listing says about notability per se. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kathy Griffin, as all the info able to be sourced relates to her. Ziggurat 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even a redirect is a bit of importance that this guy does not really deserve. See guidelines WP:BIO and the 100 years test. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. He's married to Kathy Griffin -- that pretty much begins and ends the degree of his noteworthiness. Note to closer: this is not in any way, shape, or form intended as a keep vote. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are thousands of small IT companies. His is one of them. His IMDB listing just says he appeared on his wife's show. No independent notability. Fan1967 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaise Bourgeois

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football player who has not played at a fully professional level, therefore doesn't meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find significant coverage for this athlete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he has played for Mohawk Valley United (and I can't actually find any verification that he has), he's only played in exhibition matches as this is all the club has played - therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. A quick Google search provides very little to suggest he would pass general notability guidelines. Bettia (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. The fact that the club he's supposed to have played for is a red link should have been a pretty clear sign to the original author that he's non-notable, but that's beside the point. It looks to me like a clear cut case of someone trying to save a pet article even though it covers a non-notable subject. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article was created by the only ever edit made by a user called "Bls82289", I think we can safely assume that he wasn't thinking in terms of whether or not the subject was notable when he created it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had PRODed this article and it was removed with no explanation. As far as I'm concerned, there is still no evidence that the person is notable. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:14, 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 keep . Marasmusine (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Fighters XIII

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's pretty close to WP:HAMMER material, but it does have a source and a title, so I'd bring it here rather than prod it Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense keep - Technically WP:CRYSTAL says delete, but if the article (and 1UP, Kotaku, and Destructoid) are to be believed it's going to be publicly demoed in Tokyo on Thursday, at which point there'll likely be a glut of gaming press coverage sufficient for it to pass WP:N. Rather than delete today and recreate on Friday, can we say keep for now, and revisit the issue in early April if there aren't sources by then? - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's the preview not the full release. If there's a glut of press then I'd agree fully, but let's see what we get over the next few days. Shadowjams (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep the AfD open for a full week. According to the press release, the official preview event will be held in two days. — Rankiri (talk) 12:49, 23 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) 20:45, 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, Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - WP:CRYSTAL no longer violated, though I question whether the rest of the article is up to encyclopedic par.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting it now would be a meaningless exercise, technicalities or no. Besides, Mai's behind passes WP:NICEONEDAVE easily. Someone another 03:11, 1 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 WP:SNOW keep (non-admin close). I have rewritten the article instead. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Slovakia relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is simply irretrievably lost to nationalism, next to none of it is usable or encyclopaedic in any form. Section 13 as it stands... I just... I don't think I can fit all the policy violations occurring there into just one paragraph. The article overall exhibits blatant and utterly apparent one-sidedness, obvious NPOV violations, wholly unreliable sources, and a reliance on weasel words and scare quotes. I fail to see how sentences like "Since deputy prime minister Robert Fico declared the "wise historism" concept, the history books are getting rewritten in a faster pace than before, and in an increased "spirit of national pride". This "spirit of national pride" is determined by Matica Slovenská, which Krekovič, Mannová and Krekovičováare claim are mainly nothing else, but history falsifications" are meant to document the international relations of Hungary and Slovakia in any meaningful sense whatsoever. The page has continued to exist in this state for a significant length of time, and from an interaction on the talk page appears to have been abandoned by all but hardline nationalist editors pushing their agenda, which has next to nothing to do with the title topic in the first place. The appalling state of this article necessitates a fresh start, it should thus be deleted. (Note: I am not involved in any dispute involving this article.) —what a crazy random happenstance 09:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does it pass WP:GNG? Yes. So don't delete it. AfD is not a place to resolve content issues, unless that issue is that it's too unimportant to have any. If there is a content problem, resolve it with other users. If they are unwilling to talk, well, WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM exist for a reason. Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I must also point out that even if the content situation was a valid AfD reason, you haven't made any attempt I can see to correct your perceived problems with the article. As a matter of fact, you haven't edited it since January except to correct a typo. Ironholds (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHe did edit on the talk page and see the reacton on him and me....Knorrepoes (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - POV issues are not a valid reason to delete an article on an otherwise notable subject. See WP:POLE. When someone pushes POV, push back (civilly, and without violating WP:3RR), and we'll end up with a more or less okay article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to say this nomination is absurd on it's face on the notability of the subject and large number of parallel articles alone. It seems that instead of making suggestion on changing the article, studying and understanding the subject, reading up on it and adding more content he chose to ignore policy and attempt to use a WP:POINT deletion discussion to advocate for removal of a single paragraph of the content from the article. I see a lot of hyperbole here without any explanation ("wholly unreliable sources" which ones?) I would also wonder why would a nominator choose to notify user:Groubani [15] and nobody else of this discussion. It seems that this nomination and it's circumstances is a violation of various policies and I don't think that even the nominator believes that the article will be deleted because he does not agree with some of it's content. Hobartimus (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion of this article is not a solution. The article needs an attention of unbiased editors, familiar with the topic. Nationalism is one of the greatest curses of this project, a real plague, a real shame. Unfortunatelly, the situation over the article perfectly reflects the real situation. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although seriously rewriting is necessary ! Article should become in line with all wiki policies. Deleting is not needed, fact is that there are extremists on both sides and thus that there are difficulties in relations between the two countries. That should be mentioned, so there is a reason for the article as such.Knorrepoes (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bilateral relations between counties sharing a land border are inherently notable. POV issues can be fixed with editing. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good - except it doesn't seem to have happened in the two years this article has existed, and isn't likely to. I am not advocating this is salted, merely deleted so it can be recreated in a more neutral spirit. The article as it stands isn't going to attract any Slovak or neutral editors to attempt to balance it, as has been expressed on talk. We can act idealistically, keep it, and end up with years' worth of nationalistic garbage, or delete it and allow concerned editors a chance to work towards a neutral consensus-supported article anew. Policy buzzwords ought to reflect our actions, not shape them. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"That's all well and good - except it doesn't seem to have happened in the two years this article has existed, and isn't likely to." It is rare to hear such strong and confident statements which are so ignorant of basic facts. Of course the article is nowhere near two years old. In fact many of the things described in the article didn't even occur two years ago. Many events happened in the second half of 2009 so they could be hardly in Wikipedia before they happened. In fact the article before the first major edit in 2009 august looked like this. [16] Not much content and "wholly unreliable sources" to object to there huh? Even if we count the creation as a stub it's still not two years. So I would ask the nominator to stop making statements which show how little he knows and how little he cares to find out more about the topic he is discussing. Hobartimus (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator in the case that any attempts (like mine) to neutralise the article (to which I came accidently) have been vigorously reversed and thus that it may take a long time to get an acceptable article. I also agree with Hobartimus that many items occurred recently. But many of the things described on the page do not belong there, but on the page of Jan Slota or similar. When I proposed that, it was immediately reversed. So I gave up.Knorrepoes (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, the stuff said by Slota is included in the article on himself as well. I disagree with the removal of the Slota-related stuff, because even though his debauched acts may seem bizarre, absurd to the highest degree and funny at times (e.g. when he's threatening the listeners on press conferences that the Hungarian army is standing around the corner and is about to overrun Slovakia, therefore they should worry about that instead of his and his party's schemes and embezzlements of public funds which happens almost on a daily basis), unfortunately far too many people take him seriously. Therefore many of the anti-Hungarian sentiments are rooted in his fear-mongering (not to say that the nationalists use precisely his own words to describe Hungarians e.g. as Mongols, mongoloids, Huns etc.). Therefore he's a major contributor to the conflict between the two countries (nations?). CoolKoon (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say to remove it, but deal with it mainly on his page, and on the page on Hungary-Slovakia relations, just give a short summary and refer to his page. Here in Holland we have a similar politician Geert Wilders making similar threats to Islam, Morocco, Turkey etc, and his quotes are mentioned on his page. Not on pages such as Netherlands-Turkey relations (which I see does not even exist) and that is to my opinion the way it should be.Knorrepoes (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilders's party the PVV is in opposition, while SNS is a government party since 2006, ruling the country with it's coalition partners. The two is not comparable, a government shapes the events and foreign relations of a country. If this holland party becomes part of Government then it will have an impact on relations with it's neighbors (note how Turkey, Morocco is not bordering the Netherlands, not even on the same continent). Hobartimus (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slight difference between Wilders' outlashes and those of Slota. The thing is Hungarians are an indigenous population within Slovakia i.e. they were there just as long as the Slovaks themselves. Despite this they are perceived (by Slovaks) as mere "immigrants", who came from....well...."somewhere" in the process of magyarization. Therefore it's a widespread habit of some Slovaks to send Hungarians "to the other side of the Danube" (i.e. other side of the border=Hungary). People such as Slota just capitalize on such reflexes. To give you an analogy, imagine the situation of an extremist in the Netherlands such as Wilder bashing people who speak Frisian and his "fans" recommending them moving to Germany. Well, the same analogy applies to the situation in Slovakia with one exception: even though Dutch and Frisian are somewhat mutually intelligible (I presume), Slovak and Hungarian are not intelligible at all.

You also seem to be kind of ashamed of people such as this Wilders and probably want to silence him by giving him as little media attention as possible. Unfortunately this can't be done with ideas and rhetorics presented by Slota. The thing is, the dominant party of the current government coalition SMER is using the same rhetoric to appeal to its voters (its leader and Slovak prime minister, Robert Fico, in fact, shows much resemblance to Pim Fortuyn), because many people share these ideas and feel some general resentment towards Hungarians and even the language itself (especially those who have never met a Hungarian in person). And these people have quite a few obsessed ones among them, who strive to get as much attention from the mainstream media for their cause as possible. Unfortunately they even succeed because the very same forces are governing the Slovak economy. Therefore the only tool left against this Slota guy is public humiliation e.g. by displaying the absurdity of his own words. I think there's a big difference in the perception of Wilders and Slota in their respective home countries, because people don't resent Slota's ideas even if they resent him in person (due to the fact that he's a thief and thug) and the mainstream media regularly shows his outlashes against Hungarians/Gypsies/homosexuals/political opponents for a "good laugh", ignoring the fact that many people take him seriously. Therefore I think there's no way to silence him. And if you can't, what else can you do besides putting up his wickedness for show? CoolKoon (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it contains important things. Maybe in the USA these are not known... --Eino81 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point assumes that I am American, and that Americans are all ignorant - neither of those assumptions are true. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though my opinion on the quality of the article is rather low, deletion of it does not solve anything. --EllsworthSK (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion of articles is not the answer. Work to better the article, not erase it. Outback the koala (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have said, POV problems are not a good reason to delete an article. I agree that there is an incredible number of problems with the page; the proper solution - painful as it may be - is to address them one by one. Emika22 (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My very first thought when noticing the AfD notice was: R U nuts?! So in detail: I have to agree with all the others above me that you can't nominate an article for deletion just because you disagree with some or all of its content. Besides do you think that if you stop talking about a problem it'll go away? The problem will remain for sure and will just resurface later. Just to give you a relevant example: in the socialist-era Hungary talking about Hungarians living in the surrounding (also socialist) countries was a taboo. Hungarian politicians speculated that by silencing these facts (and failing to mention it even in history books) the problem will eventually "go away". Well, turns out it didn't. After the east bloc switched to capitalism (to a certain degree :P) this problem has resurfaced again. Not only that, the feelings are just as intense as ever (as if those socialist decades didn't happen at all). So the article shall be here to stay. CoolKoon (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this - but you are biased. We're all biased to some extent, but most of us attempt not to allow our biases to come through in our work. There is as much illogical xenophobic ill-will in Hungary towards Slovakia as there is in the opposite direction, yet the article is decidedly one-way only. Most people who voted 'Keep' have noted that there are problems within the article, and these ought to be corrected regardless of whether this article is deleted or not. Do not mistake the Keep majority as validation of your preferred version of the article. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Notability is clearly present. As noted, deletion isn't appropriate for the problems I'm seeing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable article and deletion is not the answer to problems within the article. EuroPride (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per CoolKoon.--B@xter⁹ 21:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was sort of hoping my AfD nom would make someone actually interested in improving the article - apparently not so. Everyone's content to nod sagely that one day a hero worthy of the land shall rock up on his stallion and rewrite the article, but until that day we're all going to sit around and twiddle our thumbs and circle dance. If every editor who voted Keep had rewritten just one paragraph on the nominated page, we'd have a neutral article by now. Good work, people. PS: I've attempted a rewrite of the article to make it more neutral, let's see how that works. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:21, 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) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Stuart

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence that this actor meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. The references found are to a site where actors post their own details (UK Screen) and to a site which exists to sell things (Weblo). No significant coverage found of this individual. Contested PROD -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no multiple significant roles, no awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onani Master Kurosawa

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted under A7. However his time, i think a proper burial ceremony is warranted.

Rational for deletion: Fail our current inclusions guidelines either the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for books as a doujinshi available freely. The said 4 released tankōbon doesn't exist in Amazon Japan, the serialization publication is very fishy and icing on the cake there is no publisher mentioned anywhere for both. This constitutes a real verifiability issue. In term of coverage there is no entry for this series in the Japanese Wikipedia nor in Anime News Network users edited encyclopedia however it managed to have an entry in the Japanese Uncyclopedia.

I will gladly renounce to the whole burial ceremony and make full apologize if enough evidences of notability from reliable sources are provided. KrebMarkt 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 09:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

mangaupdates.com while probably the most extensive users edited manga bibliographical resource available in English isn't a RS as first it's user editable and second its contains links to websites hosting illegal scanlation.
For those wanting to dig for possible evidences of notability, the Onani Master Kurosawa Official page is probably a good starting point.

--KrebMarkt 09:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dōjinshi (self published comics) are very rarely notable as they don't recieve coverage by reliable third-party source. Not only is Mangaupdates.com not a reliable source, it is also a website that engages in copyright violations and carries the work in violation of the creator's copyright by distributing illegal scanlations. In fact, I personally thing it should added to the blacklisted. —Farix (t | c) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mangaupdates.com itself does not distribute copyvio scanlations. It does, however, track and index scnaltions and the groups that do the actual copyright violations, so that they can be found. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most manga, even those that have millions of copies of them sold[17], don't get coverage anywhere. And do we doubt it was published in the magazine listed? Whether something is self published or published by someone else, shouldn't make any difference at all. Dream Focus 12:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, actually. I've never heard of this magazine -- which could just mean it started relatively recently -- and none of the Japanese pages I've looked at have mentioned any kind of serialization outside of the author's website. This would definitely be something requiring sourcing. It certainly seems to be one of the most successful web comics, and to have ancillary media; we don't have much consensus built for how to deal with these things, and they are even more poorly documented in reliable sources than ordinary manga, which makes it difficult to figure out how to proceed. Doceirias (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – allen四names 13:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it isn't a doujinshi, but a web comic. One successful enough to be adapted into...something with voice acting, anyway. I'm not sure that means there's sourcing enough to keep, but it is at least worth doing some digging. Doceirias (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a web comic that was successful for a doujinshi print run? That's an intriguing case anyway. --KrebMarkt 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a novel? http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-language/product/4575236705?ie=UTF8&language=en_JP Doceirias (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So that item is a novel? I was wondering too. Can give a look to those two from the publisher of print version. (I've yet to find evidences of the 4 volumes release) Thanks. --KrebMarkt 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an anime also? They list voice actors and talk about the video. [18] I don't think this is a doujinshi, although some of the ads link to places that have those. Dream Focus 12:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google originally gives 3,870,000 results, but then when I check the last page it shows there are only 883. That is strange. On YouTube there are some surprisingly long bits, they showing pages of the manga, and then different voice actors reading the lines, acting the part. You can verify this does exist. Dream Focus 12:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How notable is Weekly Young VIP? Did anyone search for that magazine in its Japanese name? I say keep, since if it wasn't notable, they wouldn't spend money having a dozen or so people hired as voice actors, and wouldn't go through the trouble of producing that many issues of it. Dream Focus 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't seem to find verification that Weekly Young VIP actually even exists. But I'm no master of searching in foreign languages... 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unnotable doujinshi or web comic (which seems in dispute, making it hard to see how its even verifiable). Certainly has no significant coverage in any reliable source and even some unreliable ones. Wikipedia is not ere for self promotion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:22, 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 delete. Tone 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hutchinson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's criteria found. The references basically give a filmography (even the NY Times), but no significant coverage of the person. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no multiple significant roles, no awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 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) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO - no significant coverage in secondary sources, roles are not significant and long-lasting in impact. Ray^Talk 19:58, 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 merge to war on terror. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long War (21st century)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge with War on Terror. This is just another name for WoT. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea in principle, but since the War on Terror article is already quite long, it might be better to start a new sub-article dedicated to the various names of the "war" and the associated controversies, e.g., Names of the War on Terror, and to merge the "Long War" article into the new subarticle. However, this is the wrong forum for discussing a merger proposal. Such proposals should be made on article talk pages, per WP:MERGE. AfD is only for proposing the outright deletion of an article, which is incompatible with merging for reasons of attribution. Sandstein 09:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merging was not the right term to use, perhaps. I still think most of the article should be discarded and add only a reference in the WoT article, with maybe a small paragraph. I'm saying that because, for instance the section "The U.S. Military in the Afghanistan war."(yes, it actually has a full stop there) is completely unnecessary. The criticism section is also something similar to the perpetual war section in the Criticism of the War on Terror article. Finally, the origin of the term itself doesn't seem so important, at least to me. And judging by the hits[19] "Long War" has, comparing to WoT hits[20], it isn't all that notable. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge: same rationale as my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of War on Terrorism. The various names and usage of the WoT seem to have notability and verfibility in thier own right, but can't be comfortably merged into the parent article because of the latter's size. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you also support creating a "Names of the War on Terror" article and put all related stuff there? --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I'm changing my vote. Not sure if the suggested name is the best option. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with related material to form a new article, possibly named "Names of the War on Terror". --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with War on terror, but that article needs a lot of tidying up. A good deal of the present text will probably need to be discarded in merging. The present name certainly will not do. Possibly, Military operations against Islamist terrorism since 2001 (or Jihadist terrorism). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use whatever name we like. War on Terror is an established name in the press, literature and public and does not have a meaning as broad as the name you are suggesting. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:50, 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. As is standard practice for deletion discussions, less weight has been given to the !votes of new/unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformative Teacher Education

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}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm somewhat hesitant to nominate this for deletion as it's an interesting read, but as far as I can tell it's pure original research and/or a synthesis. If someone thinks they can rescue this then please do, I just don't have the time to attempt to edit something this huge. Contested prod. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. There's plenty of significant scholarly use of the term "transformative teacher education", so the article subject passes WP:N. As for the content, it's not obviously POV and it cites what appear to be reputable offline sources throughout the text. In the absence of being able to check those sources, policy is to assume good faith. But I will go past WikiProject Education and draw it to their attention in case someone with more expertise wants to look it over. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR per GregJackP below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page It is very useful in conveying a concept and the references to support it. I did some work on the page to change titles and some phrasing which might seem opinionated. I think it is a very important contribution for individuals in education. Mo2718 March 23, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo2718 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OR. (GregJackP (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Request for clarification - Sorry, by "fails WP:OR" do you mean that you are familiar with the sources cited and the article represents a misrepresentation or synthesis of them? Or that you feel that regardless of the content of the sources the claims made in the text are inherently unverifiable? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - primarily a synthesis of the sources to promote a thesis - not accurately representing the material presented in that various points were aggregated to advance the position presented in the article. I looked up several (not all) of the references via EBSCO Host and JSTOR. (GregJackP (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Your contributions give me no reason to doubt your good faith so I'll accept your word that the representation of the sources doesn't stack up. I've changed my position above to "delete as OR". Thank you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GregJackP, since you are under the belief that the article is a synthesis to promote a thesis, could you perhaps point me to the thesis statement? Could you specifically point to a couple of the references you looked up via EBSCO Host and JSTOR and show me how the references differ from what is being represented in the article. I feel it's probably easier to rescue this article and remove some of the POV than to completely re-write it from scratch. I don't want my work to go to waste simply because someone feels it's WP:OR or a synthesis promoting a particular point of view. kgrr ^talk 01:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I have also looked up some of the sources from this article and information that I found that was in the wikipedia entry did match some points presented in those sources. I think the problem is more an issue of lack of specific referencing. If the author corrects that, it will be a GREAT article with information that is not collectively presented elsewhere.Katt in FL (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)katt in FL[reply]

Hi, Katt in FL. I have no doubt as to your good faith in the above comment, but given that this is your first contribution to Wikipedia under that account name, in a dispute between you and GregJackP I'm inclined to go with GregJackP. Are you able to provide some specific examples or quotes showing that the article correctly represents the sources? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a possibility that I am mistaken, given the citation style. It might be a good idea to relist and/or get an expert to look at the article. (GregJackP (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've already left a message at the WikiProject Education talk page. I'm not aware by name of particular Wikipedians that I could ask for comment but if anyone else is, please let them know we're discussing this. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I previously read Kitty Kelly Epstein's book & article, information from the listed sources is used in the wikipedia repeatedly although not specifically referenced (I did go back and browse through book & read article again). I have also read the article by Sleeter, there is information from that source in this wikipedia as well, although not referenced directly. I looked up the information on recruiting teachers from outside the U.S. in the newspapers listed, that information is accurately discussed. I also looked up the information on requirements to teach in other countries (referenced at the end of the page as Ingersoll) that information is accurate.Katt in FL (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)katt in FL[reply]

Comment - katt, it would have been better if you just came out and stated that you participated in creating the article on another website - it calls your above comments into question. (GregJackP (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - It looks like someone is cleaning up the article, mainly formatting the references properly. I agree that an article on this topic is viable, just that the article that existed when I filed this looked very much like OR/synthesis/essay. If it ends up being deleted it would probably be worthwhile to userfy it so that it can be made compliant with guidelines. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be some consensus developing that an article on this topic is viable. I think that there is more here that is useful than is worth deleting. After cleaning up the references a bit, it's evident that the references are representative of the sources and the article is structured well. There are some references which I left in External links for now that are probably references for some more of the material presented. I have not been able to find where they go. The article still needs a good Lead paragraph to introduce the topic. I'm a Systems Engineer and not an educator, so I'm not an authority here. It's not WP:OR since most points being made are backed with references. But it seems to me the article is pushing a POV rather than letting the facts present themselves. Is there another side to this? Perhaps what the article needs is a review by an expert in education. I will continue by wikifying the article. kgrr ^talk 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a worthwhile topic. Obviously the author needs to add further citations but the article should be kept.````Solace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.199.87 (talk • contribs)
Keep This is a valid wikipedia topic, it is currently being discussed in the educational world. Referencing needs to placed inside the article, it appears the author is working on this. Cited sources that I randomly checked were accurately represented in the article.98.85.67.183 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Teacher[reply]
Keep I think this a worthwhile article. It seems that the author is fixing citations so give them a chance to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.105.7 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I am not the original author, but I am working on cleaning it up so it can be rescued. I have moved all of the references that I could inline into the article. I am now looking at the rest of the references and will find where in the article they belong. I am also wikifying the article (adding wikipedia links to other wikipedia articles) as I go. Any red wiki-links are new wikipedia articles that need to be written (for example Teach Tomorrow in Oakland, Kayleen Beers, Kagan strategies and ideologies ...etc.) These are terms that I did not understand reading the article as a novice in the field. Please feel free to lend me a hand so we can save it before the week is up. kgrr ^talk 22:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP GREAT TOPIC PLEASE DO NOT DELTE THIS PAGE. The references are coming in ask we speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.216.189 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a valid topic,references are being fixed.page should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.232.138 (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, currently this is an essay with shades of OR. Needs a rewrite. Also way too many SPA votes in here. Hairhorn (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - No need to delete the whole article due to "shades of OR". Yes, it needs some work, but it is a notable topic that definitely deserves a Wikipedia article. If you notice the history, I am working through the article in order to remove the "shades of OR" and clean it up with the help of a few novices. Many of the votes are from distinct IP addresses belonging to teachers that have never edited an article before. Besides, the votes are not a popularity contest, but a consensus opinion. kgrr ^talk 21:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest complaint above is not "shades of OR" but rather "essay". And not all of the SPAs in here are IPs. Hairhorn (talk)

The definition of an essay is vague. It is usually a personal point of view. The article should be devoid of personal view since all of the sentences that created synthesis between articles has been removed (unless we removed missed one or two). Can you now point to anything that provides synthesis? kgrr ^talk 10:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What on earth is the proposed topic for an encyclopedia article here? This is a vague, rambling review essay, without any apparent or even arguably encyclopedic central topic. It seems to aspire to, and one day might be, OR-by-synthesis, but as it stands the article fails even to achieve that, since that would require it to synthesize its sources into a coherent topic. And while I'm loath to make the accusation, the large number of single-use accounts in this AfD seems to indicate a possible violation of WP:MEAT. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. If you want to accuse me of sockpuppetry, go ahead. I know you are wrong. And I hope you get banished for making false accusations. I have been editing under my nick for a long time. I'm open as to who I am. I don't need to hide behind sock puppets or ask my friends to edit anything for me. kgrr ^talk 10:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there, kgrr. I didn't accuse you of meatpuppetry, as your good-faith editing speaks for itself; this hostile defensive reaction is completely uncalled for. However, it still seems very likely that the large number of single-purpose accounts here is the result of someone canvassing for "votes." What alternative explanation do you propose for the sudden emergence of all these brand-new AfD voters, on this topic alone, who evince little familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and make few arguments relevant to Wikipedia's deletion criteria? -- Rbellin|Talk 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rbellin, you said "And while I'm loath to make the accusation, the large number of single-use accounts in this AfD seems to indicate a possible violation of WP:MEAT." There are a lot of teachers that have run into the AfD notice because "Transformative Teacher Education" is a current topic in education reform, especially since six whole schools in Rhode Island are being fired because the kids are not learning there although the teachers are following the lesson plans, rubrics and administering the so-called standardized tests to all the school kids. When they come to the article and see that it's slated for deletion, and they read something that draws together what "Transformational Teacher Education" is, they are going to naturally reply with their opinion which is solicited by the AfD tag. However, the details of the policy are not clearly defined. Naturally, many of these teachers have never edited a Wikipedia article before and thus I would not expect them to know about AfD battles.

The reason I feel a bit defensive here is because I have been showing them the tools to edit this article, empowering them to put the information out there. I assure you I have not rallied anyone for votes on this AfD discussion. I am also very familiar with AfD battles, because I regularly seek out article tagged with AfD that are worth saving and rescue them. Just look through my history and my track record. I have seen several friends that have done the same thing get ousted from Wikipedia due to similar accusations. The last thing I want is to be accused of WP:MEAT. Is anyone rallying the AfD troops to descend on this article? Where are they all coming from? It seem like the deck is being stacked the other way, too. kgrr ^talk 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "rallying the AfD troops"; as far as I can see, all the delete !votes here seem to be coming from longstanding Wikipedians, while many of the keep !votes (other than your own!) appear to be single-purpose users. I do appreciate and respect that you're putting some effort into the cleanup and rescue of this article! Still, I have to say that, even at this late date, the article doesn't have a single clearly stated topic, but remains instead a rambling, incoherent essay-like discussion of various apparently unconnected facets of teacher education with no perceptible central encyclopedic subject. And, even putting this aside, I don't see how, even in the best case with a more clearly defined topic, it would ever be able to become anything more than OR-by-synthesis. -- Rbellin|Talk 07:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long-standing Wikipedian, for more than 5 years. So therefore *not* all of the longstanding Wikipedians are united about deleting this article.

Yes, and many of the rest of the users, IPs and named accounts that are for keeping the article are new editors. What else they have in common is that they are educators that have probably used Wikipedia a lot, but have not really ever had the motivation of editing an article until crisis hits - like an AfD. But simply because they are recently involved does not mean that they are meat puppets or that their contribution to the consensus opinion can be ignored.

We agree in that the lead need a bit more clean-up. It needs to introduce the topic for the lay person. Certainly this needs to be put on the to-do list for the article. I just have not learned enough of the overall topic to write more of a lead. kgrr ^talk 10:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a synthesis. I too have looked at many of the sources. It is just a buzz-word for deconstructionism in teacher education. --Bejnar (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - You say you looked at "many" of the sources. Which ones? So if I get you right, if "deconstructionism" is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text, you are saying that Transformational Teacher Education is a challenge to Teacher Education - there is none. I really don't get how you can conclude that from any of the references. Yes, Transformational Teacher Education is a challenge to today's methods of Educating Teachers, but you don't stop writing Wikipedia articles about Electric cars because they are a challenge to Gasoline cars, Personal computers because they are a challenge to mainframe computers, etc. kgrr ^talk 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling wall-of-text essay; search term that will never happen. PhGustaf (talk)

comment - Obviously you are not a teacher. kgrr ^talk 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : After reading this article on Transformative Teacher Education, I feel that there is validity to the research discussed. It is a topic of importance and the contributions made to this article have begun important dialog. One can only hope that more research is done in the near future on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egm888 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Egm888, the reason this article should be deleted is that it is research, hence the references to WP:OR. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. (GregJackP (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - GregJackP I'm sorry, but you don't seriously know what you are talking about. Here is what Wikipedia says in WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. This Wikipedia article is not original research according to this definition. No one working on this article conducted any experiments, etc. Nor is it looking at the Primary research reports and drawing conclusions from it. It is complete with references to other people's Primary research (the experiments) and Secondary research (people who have done the original work and have published their own opinions, experiences, arguments or conclusions). If there were any elements of synthesis that don't belong in a Wikipedia article, collectively, I and several teachers that I don't know personally have removed them. If there are any that we have missed, please, let's remove them instead of deleting the article. If I don't for some reason understand the difference between WP:OR/Primary research, Secondary research, and tertiary sources please let's talk about it, because my understanding of this apparently is very different from yours. kgrr ^talk 00:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - kgrr, you make my case for me with this quote from the policy: "This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." That is what this article is - see WP:OR and also see WP:SOAP. (GregJackP (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - GregJackP, I agree with this policy completely. There are two kinds of WP:SOAP: [[WP:OR], which it's not and WP:SYNTH. The statements that draw together the what various researchers have said into an opinion can and have been removed. If there are more left, let's remove them. kgrr ^talk 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am an educator. I am not the author of the article. Transformative Teacher Education is similar to "critical pedagogy," in that it is a concept developed through a body of research and writing. I have read the article carefully. It is not original research. When first posted it had some phrases which seemed like an essay but those have been removed. I have done some editing to enhance the citations. I think it is a good and important article

Leonardnielsen (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)LeonardLeonardnielsen (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article originated as a massive textdump from the single-purpose User:Transformingteachereducation, with the following signature-like line at the end: The following people contributed to this wikispace on transformingteachereducation: Veneschia Bryant Jeffrey Burris ThyJuan Harris Eddy McLachlan LaVoreen A. McPherson Kathryn Mendoza Tamiquia Simon. This led me to Google, which turned up transformingteachereducation.wikispaces.com, a Wiki-hosting site from which the bulk of the article appears to have been cut-and-pasted. Also, several of the single-purpose-account participants in this AfD have account names (or have otherwise signed their posts here) matching usernames on that Wikispace site and/or in the article's original signature. Therefore, though I suspect this material has been copied to Wikipedia with its creators' permission, it seems to me clear that this material was not written as an encyclopedia article (this may explain its lack of any single coherent encyclopedic topic). It also seems to me that its creators are participating here under several accounts and IPs, without making their relation to the material clear, and without following even basic Wikipedia policies like "don't sign articles" (much less demonstrate a grasp of WP:SYNTH). Might I suggest, based on this evidence, that this non-encyclopedic essay already has a good home elsewhere on the Internet, and Wikipedia is not a general-purpose Wiki host? -- Rbellin|Talk 07:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Ok ... so a bunch of educators got together and edited sections of a bigger topic called "Transformative Teacher Education". They used a wiki to do this somewhere else. So what. They don't come with 5-8 years of Wikipedia experience and with tons of experience with Wikipedia policy. Help them along instead of destroying their work. The topic is very valid to educators, and it is very coherent. The article simply lacks the lead to tie it all together for you. Check out the article Transformative learning. It has similar problems. Are you going to rush out there and delete it now? Personally, I think you are bent on deleting another article and are grasping at straws to justify your reasoning (rather than having an open mind towards correcting this one). kgrr ^talk 10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find it disingenuous that one of the main authors of the article on the Transforming Teacher Education wiki above comes to Wikipedia, comments about looking up the references and states that the article is not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, without declaring their own role in the creating the original article. At the very least, it calls into question whether the article is being presented with a WP:NPOV. The article is advocating for change, violating WP:SOAP. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (GregJackP (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - First, no one has proven that any of the original authors are indeed working on this article now. And now there you make pretty strong accusation. I find this rather offensive. Why don't you judge the article where it is *now* and see for yourself if the material in the article meets WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. If there are problems with those kids of issues, we can correct them. kgrr ^talk 13:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table you posted below shows exactly what I was talking about - Kat in FL participated in the creation of the article at the wikispaces site, then participated in the editing of the article here at Wikipedia, and voted on it above. All of this is permissible, but the way that she phrased her comment here is as if she were an uninterested party instead of one of the authors of the article. Leonardnielsen stated his involvement in editing the article up front, and then stated his rationale for keeping the article, which is the way that it should occur. There are a couple of other editors that can be connected with both the original article and the current WP article, for the sake of openness, they should declare those interests. The article still has problems, including promoting a change in the way that teachers are selected and trained. If taken to a WP:NPOV approach, the criticisms of this approach would be addressed, which has not happened. (GregJackP (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I took down the table, it's really not fair to people. Kat_in_FL never made comments about synthesis or original research. Read her comments again. Egm888 may also be one of the original authors. He also had no idea about the policies behind synthesis or original research were. But instead of harping on who did what, who is one of the original authors, who needs a red mark on their forehead etc, let's talk about the issues that need to be taken care of. Here is what I'm hearing so far:

1) The lead needs improvement. I am gathering journal papers and valid secondary papers that define Transformative Teacher Education. The problem I'm having with the lead is that the various scientists don't exactly agree (as is stated in the lead already) what exactly TTE really is. Perhaps we can have some help of the educators, which I hope we have not offended away from Wikipedia. I seriously hope they stay and learn. Unfortunately AfDs seen to often get painful.

2) "promoting a change in the way that teachers are selected and trained." Is this a general problem or in a specific paragraph?

3) The article needs to be checked for WP:NPOV.

kgrr ^talk 14:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be WP:NPOV one would have to include the criticism by Hill and Boxley of Transformative Teacher Education being a proposal that advocates a "Marxist and ecosocialist manifesto" for teaching, JCEPS:Vol 5, No 2 (2007) - this is apparently a controversial subject, and as currently written does not begin to meet WP standards. (GregJackP (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - OK fair enough. 1) You seem to agree. 2) I heard no response, so it sounds like the WP:SOAP and WP:SYNTH issues are gone. and 3) You did find an additional critic whose words need to be included. Thanks. I also think we agree that it is a valid and broad subject with international appeal. And, yes, the subject may be controversial, but that is no reason to delete the article. At least we seem to be gaining some consensus instead of throwing accusations around. But I can't do all of the work. Someone will need to read the Hill and Boxley article and will include their criticism into the article into the right places. Unless there are further objections, I think we have a list of what needs to be done to rescue this article from here. kgrr ^talk 23:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still believe that WP:SOAP applies - the article advocates for a change in the way teachers are trained; WP:SYNTH also applies - the intro states that there are several different approaches which the article combines into one approach, with no reference provided to support that combined the differing approaches. I don't think the article can make that leap without a major re-write that clearly outlines each individual approach separately (which it does not do at the present time) and lays out the objections of other education experts. At the present time, the article should still be deleted. (GregJackP (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I know this is a big leap of faith, but there are many articles in Wikipedia that are about advocating a change and not actually advocating the change. E.g. Health care reform in the United States, Pickens Plan, Carbon offset, Carbon credit, and Race to the Top just to mention a few. The article is *about* various transformative proposals on how teachers could be trained, but it is really not urging people to follow the various transformative proposals. Just because an article is about change, does not make it WP:SOAP.
Second, the article is *not* combining any of the approaches with a synthesis. In fact, the approaches are laid-out in different paragraphs that are not being tied together into a synthesis or a conclusion. kgrr ^talk 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS - just a few things I need to get off my chest...I feel they are appropriate in light of what has been said above about me...but if they ARE NOT...feel free to remove them...

1 - GregJackP stated this article was a “synthesis of the sources” & “not accurately representing the material” & “various points were aggregated to advance the position presented in the article” because he has “looked up several (not all) of the references”...I responded that “I have also looked up some of the sources from this article and information that I found that was in the wikipedia entry did match some points presented in those sources. I think the problem is more an issue of lack of specific referencing”.I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROBLEM WITH MY COMMENT IS…IT IS COMPLETELY TRUE…I DID LOOK UP REFERENCES, AND THEY WERE ACCURATE…I DO THINK THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE ARTICLE WAS THE LACK OF IN-LINE REFERENCES…WHICH IS WHAT I STATED REPEATEDLY TO THE AUTHOR PRIOR TO THEM POSTING IT ON WIKIPEDIA

2 - DustFormsWords requested that I “provide some specific examples or quotes showing that the article correctly represents the sources?”...I responded by providing a list of what I know was accurate because I was the one who had presented that information, as well as checking some information that sounded like items presented in this article without citations by other people…I also went in and put some of the references in that should have been there

3 - GregJackP stated that I was being “disingenuous” because I am “one of the main authors of the article on the Transforming Teacher Education wiki”....I NEVER SAID THAT I WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE ARTICLE…NO BODY ASKED ME…I DID NOT STATE THAT I BUMPED INTO THE ARTICLE WHILE MOSEYING AROUND THE WIKIPEDIA

4 - GregJackP stated that I said “the article is not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR”...I DID NOT STATE THAT OR ANYTHING ELSE OF THAT NATURE…I SIMPLY POINTED OUT THAT THE INFORMATION THAT I LOOKED-UP WAS ALL ACCURATE…WHICH IS STILL THE CASE

5 - GregJackP stated that I had claimed the article was “not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, “without declaring” my “own role in the creating the original article” ... NOT TRUE…I NEVER SAID THE ARTICLE WAS NOT WP ANYTHING…THEREFORE THE WHOLE POINT GREGJACKP WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS RATHER IRRELIVENT…MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD READ COMMENTS BY OTHERS MORE CAREFULLY PRIOR TO MAKING FALSE…AND RUDE STATEMENTS

6 - FURTHER I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT I NEVER CLAIMED NOT TO BE A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE ORIGINAL WIKISPACE ARTICLE…THE ARTICLE WAS PUT UP ON WIKIPEDIA BEFORE THE ISSUES I HAD POINTED OUT WITH THE ORIGINAL (NAMELY THE LACK OF IN-LINE REFERENCES) WERE ADDRESSED…AND I STATED IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT THAT I FELT THAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED BY THE AUTHOR WHO PUT IT UP IN WIKIPEDIA…MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT I STILL CAN VOTE TO KEEP IT…AT THIS POINT MANY OTHERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ARTICLE AS WELL…DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEIR VOTE SHOULDN’T COUNT EITHER???

7 - Just so you all know…the whole point of the wikispace was for a group of educators to work collectively to create an article for the wikipedia…a collaboration of minds to create an article with factual information that is not often presented collectively for the purpose of posting it to wikipedia…which we did…what a terrible thing...if that is against some wikipedia policy none of us were aware of it...

8 - katt_in_FL is the tag I use everywhere...if I was concerned with being associated with the wikispace I would have picked something different...It is not like the wikispace was taken down...but as stated above...the whole point of the wikispace was to create this page in wikipedia...although some people seem to be bent of having it deleted no matter what the consensus Katt in FL (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)katt_in_FL[reply]

Comment I think we need to move forward from the accusations - he said / she said, etc. GregJackP and RBellin, please go back to the basic principle of assuming good faith WP:AGF. All the false accusations have done so far is to agitate people that would have used their time to correct this article. If you continue with it, I will have someone else put an end to it. The editors of the initial article were simply collaborating to create a new Wikipedia article. They did it in wikispace instead of using a sandbox somewhere. On the other side, Katt in FL, I'm sorry to see that you have been angered by these accusations of meat puppetry and of various other allegations. AfD debates can be difficult because some people that want to enforce the rules really don't understand them themselves. We need to concentrate on improving the article and not get distracted by their behavior. If it gets much worse, I will call them on it with an arbitration. I have played this game too many times with the Wikipedia Thinkpol: Brooks–Iyengar algorithm - I'm supposed to give it a "Popular Science makeover". Can I teach someone computer science by sound bytes? Hot stain - a new word to describe areas in the world where there is no more drinking water. Promoting a new word ... Hey, you want to buy a new desert? Dean Willard - a behind the scenes politician running for state representative. ... etc. etc. one article at a time. Stick with it. I'm learning new issue after issue by rescuing good articles. All of us: We need to let it go now and behave in a civil manner. WP:CIVIL. kgrr ^talk 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that we need to focus on the article and not personalities, however I stand by my comments in this AfD discussion. I'm sorry that Kat in FL was offended by my comments, it was not my intent, but the points still are valid - I believe that she should have declared her interest. I still assumed good faith due to her being new to WP, which is why I did not refer this to the noticeboard. I would have thought that you would also AGF for those of us that have problems with the article as written. If you wish to call for an arbitration, please do so, I have no worries about what I have posted or the concerns I have raised, but I would hope that you are willing to look at the issues of concern instead of what appear to be (but I hope are not) an effort to shut down conversation on the issues. I still believe that the article has problems, specifically in promoting a position to change teacher education in a way that is a synthasis of the various articles cited. Statements such as "it is argued" and "it is not reasonable to assume" without presenting the counter-argument do not present a neutral point of view, but instead merely advocate for the changes in teacher education that seem to be preferred by one side of the argument. It is still my position that the article as currently written is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (GregJackP (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - GregJackP, Thank you for the apology. My warning on making false accusations and becoming uncivil still stand. I will take it to arbitration if it gets out of hand. OK ... So we agree to disagree on the WP:SOAP / WP:SYNTH issue. Again, a soapbox is usually opinion without references and synthesis is opinion with references bound together with conclusions. I have worked through the article to remove concluding paragraphs and sentences. I have also worked the article through to question weasel phrases such as "some experts", "experts say", "it is argued", etc. I missed one statement with a "it is not reasonable to assume" in the teaching methods paragraph. I have marked it with a {{fact}} tag. The synthesis will have to come from a secondary source (which is allowed to do this) or be deleted. All that needs to be done here is to properly attribute the synthesis to remove the POV. Depending on how severe the issue is, we may need to find someone that disagrees with the conclusion that is being drawn. However, I don't think that's an issue in this case. Since you have EBSCO Host and JSTOR access, could you please look up the Tatto1997 article and tell me what her definition of Transformative Teacher Education is for the introduction. It's a widely quoted article on TTE. Ditto for GreenmanDieckmann2004. kgrr ^talk 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am an educator in Western WA of disadvantaged kids. I think the article reads well and brings out a lot of facts in one article about Transformative Teacher Education. I agree with kgrr. It has a couple of flaws that can be corrected. I have never edited an article before, but I would like to vote keep. 209.206.252.239 (talk) 05:14, 31 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 All I am not convinced that a merge is the best solution, but a reasoned, consensus based merge discussion with greater participation would not be unappropriate for these articles. Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utility infielder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Unreferenced stub that is redundant to utility player. Should be merged to it. For the same reasons, nominating fourth outfielder and Corner outfielder, which are redundant outfielder. I will rescind this nomination if the articles are referenced and lengthed, much in the same way Cornerman (basketball) and Combo guard are for basketball Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the proper approach is for the nom to determine if it can be lengthened and referenced, much as it is the nom's responsibility to review for references that could be put into the article before nomination an article, and not only look at those that appear in the article itself. These are such basic terms, widely used, that I support them having their own articles. As to the criticism of the articles, the policy that comes to mind is SOFIXIT.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If people create sloppy articles, it isn't automatically my responsibilty to clean them up (SOFIXIT currently links to BOLD; and the bold action here would have been redirection). You talk about the references that appear in the articles themselves? There are no references, which in itself can be a criteria for deletion. I also contest your assertion that they are basic, widely used terms, because they just aren't. In the baseball positions table, the "basic" positions are defined as catcher, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, RF, LF, and CF. These are not basic positions. You also don't address the redundency concern. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than waste much time on this, I'll let others share their views, and just address one of the various points Purple makes where I differ. He contests my statement that "utility infielder", inter alia, is a widely used term. I believe that the 52,700 ghits, 29,600 gnews hits, and 700 gbooks hits support my statement.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits doesn't necessarily mean notability...I got 16K hits for cheese pants
The hits are very small compared to the "basic" positions...DH and left fielder get 3-400K (8x) and first baseman gets over one million (20x)
Utility infielder and utility player are almost exactly the same thing; they don't need two articles, especially since one of them is an unreferenced stub. It's unbelieveable that you want to keep an article of such low quality Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss two points. 1) The reference to the 53,000 google hits was specifically to show that your assertion that the term is not widely used was incorrect. That is all. As I said, so as not to waste time, I sought only to address that markedly incorrect assertion. 2) As to the quality of the article, the onus is on the nom to ascertain if there are not refs from which a proper article could be written. The test is not whether it has already been written. Articles, for which sufficient refs exists (if added by the nom or someone else, though there is a special onus on the nom to explore this before the nomination) need not be deleted or redirected. Rather, you are welcome to fix it. But AfD is not a tool for you to force others to do so. Happy Tuesday.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still redundant and a stub. Your "I have to fix it" argument is completely bunk. I should have redirected it. In case you missed it, my vote is strong redirect. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of this excess bold is really making my eyes hurt, besides being unnecessary. That said, the article as is needs to be referenced, but that's easily accomplished, as there are quite a few works out there that reference the topic. AfD isn't the appropriate forum for this; it should have been tagged for cleanup instead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four references now in the article, fully formatted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth outfielder and corner outfielder are still unreferenced. And I still don't see any reason why the articles shouldn't become sections of Utility player and outfielder, instead of the short, redundant stubs they are now. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't do all of them at once! It's not like this is just some kind of slapdash process. They shouldn't be part of the articles you name because they are distinct parts of a whole, just like first baseman and second baseman shouldn't be part of infielder. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth outfielder also now has four references, and there is an entire Baseball Digest article on fourth outfielders as one of them, so it can easily be expanded. That's a definite keep. I know that I can find references for corner outfielders as well; just can't do it now. Also, please keep in mind, when you're using the word "stub" derisively, that "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion". That is what these are. They don't provide a lot of coverage right now, but they are certainly capable of expansion in the future. Just so happens that a lot of us are a lot busier with other projects than we are with our utility position articles. If you want to help, why not expand the article instead of saying it needs to be merged to a tangentially related topic? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, I don't think it's just tangential... Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a whole. If we were ever to do a featured topic on outfielders, all of the types, including left fielder, center fielder, right fielder, corner outfielder, and fourth outfielder would all be part of it. All of those articles are distinct and separate topics and that's why they are separate articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree whole-heartedly w/all Killer said. Encourage nom not to (ab)use this process in the future for articles that only need clean-up -- he should either fixithimself in the future, or tag it as Killer mentioned. AfD is not appropriate. For that reason, these would have been keeps whether or not Killer did his good work -- keep votes were not dependent on the refs being added.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you've voted and commented now. Secondly, you forget I nommed them as well because of their utter redundency, not just because of their refs. If you really think I've abused the process, ANI me Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you have commented six times; not sure what the relevance of that is. I would urge you to withdraw the nomination, to save others wasted time.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw it if five people vote keep. As of now, the vote is 2-1. It's no landslide, and there are perfectly acceptable arguements for its merger Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting arbitrary criteria don't really do you any good, because it's not up to you. It's up to the closing administrators. Since the articles clearly have potential for expansion and can be referenced, your platform has lost three legs and is teetering on its broken fourth. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the case for these articles as stand-alone topics is thin at best, but good work on expanding and adding references. I don't particularly mind the deletion debate, but agree that maybe a merge discussion would have been more helpful in the long run. Also, remember that this isn't a vote - we're not looking for a particular score to keep the articles. If the arguments have merit, then the closing admin will note that merit. I think everyone, above, has made their position quite clear, and it's getting a little heated. We should have some hot dogs and a beer, perhaps, and sit back to see how things end up. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offering me a beer at work, now that's dangerous! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use Corner Outfielder as a disambig, merge utility infielder and fourth outfielder into utility player. - They are reasonably likely search terms, but I think merging the content should be sufficient to avoid redundancy. A corner outfielder page can briefly define the two positions and disambig to them. matt91486 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fourth outfielder is not necessarily a utility player.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying fourth outfielder to outfielder Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:47, 29 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 Self-immolation#2000s. I've already merged in the information. Black Kite 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleftheriya Fortulaki

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. DimaG (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Based solely on one event. Geschichte (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-immolation, specifically the "2000s" subsection. Fortulaki may not merit her own article, but she seems worthy of a mention in the aforementioned main article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:52, 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, Sandstein 06:17, 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) 04:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael New

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, only known for refusing to serve under the UN. Nableezy - 06:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Nableezy 06:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E is for people who have passing fame for a single event and are otherwise likely to remain of low profile. I was going to argue that the book written about New lifted him out of the "likely to remain of low profile" category, except that upon further research it appears to be written by a related party ("Daniel New") and be largely an attempt at self-promotion. Given that there does not seem to be a relevant main article to redirect to, delete seems appropriate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New's website identifies Daniel as his father (also that book is self-published). nableezy - 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem notable to me beyond the single incident and the incident itself does not seem to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article itself. I don't think this would pass the WP:GNG in terms of significant coverage that is independent of the source. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 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. I'm not protecting it since the reverts over the redirect were a long time ago and only as few anyway; if it gets repeatedly recreated after this protection may be warranted. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank W. Burns

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very temporary fill-in presenter for BBC Sportsnight from over 30 years ago with no sources found to assert any claims to notability Plutonium27 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - I tried and failed to find anything that resembles a reliable source. --Darkwind (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is this doing way at the top of the log page? Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - first AfD nom and I was half asleep. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a couple of pages of Google hits for "Burns and Mayock" - sorry I don't have time to check them out right now, but someone else might be able to. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those hits are worthless, mostly Wikipedia reprints of a line from the article Double act, a blog or two. No verifiability. --Bejnar (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not even sure whether Burns exists and I certainly doubt whether he ever presented Sportsnight. More than once, I have deleted his entry and redirected it to the entry for Stafford; it appears that a deliberate troublemaker is consistently recreating the article. I think it should be deleted, and preferably protected from any form of recreation. RobinCarmody (talk) 03:35, 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, Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO# Basic criteria. There is no evidence this person “has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” As such, it is not possible to write an article which meets the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. — Satori Son 12:47, 31 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 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change-Pro

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This software fails WP:N as I can't find significant coverage of it in reliable, third-party sources. There are a lot of promotional puff pieces written about this but I haven't found coverage in reliable sources. Them From Space 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this software. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:05, 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, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ray^Talk 19:57, 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) 04:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTF-15

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both of these articles are bordeline hoaxes perpetrated by a single-purpose account. They claim to be products created by Chris Edgecombe (whose article is in the middle of an AfD itself), but Google can come up with no such products period outside of articles that backlink to Wikipedia -- well, actually, Biofuel 5 is briefly mentioned here, but not in the same context as Mr. Edgecombe. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Falcon8765 (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as unverifiable. See [21]. — Rankiri (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator.--Karljoos (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unverifiable. Clubmarx (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator is also spending a great deal of time challenging anyone that agrees with the deletion on their respective talk pages. Wikiquette alert, anyone? Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I can find no verifiable info. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:21, 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) 04:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shy Ronnie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

finishing AfD for User:67.180.84.52 based on the IP's prod tag "No indication of notability" CTJF83 chat 06:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage from MTV and Rolling Stone but both seem trivial to me, and are basically just retelling a very basic plot of the story, so i don't think it quite meets WP:GNG Plus it appears to be a one time segment. CTJF83 chat 06:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An individual sketch from a show is not usually notable enough for an article. There are exceptions, but there is no evidence that this is one of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. JamesBWatson, above, put it very well. --Bejnar (talk) 23:33, 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) 04:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Witch's Promise

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Witch's Promise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not so much non-notable as "not notable enough for a stand alone article". I can't find any significant coverage in reliable indpendent sources that discussess this song other than as a passing mention while talking about Jethro Tull. The material can appropriately be covered at the main article on Jethro Tull or on the pages for the relevant album(s). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the above; I'd say "merge" instead, but there's nothing being said here besides the release date and what albums it appeared on. --Darkwind (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:03, 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.

Vote NO Tillywilly17 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Cirt. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rhymes to a Rhythm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC. I didn't tag this {{prod}} because of its length. Does this seem keepable? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:N. The sole reliable source quoted by the album (a People magazine article) doesn't appear to refer to this demo at all - at least not directly - and despite Google searches turning up plenty of hits I can't find any that constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. It is the original demo tape from DC Talk. --Bejnar (talk) 23:46, 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 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incesticide/In Utero Box Sets

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Incesticide/In Utero Box Sets

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable one-off box set. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this box set, and in any case there's no reason this material can't be covered at the existing articles on In Utero and Incesticide. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:02, 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) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per dustFormsWords. Ray^Talk 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge As Ron Ritzman said, the information can be merged into the appropriate articles thus elevates the need for one article on two different boxsets. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 11:11, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Directional Michigan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the term is used in pop culture, it is not a "real" definition and IMO should not be included in Wikipedia. The article as it exists currently is made up of a synthesis of different sources. Most of the comments are sourced and true, but none of the statements in the article are directly related to "Directional Michigan", except those that mention Direction Michigan in various "poll". If the synthesized statements are removed, then all that remains is essentially: "Direction Michigan schools are bad at sports." Wikipedia is not a dictionary of pop culture/slang terms, which is what "Directional Michigan" is. Leave that to Urban Dictionary. X96lee15 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep last discussion was closed as "no consensus" on 6 October 2006. Now, approximately 3 1/2 years later there are many more reliable sources to support the notability of the term. Consider [Sports Illustrated], [Connecticut Post (pay article, sorry), [Southern Illinoisian, and even the lowly Beaver Country Times just for examples. A simple Google search yields about 9,480 pages for for +"espn" +"bottom 10". Clearly the trend has been toward the term becoming even more common and widespread. And because so many reliable sources (and heck for that matter "unreliable ones" as well) are using the term, it isn't really a "synthesis" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references to the term isn't synthesis, but the discussion about "staying competitive with non-BCS teams, but struggling against BCS teams", the entire third paragraph beginning "In recent years", the paragraph about Northern Michigan and the final paragraph about USC, UCF and USF are all synthesis. None of the references in those sections directly relate/reference "Directional Michigan".

If you remove all the areas I listed here, then all you have is a definition, albeit a sourced one, but that's all it is. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response then you should edit the article and not delete the article, particularly since your issues appear to apply to only part of the article and not the subject matter itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have concerns about "File:Directional_michigan_50.png" used in the article too, particularly its fair use rationale (clearly the image cannot be obtained from "Directional Michigan"), its description (what is it exactly?) and its use in the article. But I'm not yet clear on how to notify problems with images (or, in fact, how to link to them without causing them to display). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've requested deletion of that image. The fair-use claim is clearly inappropriate and makes false claims as to the nature of the image. cmadler (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct it should have its fair use claims modified. Of course, that has nothing to do with deletion of this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do beleive that image should be removed from Wikipedia, but that's a discussion to have there, not here; however, keep in mind that if the Directional Michigan article is deleted, the image will be deleted also, because it's a non-free image that would no longer be used in any articles. cmadler (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - agreed if the article is deleted, the image should also.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - X96lee15 makes a good point about synthesis sections of the article. Further, most of the "sources" are really just uses of the term. Show me something that has been written about "Directional Michigan", not just places where the term has been used, and I'll reconsider. cmadler (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pretty much any of the ESPN.com bottom 10 rankings that include "directional michigan" in the rankings includes a section where the grouping is "written about". One example of many.
  - Well, that link you gave exactly makes my point. They used the term "Directional Michigan" to refer to the three schools, but they did not write anything about the term "Directional Michigan". cmadler (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? "Toxic:" Western was clobbered by Ball State. Eastern lost to Div. I-AA Eastern Illinois. Central disappointed against bye." clearly explains the three schools that make up the term and how they relate to each other.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is an example of use of the term, not an explanation of the term. In this context, it's a primary source, which is pretty much all this article has. I acknowledge that people are using the term, but I don't see anything suggesting that people are writing about the term, which is what we need to have a secondary source. Without secondary sources, the article fails the notability guideline. cmadler (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Response Context is a valid method of establishing definition--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's the issue. The article is merely a definition and why it should be deleted per WP:NOTDICT. No reliable sources have written anything of substance about "Directional Michigan". It's just a term / definition that has no Wikipedia / encyclopedic value. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, after cmadler removed the large portion of the article-check the history! There is an editor removing information from the article and at the same time taking a stance for deletion of the article. Nice trick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm following your above suggestion about editing the article: marking OR and SYN in places where it seems possible that a source might be found, removing sections that clearly veer off topic. cmadler (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Cmadler is right; he did exactly what you recommended. The bottom line is "Directional Michigan" is a term that is used but there is no coverage ANYWHERE except to use the term as a definition. Because of that and WP:NOTDICT is why this article should be deleted. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Clarification I suggested editing the article to polish the content, not deleting 1/3 of its content and then saying "look, there's nothing in the article but a definition--let's delete it!"--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is sourced and critical for the completeness of the topic of college football (specifically DI-FBS). The article does not merely define the "slang" term, but shows the useage, creation, function and general education of the term. Reading the article as-is just before this writing, many of the scope creep parts of the article have been cleaned up. My preference would really to expand the article to be generally about Directional schools, since the article could be bigger and handle several cases at once. The problem is the article should thus be named "Directional ______" where the ____ would be Michigan, Florida, or otherwise as appropriate. Perhaps "Directional Schools" with the others all redirecting to it may be then appropriate. Nonetheless, the topic is important for full and complete information about the subject. That is, you cannot fully learn about college football (DI-FBS) without also learning about this topic and not having it would be an incomplete hole in the subject. MECU≈talk 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is linked from 4 other articles, and those links were all added by Paul McDonald within the last two days. Lack of incoming links suggests that this article is not only not critical for the completeness of the topic of college football, but that the article might be entirely unneeded. cmadler (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Lack of incoming links suggests that Wikipedia is far from complete. Who cares who added them and when they were added?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful and sourced for what it is. I would be interested to know the first published use of this term. Google news archive shows it used in Jan. 1989.[22], "Georgetown playing its usual collection of patsies and Michigan trouncing every directional Michigan in the book, from Western to Central to Eastern".--Milowent (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that this article is, or becomes, about the term "Directional Michigan", it belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. See WP:DICTIONARY. cmadler (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an atlas?--Milowent (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to a term like Mid-major or Mid-American Conference. There is nothing here that can support an encyclopedia article. At best, we have a dictionary definition with some sources that use the term. The concept is not covered in depth by any sources, the words are used. There is a BIG difference between a term being used and a term being discussed indepth in reliable sources. Where we have a Wikipedia article on a word or phrase, we need to demonstrate the latter condition. I don't see that here. The redirect to Mid-American Conference would actually probably work well, since the term may be a reasonable search term, and all three Directional Michigans are part of that conference. --Jayron32 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- question how is a redirect a worthwhile solution? There's 12 schools that make up that conference? If anything, a disambiguation page would make more sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects like that are done all the time, for example, minor characters within a fictional work are often redirected to the work itself. Another possible redirect target might be Michigan MAC Trophy. cmadler (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, for re-directs to one subject matter. This would be a re-direct to three subject matters. How can a re-direct accomplish that and be less confusing instead of more confusing?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you really think this is three subject matters, you just acknowledged that it shouldn't be an article, it should be (and is) three articles: Eastern Michigan Eagles, Central Michigan Chippewas, and Western Michigan Broncos. To the extent the three have anything in common and exclusive of any other school, it involves their membership in the MAC, and so it would be appropriate to redirect to Mid-American Conference or Michigan MAC Trophy. In other words "Directional Michigan" is entirely within the MAC, so it's appropriate to redirect there. cmadler (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        By that rule, which path should we take--should we then redirect Sternum and Humerus and all 206 human bones to Human skeleton or the other way around? What about List of bones of the human skeleton? None, I say. The fact is simple--Wikipedia not only allows for but encourages such articles. I guess I would compromise to move the article to List of colleges that make up Directional Michigan but that seems pointless. I don't see it as three subject matters, I see it as one subject matter, of which there are three primary components yielding a total of four articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, provides context not merely definition, serves a purpose as a separate page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect to the three schools at minimum. I don't have a problem keeping the article in its current state, but it is a likely search term given its coverage. matt91486 (talk) 01:21, 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. The consensus is that it would be best to re-write the articles altogether, if reliable sources are ever found. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhag Singha Purohit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have no idea what this article's actually about; it appears to be a narrative story, and while there are a few book hits for close spellings, the exact spelling has no book hits. Even if someone else finds some sources, the article would require a complete rewrite. Shadowjams (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, I've nominated Bhai Singha Purohit, and included it in this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bhai Singha Purohit, and then bring that article to AfD too. Delete Bhai Singha Purohit and Bhag Singha Purohit. Bhag Singha Purohit (also spelled as Bhai Singha Purohit) appears to have been a 17th cenury Sikh warrior. The article Bhag Singha Purohit is describing events in 17th century India relating to battles between Sikh forces and the Mughal Empire. However:

The prose style is fundamentally unencyclopedic.
The correct name of the individual appears to be "Bhai Singha Purohit" and an article by that name already exists, containing identical text.
Good faith Google searches for "Bhai Singha Purohit" turn up relevant results but none that appear to be "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" per WP:N.
~~The prose style makes me strongly suspect that it's a direct cut-and-paste from another text although I'm unable to identify the source.~~ It's a cut-and-paste from SikhWiki, and although it's apparently CCBY licenced I'm not entirely convinced that makes it acceptable to copy their text wholesale.

So, really, a lot of problems here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added an AFD nomination to Bhai Singha Purohit, and directed it here - and I would add it to this nomination so that we can have one debate on the merits of the content. No need to do this twice, and this debate began less than a day ago, so I don't think it unreasonable to combine the two nominations. As for my recommendation... UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unencyclopedic content. I can't find sources for a notable topic of either title - though feel free to point me in the right direction, if such sources exist. If the articles are to be kept, then Bhag Singha Purohit should be the redirect - but I don't know how we would really justify that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is this supposed to be about. Completely nonsensical.Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copied from SikhWiki; it can remain there until we gain sources. Shii (tock) 20:57, 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 Speedy delete g4, didn't know about the earlier AFD, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShaneDawsonTV

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another Youtube artist. No sources cited to support claims of notability. Prod tag removed without explanation or addition of sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G4 Speedy Deletion Subject has already been deleted to the point of salting on Shane Dawson, so just someone trying to get around that block with a different title. Salt this title and ShaneDawson to discourage further attempts to recreate. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 as "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page (Shane Dawson) deleted via a deletion discussion". Obviously non-admins can't view the deleted page but given this one is an unsourced stub I'm willing to assume it's not an improvement on the original. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Regan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Who is this person? Doesn't seem relevant. Article reads like it was written by the subject as a means of self-promotion/narcissism Zappaphile (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have a lot of credits listed at IMDB, though I can't see anything that isn't a minor role - I know IMDB isn't reliable for actual facts, but if they're correct and can be verified, might a lot of small roles add up to sufficient notability? (PS: I've removed several wikilinks from the article, as they were to irrelevant articles that just happened to have the right name) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about bits like "Skye has been in the film and television industry for a couple years now. It began first, as an entrance to acting and improv comedy at a young age and soon sprawled out into various facets[...]Skye studied Television Broadcasting at school where she directed and produced live television and radio shows. She then landed an amazing internship with CHUM City at Star! Productions, where she had the opportunity to pitch episode concepts and edit scripts"? It seems obvious she wrote this herself as a means of self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.55.66 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also worth noting is that her bio is the same as the one found here: http://www.impatient.ca/people/skye-regan/, which are clearly all written by members of this theatre company themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.55.66 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much of this content is contributed by User:Skyesthelimit88 who is an SPA. Article is unsourced. Racepacket (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article, subject not notable. Evalpor (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not assert notability, no significant coverage anyway. --Bejnar (talk) 23:49, 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) 04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds biggest lightsaber flashmob

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The event does not appear to warrant a stand-alone article. At best, this might rate a mention in the flash mob article, assuming the "world's largest" claim is verifiable. Ckatz^chat _spy 02:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT. That policy provides that for a one-off event to be notable despite the provisions of WP:NOTNEWS it requires "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group" and/or be "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance". "World's biggest lightsaber flashmob" fails both criteria by a large margin. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot imagine how this one-off event would be notable. Wikipedia is not the daily news. JIP | Talk 06:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: But fun nevertheless - The video on YouTube has 200k views. Would be nice if it didn't contain any music copyright vios and could be uploaded and included in an article on social media or star wars;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under the name "World's biggest foo event" it seems doomed to obsolescence as soon as someone else organises a bigger one next year.

As an article on a large flashmob at Carboot Circus, it would seem to have about as much notability as the zombie walk at its opening. As for that, a referenced mention within the Broadmead article would seem appropriate, but not a stand-alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly delete as WP:NOTNEWS (unless this qualifies for a transwiki to Wikinews). Not sure whether an event that's only been "unoffically" described as the "largest" event of its kind would qualify for an inclusion for the flash mob article, but that can be something for the maintainers of that page to decide. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Facebook and Youtube are the only links. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Written as barely coherent nonsense. Sounds in a way like promotion. Probably meets multiple CSD criteria. Dew Kane (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the article should be deleted, if you're going to argue for a speedy deletion it's helpful to explain which of the criteria for speedy deletion you believe the article meets, as they are each very narrow and specific. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unduly promotional. Not notable. Racepacket (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:NOTNEWS. What ever it is about (and I am not sure), it is clearly an event of no permanent notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. listed for 22 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nanogel (insulation)

The article does not add anything of encyclopedic value. The information posted is general and pertains to any brand of aerogel glass, and should therefore be written under the "uses" section of the aerogel article. The article should be deleted for being commercial and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OstermannH (talk • contribs) 2010/03/07 09:15:35

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't asserted in the current version of the article, however there is some coverage from reliable sources, possibly enough for it to meet the relevant guidelines. Some of the claims need sourcing, but if they are inaccurate they can be removed. Also what you have suggested implies merging to aerogel; if this is your intention, it isn't necessary to nominate the article for deletion (see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers). snigbrook (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 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, Tim Song (talk) 01:47, 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) 04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porno (artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally non-notable artist. No hits, no albums on notable labels, and not a single hit in Google News. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if kept rename to Pierre Porno, since the current title could easily mean any old porno artist. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He just ain't notable under WP:MUSIC. Siind (talk) 19:27, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Lindahl

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced WP:BLP from 2007 encountered during CAT:BLP cleanup. The two sources in the article appear to be self-published, and a Google search discovers no reliable sources covering the subject but for a snippet from a journal that confirms his existence. Currently fails WP:BLP, WP:BIO. Sandstein 21:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lambiek's Comiclopedia is a valuable resource for comics artists used on all sorts of other articles as they are experts in the field. Also looking at the Norwegian version [23] it appears to suggest he has won a couple of prizes but we'd need someone who actually reads Norwegian to confirm this, but it'd certainly be a useful tick in the notability box. (Emperor (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- He has won an Adamson Award and the 91:an-stipendiet (no article in the English Wikipedia). However, I'm not sure if that's enough to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria. This source claims he is "one of the most highly regarded of the Swedish comic artists" to draw The Phantom, and I think that's true. Unfortunately, Sweden is a small country and artists like Lindahl don't receive coverage in newspapers or books (etc). The leftorium 11:42, 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 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following Theleftorium's comments. The International Journal of Comic Art is a good source and the Awards are also a tick in the box for notability. That combined with the fact it is no longer unsourced. It still needs work (from someone who reads Norwegian) but it is enough for a keep. (Emperor (talk) 02:13, 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, Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nichlas Vilsmark

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advert for non-notable florist Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information in the article appears to be factual and I would have thought a florist with those credentials was about as notable as a florist could get. Unfortunately the test is WP:N - significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources quoted in the article are uniformly either not "significant coverage" or not "reliable independent sources". Good faith Google searches for "Nichlas Vilsmark" and "Vislmark florist" turn up literally thousands of relevant hits but I can't for the life of me find any constituting significant coverage in reliable independent sources. They all seem to be just directory listings and promotional placements. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the above comments - no significant coverage in the third party sources. This project is not intended for promotion. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with 3rd-world bios, one has to be realistic here. How many floral critics are there? We only have about 6 florist bios, including one politician who had a shop for a year. If the subject area was better covered, no doubt he would feature in reviews. There are hundreds of web-hits but all advertising. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first delete indicates the subject is "about as notable as a florist could get". If the standard application of WP:N leads to deletion, we are faced with the prospect of not having articles on florists, regardless of their prominence in their field, or to decide that, as stated at the top of the guideline, we should apply "common sense" and retain the article as one of the "occasional exceptions". There are third party sources given. There are also print sources, where significant coverage is indicated. Ty 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I said included the phrase "I would have thought". I'm clearly not an expert on florists or press coverage of them, but this isn't the place to attempt to change WP:N. I understand wanting to say "reliable coverage of this topic is poor, so let's abandon the rules about reliable coverage", because there's a similar problem with coverage of tabletop roleplaying games, but you can't make unreliable sources reliable just by wishing them so. If you feel florists should get more coverage on Wikipedia, go out and start a reliable press organisation and cover them. But Wikipedia isn't the place to start a revolution. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No change to WP:N: it, like all guidelines, has always been subject to "common sense" and "occasional exceptions". There is no abandoning rules of reliable coverage: WP:V is a mandatory, core policy, and is met in the article. As I pointed out, "There are third party sources given. There are also print sources, where significant coverage is indicated." There are now additional sources in the article. The common sense comes in evaluating whether such sources justify the inclusion of an article or not, and here a consideration of the genre as a whole is relevant. WP:PROF, for example, recognises that an academic may be worthy of an article because of their position within their speciality, even though there may not have been extensive wider coverage, simply because the speciality is not mainstream in a pop-driven culture. I suggest that a similar consideration applies here, and that, for example, being the florist for a royal wedding and being singled out as a supplier for national institutions indicates the person has achieved a position of notability which justifies the article. I don't think you need to be too concerned that keeping it will result in widespread insurrection. Ty 12:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still disagree with you, but that's an awesome reply. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:20, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Kappa Pi (fraternity)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources where this organization is the primary subject of the article. There are some mentions in Google News hits but they are in passing, mentioning membership in an article about some specific person. Claim of being the only national fraternity in Canada is not backed up with verifiable references, only a primary source of a pledge manual. RadioFan (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it also lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. It's clear that this sorority has been around a long time even back in the 40's the news coverage appears to be limited to event announcements, not clear how either article could meet WP:ORG:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fraternity, delete sorority. The sorority is the easier case: it claims to currently be a local sorority, and that's below the scope of notability at WP:ORG. The fraternity is a little more complex. There is an assertion of notability with being Canada's only national fraternity. I'm willing to revisit this decision if, after a few months, nothing is turned up to support the claim, but for now, I'm going to err on the side of caution and keep the fraternity's article for improvement. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, the claim of being the only national fraternity is referenced only with primary sources. Its the only claim to notability I see there.--RadioFan (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a weaker claim of being a national organization, since it has four active chapters across three provinces—which makes it national in scope by definition, even if the claim of being the only such national fraternity is in dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even that week claim needs references which I'm having trouble finding.--RadioFan (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Future Group for People with Disabilities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [27]. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Links on reliable sources added. The organization is well known in Vietnam.Ans-mo (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 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, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has newspaper-derived references Dew Kane (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... despite the fact that some of the "newspaper derived sources" the article claims are suspect. The source described as "Saigon Times Online" goes to here, which from a reading MAY be an accurate copy of an article from the Saigon Times but is not attributed as such and nor is it hosted on the Saigon Times website. The "UNV News" link returns a 404 error. The VietnamNet Bridge article seems all right though, and there's a lot of potentially reliable Google hits. (I say potentially reliable - it's hard in this area, especially given the foreign language issues, to separate out reliable sources from the incestuous non-profit-organisation community - but the general sense I'm getting is that significant coverage in reliable independent sources is very likely to exist, if not in English then in other languages.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are useful sources therein, despite the Engrish. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CKKA

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated after discussion at Martial Arts project. It appears to fail WP:GNG and I couldn't find any reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello again, Papaursa. I have added some links, but I am not entirely sure if they establish notability. I'm rather certain there's other stuff out there to find though. Silver seren^C 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still don't see notability or significant coverage of the organization by independent sources. The two references are to the organization's own website and a member school. The external links are to member schools (or in one case to a person who was made an honorary CKKA member). Papaursa (talk) 16:04, 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) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The new sources do not look like reliable sources. I think a good-faith effort has been made to find reliable sources for this small, young, two brother non-notable martial arts organisation. jmcw (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for sources using "Canadian Karate Kung Fu Association" just now, but have not yet found anything that clearly supports notability. Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the currnet sources do not establish notability. A quick search I did on Google failed to turn up anything more substantial. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:43, 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 redirect to List of past River City characters. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fi Kydd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no assertion of notability; the website of the company that makes the program is not a third-party source. Ironholds (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to either List of past River City characters or River City. Shadowjams (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of past River City characters. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:03, 31 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) 04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skindred (Demo)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo. Demos are assumed to be non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable secondary sources have not covered this topic sufficiently for it to warrant an article in Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 23:23, 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) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Hardcastle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a biography of a buinesswoman but I just can't see where the notability lies. The only nods towards notability in the article are a "National Best Business Support" award (not actually sure what that is) but that was to the company of which she is a director not to Hardcastle herself. There is also a claim to a be a finalist in the Business Award Young Person of the Year however as that was in a local paper I don't see that conferring notability. The charity work is worthy but again, not notable. Nancy ^talk 12:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mid-level executive, then consultant. The press coverage and awards are all very, very local. The charity work apparently consists of singing in a group to raise funds for a few charities; not impressive. All in all, fails WP:N. --MelanieN (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful to mark in the article where improvements need to be made to give people a chance to make the necessary amendments rather than just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.210.24 (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC) — 188.220.210.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The quality of the article is not what is being discussed here, rather we are trying to ascertain whether the subject (i.e. Kate Hardcastle) meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for biographies. Articles can be fixed, a lack of notability cannot. Nancy ^talk 17:05, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem notable, working with famous clients doesn't confer notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:44, 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 no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DKFXP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BAND. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

Both Kushner and Perez are notable musicians, with Kushner being in Velvet Revolver, Wasted Youth and Dave Navarro's solo band among others, while Perez is a solo artist and currently the (live) guitarist for Scars on Broadway with members of System of a Down. The reason why DKFXP cant be found on Google Archives is because its a kind of a pseudonym given for the release of the songs. The collaberation between the 2 has been mentioned on Blabbermouth link "Dave is currently working on a new music project with singer/songwriter Franky Perez." and Classic Rock link "4. Franky has been working on tracks with Velvet Revolver guitarist Dave Kushner. 6. Frankie abbreviates his name to FXP.". HrZ (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I concur with the rule cited by HrZ above, as there are many notable people in this band. However, at this point it might be too early for an article because the band has not yet done much of note. Until that happens, and if the result of this discussion is to delete, the existence of this project can be noted in the pages for the associated bands and individuals. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 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, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well it seems to me that despite the guideline that imputes pure transferred notability, that an ensemble ought to have some claim to notability on its own. --Bejnar (talk) 13:08, 31 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BElls (musical instrument)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musical instrument. References are of the primary type, insufficient to establish notability. No references on Google News. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be advertising for one company's product. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep, This is a work in progress. I am trying to create a valid entry for this instrument. There is little information on the web yet other than the manufactures website, several youtube videos of the instrument being played and numerous discussions on several forums. The nearest related instruments are the Halo and Hang. There is no wiki article on the Halo and I have specifically been asked by the BElls manufacturer to not reference the Hang. 80.238.1.134 (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AKON. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the unlikely eventuality that the article will be kept, if consensus decides that Hang is mentioned in the article, then BEllArt does not have a say. See WP:OWN. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Hang (musical instrument) - What is the difference between the BElls (a brand name) and the Hang (musical instrument), has it become a generic name? Hang is a brand name aparently belonging to PanArt. YouTube of a Hang It appears to me that the Halo is another brand for a hang drum. Here is a Halo being played YouTube of a Steel Halo It does not look much different from a BElls or any other hang drum. There are other variants of the Hang out there. For example, the HAPI Drum (brand name) is a Hank drum (generic) which is very similar to a hang. HAPI Drum YouTube. The Zen Tambour (brand name) is also a hank drum or a steel tongue drum. YouTube of a Zen Tambour It seems to me like the BEllArt company would love a branded page to promote their hang drum, but there is no evidence that the BElls brand is notable enough to stand on its own. kgrr ^talk 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - a Caisa (musical instrument) seems to be another branded name for the same kind of musical instrument. kgrr ^talk 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a musical instrument, therefore should be notable Dew Kane (talk) 03:43, 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, Sandstein 05:00, 31 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 Moved To User Space The article has been moved to Quadtripplea user's space to be improved as neccessary to bring in line with WP:GNG Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Tofo Mar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable Hotel. Article describes the area and not the Hotel. Disputed prod noq (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand... there is definitely some historical significance and importance with regards to the hotel and a signing of Mozambique's independence, I am trying to establish the facts and references around this and hope to have something concrete imminently. I trust I will be given a chance to detail this properly and adjust the article accordingly, is there a way to place the article in quarintine until such time as I have this information? Thanks Quadtripplea (talk) 20:52, 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, Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - the article as it is now shows no notability of the hotel, but as Quadtripplea appears to understand the requirement and is attempting to bring the article in line with it, it would be best to move it to his/her user space until it is ready for mainspace. LadyofShalott 00:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has some sources. Perhaps not many in English, but with just these few in English, it shows that there are probably many more in Portugese and Swahili, the languages of the country. Dew Kane (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only one of the references mentions the hotel and that looks like a promotional piece. The article itself does not appear to be about the hotel specifically. noq (talk) 09:06, 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skankin' Pickle (album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Skankin' Pickle (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:03, 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, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage, demo albums are almost inherently NN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No evidence this demo tape has received "significant independent coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 15:00, 31 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) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sink (demo tape)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ALBUM, this is an especially non-notable demo. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 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. Tone 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Hallows Eve (EP)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:03, 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, CTJF83 chat 01:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage, demo albums are almost inherently NN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has zero notability, and the same can be said for most demo CDs. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:42, 31 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) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 98/99

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Demo 98/99

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC. While there are sources, most of them just reference the demo in passing and some do not appear credible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh, shoot; I forgot about this. I was going to post commentary at first, but then I went to other things and forgot about this. Sorry about you having to prolong the discussion. Now, to the point. I do acknowledge that theere are some demo articles which can break rules of wikipedia article acceptance. This one might. It didn't result in them being signed; matter of fact, Vaakevandring split up before releasing anything else until reuiniting again and splitting up once more after an EP which is almost a re-release of the demo. The EP of 2004 and the demo of 1999 have three tracks in common, and the demo is entirely consisted of three tracks. So therefore, is this article really necessary. I thought about this and have decided to say no, it is not necessarily. You can delete if you wish to. This officially counts as a delete vote. It was fun having the article up when it lasted, though. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author request, above. Other editors on the page, though, so a G7 doesn't work. The title should likely redirect to Vaakevandring, in the absence of any other likely target. No objection to a mention or discussion of this demo on the band's page - and one or more of the sources here may be of value there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:18, 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) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Overdose

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of sources for the track Evolution Overdose, but I am unable to find significant coverage for the demo, and per WP:NALBUM demos are presumed non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 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) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da Underground Vol. 1

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this demo, and per WP:NALBUM demos are presumed non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 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.

Other Fraternity articles