Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia: Difference between revisions
Listing Rouse Hill Town Centre |
Listing Student Youth Network |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Australia AfD's== |
==Australia AfD's== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Youth Network}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouse Hill Town Centre}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouse Hill Town Centre}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Top 10 Haunted Locations in Newcastle}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Top 10 Haunted Locations in Newcastle}} |
Revision as of 15:03, 26 June 2007
Points of interest related to Australia on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.
Purge page cache | watch |
Australia AfD's
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Student Youth Network
- Student Youth Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- No indepent verifiable information, arguably not notable Cazza411 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. —Eddie 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fails WP:RELY at the moment. Might be notable if some reference to that award can be found. Assize 11:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Gnangarra 12:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rouse Hill Town Centre
- Rouse Hill Town Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable shopping mall. No references affirming notability per WP:CORP, and the article appears to simply be being used for promotion. The creating editor, Tuddy (talk · contribs), has a long history of creating promotional shopping mall articles without any kind of references, aside from the mall's own webpage. --Elonka 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystallballery, mall is still under construction. Page should not be recreated until the mall's finished, and only then if it proves to be a notable super regional. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep, doesn't seem as crystal ballish as I'd think. I'm still not fully persuaded to keep it, but if it will be the biggest, then that might be barely notable enough if enough reliable sources report it. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. It is under construction so its existence is all but assured, and it will be one of the largest malls in an important country. --Charlene 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until someone other than the developer is writing about it in some publication.Garrie 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (by which I mean, it's not verifiable in it's current form)Garrie 23:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. GarrieIrons is simply wrong. There are 25 hits for this on Factiva, most of which are either directly about or have useful information about the project. There is, at the very least, enough sources to reference everything in this article and more. If you'd done a little more research, you might have discovered that the state government is considering building a (rare) new rail link to serve it. Folks, if you either don't have the access or can't be bothered to check if there's any sources, please hold off declaring that there aren't any. Rebecca 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, butno I'm not I think you'll find the rail link is to service a region, not a shopping centre and this article is about a shopping centre. Complete with copy-vio architect concept drawings. This article, in it's current form, is naval and crystal ball gazing.Garrie 04:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- It may be to service the region, but the terminus of the line is being built to service the shopping centre. I would suggest that implies some notability, wouldn't you? Regardless, I've already demonstrated that there are more than enough good sources to surpass the notability requirements in the actual policy - please don't be bloody-minded about this. Rebecca 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly, I bet at least a couple of those hits only mention RHTC "in passing" and are really about - the Developer, the Council, the Region, or the Buiding Industry. I'm all for writing about shopping centres when there's something to say, in line with an established project (or even Architecture).Garrie 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I went through these hits, and the majority of them related either were a) directly about the project, or b) contained useful information and could serve as references from the article. It's a huge project, and the references reflect that - everything in this article and more could be verified, should someone take the time to do it. If you'd like to check this yourself, you're welcome to go to the library and check this yourself. In the absence of that, however, please refrain from accusing me of lying. Rebecca 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep the project is of a large scale (estimates as high as $3.7 billion) Esenihc 02:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Esenihc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Um, rriigghhtt..... Parliament House was cheaper than that. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper figure, as far as I can see, seems to be more in the area of $470 million. This doesn't change the fact that it's still really notable. Rebecca 10:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I was just commenting on the fact that $3.7bn is, um, a rather expensive shopping centre. Doesn't have anything to do with whether this should be kept or not, and I've just decided to change my mind again and go with Weak keep. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 11:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper figure, as far as I can see, seems to be more in the area of $470 million. This doesn't change the fact that it's still really notable. Rebecca 10:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Rebecca. Added to this we already have an article on the future railway station, and the T-Way article will probably incorporate some information once the station at RHTC opens as well - the Rouse Hill development is definitely notable and will be one of Sydney and Australia's biggest shopping centres. JRG 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with GarrieIrons. This article fails WP:N and WP:RELY. With third party references, it shouldn't have a problem meeting notability if they are out there. Assize 11:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Agree with GarrieIrons. The pics which were removed were all copyvio, the article's written like an ad, non-NPOV. The article was the first I had heard about the centre and I live in the state. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 07:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- ...none of which has anything to do with the question of whether the article should remain in Wikipedia. Rebecca 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - upon further investigation it appears notable enough. Needs complete rewrite as others have mentioned, and better sourcing. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 11:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article urgently needs cleanup to get rid of the advertising copy, but that in and of itself is not a good reason for deletion. Lankiveil 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak keep It needs to be cleaned up/referenced...Balloonman 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N at present time, and is entirely speculative in nature, and reads almost like an advert. While I'm firmly of the belief that shopping centres merit an article, and this one no doubt will once it is built and independent information is available, this article is one giant cruft magnet. Orderinchaos 07:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed a fair amount of spec from the article - it still contains a bit, but at least is vaguely capable of being referencable now. Orderinchaos 07:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Lankiveil Rebuildingsdp 07:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--cj | talk 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Top 10 Haunted Locations in Newcastle
- Top 10 Haunted Locations in Newcastle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non notable list which is unsourced. Fails WP:V. Delete. JRG 05:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JRG 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Super strong delete How on earth am I supposed to know whether a location is "haunted" or not? Because a daily newspaper said so in a throwaway column? Come on... Shalom Hello 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If I see one more instance of "reputed", I'm going to beat someone with a WP:WEASEL. Fails WP:RS, probably WP:OR, too. Caknuck 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indiscriminate list of locations which one paper though "fun" to publish. There needs to be multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, this list would appear to infringe WP:COPY Ohconfucius 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indiscriminate, probably unverifiable, and Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a local newspaper. Hut 8.5 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Maybe we need WP:NOTLETTERMAN to cover this stuff. Acroterion(talk) 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki WikiTravel would love this type of stuff, spook tours are great.Garrie 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Digitty digitty digitty Deleted Even IF you can tell if this spot is haunted and that spot isn't, how the heck are any of these more "haunted" than another? -WarthogDemon 01:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a place for a Travel Guide and also this list is useless. It should only be mentionned in the city's article.--JForget 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Urban legend, Hoax, and per Caknuck. Bearian 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, an alternative perspective - "Top 10" is inherently POV too. There are so many things wrong with this article that it's almost spooky. Lankiveil 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Conder Primary School
- Charles Conder Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. No assertion of notability and no context given. Farosdaughter 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The school may be notable but the article is written like an advertisement. — Wenli (contribs) 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have actually added that the school is in Conder, Australian Capital Territory and that it is named after artist Charles Conder. Google News Archive comes up with a couple of hits [1]. It might be better as part of our article on the suburb of Conder. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / Redirect to Conder, Australian Capital Territory per WP:LOCAL (the school's already mentioned there so only the redirect is left to do).Garrie 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. When will people stop trying to judge notability based on the current state of the article? It's a completely nonsensical approach. Rebecca 14:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Rebecca, what other criteria should we use? It is up to the author to assert notability. Are we to do original research on our own or something? Gee, my knee! Realkyhick 15:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, as notability is not even asserted, and WP:V, as no asserted facts are cited to WP:RS. It can always be re-created if someone is sufficiently moved to write a proper article. For now, it needs to go bye bye. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no reason for deletion provided; just saying not notable doesnt count as a reason. The prod was procedural, the deprod was thanks to the watchful eye of User:DGG. There are 150 results in .gov.au which can make for a reasonable article. In comparison, St Edwards College , which was recently kept (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Edward's_College,_Gosford), only has five results on gov.au. John Vandenberg 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on Gooogle test, a non-notable primary school, and no assertion of notability, per Butseriouslyfolks. Bearian 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect. Except that schools are not explicitly mentioned there, this fails CSD A7. If anyone seriously wants to Keep, edit the article to assert notability. Anomie 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability not asserted, and I suspect this is because the school is not notable. Lankiveil 10:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Gnangarra 11:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lenny Loosejocks
- Lenny Loosejocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Pullyapantsup, Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fails WP:N. Article was flagged with notability concerns six months ago, and still has no sources. McGeddon 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am adding Pullyapantsup, Australia to this nomination. It's the town Lenny Loosejocks "lives" in. Punkmorten 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. --Bill.matthews 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom, also comment that it seems to be a particularly blatant example of [[WP:CRUFT|fancruft], if not outright advertising.--Yeti Hunter 23:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Believe it or not, this does get some hits on Google News Archives. [2] The question is whether it can be rewritten in an encyclopedic article using those sources. Capitalistroadster 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Pullyapantsup, Australia to Lenny Loosejocks or Ezone. Remove / delete gallery of fair use images.Garrie 05:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the game doesn't appear to have any notability. Orderinchaos 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at least Merge/rmv gallery per Garrie Kc4 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep considering that Lenny is a lot more notable then other things on Wikipedia. Comrade Graham 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not other, less notable articles haven't yet been deleted should not be a consideration in a deletion discussion. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) --McGeddon 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is deleted and you feel it justifies a deletion crusade, by all accounts I am prepared to cast my opinion on any article you bring forward to discuss.Garrie 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lenny is in popular Flash Games and Cartoons Comrade Hamish Wilson 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the original concerns. To establish notability you have to use reliable sources...not just say that he is popular. You need to cite sources in the article, which has never been done. --Bill.matthews 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable logo. Needs decent third-party references/sources. Lankiveil 10:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The article is hardly about Lenny as a logo and more as Lenny the character. Kc4 05:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\talk 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Palfrey
- Simon Palfrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
After a month, this page still makes no case for notability, features no citations, orphaned, and little more content than a list of three presumably non-notable books. MrZaiustalk 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn, concerns adequately met. MrZaiustalk 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm reminded of the VISA commercials where they'd talk about some far-off establishment, and give the punch line, "But they won't take American Express." Yes, he is a Rhodes Scholar, but that's about it, and Wikipedia won't take his article. Okay, that joke fell flat. Sorry. YechielMan 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added some references. There are many reviews and descriptions of his books. Being a Rhodes Scholar is not in itself notable, but being a Fellow of an Oxford College could well be notable depending on what the Fellow has done. In this case I suggest his publications meet WP:PROF. It needs more work. If it is not deleted, it will be reasonably easy to add references to this article from other articles. --Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The key concern is that notability still doesn't seem to be backed up by tertiary or secondary sources. All the sources that were added seem to be from his employer, his coauthor's employer, or pitching the book. Do you have any independent sources to back up a case under WP:PROF? MrZaiustalk 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just came across this at AfD and thought that a Fellow of an Oxford University College with several books was likely to be notable. Many Oxford Fellows would be full Professors in another university if they moved, but they choose to stay at Oxford as a College Fellow and University Lecturer. Most of the references I added do not address notability, I agree. They address verifiability. The first confirms he wrote one book. The third confirms the forthcoming book and that it is written with a coaurthor, a colleague in the University Dept of English and a Fellow of another College. The 4th and 5th confirm that he is a Fellow of Brasenose College and some of the statements about his specialty. The second however is an independent review in a reputable journal of the other book mentioned, so that points towards notability. I had hoped that including this in two relevant deletion sorting lists would attract others who know more about him and English studies than I do to add more references. Since they have not, I will look for more sources. --Bduke 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more references including some reviews of his books. There are other reviews, some from countries other than the UK. His books are used in other universities. I can not however find a CV, so much information is missing. However it seems he has a D Phil from Oxford and was at Liverpool University in the 1990s. This article needs work from an expert in this area, but I still think he is notable enough for an article. --Bduke 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.
Does not appear to meet criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). being a Fellow of an Oxford College could well be notable depending on what the Fellow has done, Indeed - so it would depend on what he has done, not on his being a fellow. Has he done anything notable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Additional input meets WP:N[reply]
- It depends whether you think writing books that have been well reviewed and are used in other universities is notable. I think it is although I would like more information about him. How would you judge the books? --Bduke 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please identify exactly which criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is met, and why. Stop with this "How would you judge the books" guff. I would judge the books as lacking any claim to notability. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Well it is question of interpretation of that guideline. The reviews seem to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". He appears to meet "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course". The second point does need referencing in the article, but a Google search shows at least Bristol University uses one of his books. My argument at this stage is simply that it seems valuable encyclopedic material and I would like to see more people improve the article, rather than blanket demands for deletion. --Bduke 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which review seems to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources"? Are you asserting that at least one of his books is a significant and well-known academic work? My argument at this stage is that criteria have been established for notability, and it it reasonable to impose a test against those criteria at any point, not least after a month and a half on wikipedia. Hoping that something better will come along if a non-notable article is left in place would in all cases negate a deletion request based on non-notability; as such it appears to be an illogical argument. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Well it is question of interpretation of that guideline. The reviews seem to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". He appears to meet "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course". The second point does need referencing in the article, but a Google search shows at least Bristol University uses one of his books. My argument at this stage is simply that it seems valuable encyclopedic material and I would like to see more people improve the article, rather than blanket demands for deletion. --Bduke 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Doing Shakespeare is an original and long-overdue resource for theatre scholar-artists" (Ref 3). I do not see someone doing that without being a significant expert. "I cannot think of another critic since Empson who has teased out so much so lucidly and (usually) so persuasively from the intricacies of Shakespearean language" (ref 5). That seems significant to me. It is the basis of at least one course. I did not say leave it in place. I said I wanted an expert to come along and work on it and meant while this AfD is running. If nobody does, it probably will be deleted. I just do not think that makes the encyclopedia any better. I also note that there is considerable disagreement about the notability guidelines, particularly at WP:N. But anyway, I'm leaving it to others to judge the evidence and hopefully provide more. --Bduke 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: took two minutes in JSTOR to find all the reviews anyone could possibly need showing that his books are considered important by the English literature community, and another ten minutes to add references to his enormous contributions to the article. If you're going to say that his books lack any claim to notability, you'll need to look in the journals where these types of books are reviewed. There's where you'll find the notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that. We're not going to say his books are not notable. We were asking whether they are. You have answered the question well enough to sway the argument. And that is one of the things AfD is good for. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Sorry if my tone was harsh -- might be the extraordinary heat where I am now! I know that not everyone has access to JSTOR or a library with Shakespeare Quarterly, etc. However, for English language academics in the humanities and some social sciences, a tiny search on JSTOR can immediately make an editor say "Whoa! This should be a major article, not an AfD!" When I forget that it's not an easily accessed resource, I hope others here will give me a gentle nudge (or a swift kick in the pants). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll blow cool air onto your fevered brow, kindly! --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Sorry if my tone was harsh -- might be the extraordinary heat where I am now! I know that not everyone has access to JSTOR or a library with Shakespeare Quarterly, etc. However, for English language academics in the humanities and some social sciences, a tiny search on JSTOR can immediately make an editor say "Whoa! This should be a major article, not an AfD!" When I forget that it's not an easily accessed resource, I hope others here will give me a gentle nudge (or a swift kick in the pants). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Research before nominating articles for deletion is your friend. Rebecca 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Anas talk? 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chanta Rose
Prodded, but there is refs, procedural listing, No opinion. WooyiTalk to me? 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chanta Rose is a notable figure in the adult industry. She's been in Playboy, has published a book, and was one of the original members of the now world-famous Kink.com network. Keep -ARandomHeretic 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, article is referenced, Kink.com connection further establishes notability, as does the fact that she's published a book. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Publishing a book imparts no notability, especially when the book is itself not notable. Article is largely unreferenced and has been since November 2006, and while that is not in itself an argument for deletion, it would seem to indicate a lack of sources usable for referencing... Valrith 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. She does seem to be widely referenced in the BDSM community,[3] and always referred to as an expert. Her book was recommended in a column by Dan Savage.[4] That's something but only weak. I would be much happier if the article were referenced. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge merged content not already covered into Pippa Ross and left this article as redirect to same. Gnangarra 10:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Fletcher
- Christopher Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
As stated in article: "Throughout his time on the show, Christopher wasn't given very many storylines and only appeared periodically." - non-notable per WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources indicating real world significance. Jay32183 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Home and Away. Sources establishing notability outside the show itself will be difficult to find. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pippa Ross. Provides more scope for giving details of one character who is intrinsically linked to Pippa, yet was a minor consideration to the whole series.Garrie 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per WP:FICT. Minor characters are either treated in the main article or in a separate list of minor characters. Assize 12:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to Home and Away or Pippa Ross; no incoming links (yet) and few web hits. Note that I have just now notified the Conquistador2k6 (talk · contribs) of this Afd. John Vandenberg 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, as per above, I guess. A pretty minor character, all things considered. Lankiveil 10:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep interesting to note the nominator wanted to keep. Gnangarra 11:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nagambie Football Club
- Nagambie Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Team notability per WP:ORG. Oo7565 09:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep yes i know i added this but i was doing it for someone else for senies the prod was contested this team was won many titles week reason i feel sorry for even being it here darn staying up too late sorryOo7565 09:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No secondary sources cited, but no less notable than any of the other teams in the Kyabram & District Football League which also have Wikipedia entries. Deleting this one implies all the others should be slated for AfD. I realise that per the rules of AfD, notability has not been independently established here. But I think this is a case for ignoring the rule (and not making AfD nominations when you're tired and not thinking straight...) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I removed the PROD tag from all the KDFL teams earlier as I thought they should be brought to AfD. I propose that these articles should be kept as per a draft guideline/essay that can be found here - User:Mattinbgn/Sandbox - Notability Australian football leagues and clubs. In short, while the clubs are not notable for the standard of play, they are notable for the social and cultural impact they have had in the towns and surrounding regions. Country football in Victoria at least is reasonably well documented and sources to create a decent article should be able to be found. If the consensus is that the article should be deleted, the content should be merged to Kyabram & District Football League. Other football leagues in Victoria that may bear some revelance to this discussion include Murray Football League, Picola & District Football League and Riddell District Football League and their constituent clubs. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what's at Diggers Rest Football Club other than templates, a link to the town, and a link to the league? Nothing, merge it to Riddell District Football League which is tiny anyway.Garrie 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete every article on {{Kyabram & District Football League}}. None meet WP:CORP or WP:N individually. Most of the material is a list of premiership wins, which would be better at Kyabram & District Football League where it is already listed.Garrie 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Premierships by this football club between 1897 and 1937 (unknown league(s)), the premiership with Waranga North East Football Association in 1938 and the 3 premierships with Goulburn Valley Football League in 1939, 1946, 1947 are not listed at Kyabram & District Football League. The existence and composition of leagues varies over time, but football clubs such as this have longer and separate historys - 110 years in this case.--Melburnian 02:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into an article on the league, and do the same with the rest of the teams in this league. The league itself is probably notable, especially given the longevity of some of the clubs involved. But the individual teams themselves... probably not. Lankiveil 10:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Journo's diary
- Journo's diary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No sources. Non-notable author. Only links to this article were from Bridget Jones's Diary and Adrian Mole and Ben Elton, the author of this article having written weasel statements to link the works. User repeatedly removed valid tags from article, and restored the weasel statements to the other articles, suggesting a conflict of interest. Drat (Talk) 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - only 41 GHits, and none of them appear reliable. --Haemo 00:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Haemo. Fails WP:BK badly; vanity press book (sold on Vanity Press Distributors!) whose author is non-notable to the point that he hasn't even bothered to plonk down $15 for a domain name. Wikipedia is not for getting attention; it's for things that have already got attention from reliable sources. --Charlene 01:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable author and no reliable sources. Oysterguitarist~Talk 03:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus was that it did not meet WP:WEB. — OcatecirT 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invasion3042
Non-notable website, only two Google hits, and one of them is the site's page itself. I nominated this for speedy deletion, but an anon removed the tag without explanation, so I'm forced to come here. Corvus cornix 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
I would be that Anon. A player of the game the page is about, and I beg your pardon on missing wikipedia etiquette as this is my first time change/editing/altering anything on here. We're trying to have a base wiki to help inform people about the game, and as a resource for fast information about the game as the need arises. There are five tons of information, technical and fluff about the game, all of that we plan to edit in, as for now, we're just getting the ball rolling.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs).
- Speedy You're not supposed to use wikipedia as a promotional tool Corpx 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the aim is mostly aimed at having a page for quick information, when needed. What would be your thoughts on making less add like?
I created this page as one of the players, not one of the people coding or working on the game. I noticed that there are references to many online battltech games and I decided that this one should be referenced as well. The game is non-profit and therefore the page wouldn't be advertising. The page would simply show what the game is, how it is played, and possibly in the future, history of in game happenings or changes such as war etc. This game allows people to play classic battletech with others in an online environment and the wiki may alert classic battletech fans of a way in which they could play their beloved game. -InvaderC1 00:52, 23 June 2007 (PST)
- Comment The best thoughts you will find on making it less like an advertisement are at WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. There's valuable stuff on those pages. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this article should not be deleted as there is no profit involved, its just a way for people to know that their favourite hobby has an online counterpart with which they could partake in User WingedPuma 08:58, 23 June 2007 GMT
just becuase its not on google doesnt mean its not relevant to the battletech communit. Is it your rule that only popular information gets on here? Not much of a wiki if that is the case. - jamesD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I dont think being a non-profit makes a difference in this case. The site's even soliciting donations. I also notice that there's a wiki on that site. That should be the place where you can put all the game details/how to play etc. Its currently not notable enough to be on wikipedia though. Corpx 08:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If thats the case then i can suggest about 5 others that would be in the same category. look at the other links where Invasion3042 is listed - would they not be the same? JamesD (as for solicting donations, i wonder hwo amny other wikipedia listings accept donations or talk of a commercial product? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
Alright, but what about all of the other battletech games with pages. As an example, on the list of battletech games page, there is several online games there as well with wikipedia entries. If we made our page look similar to theirs, could our page stay on wikipedia? This page I use as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_BattleTech_3025 --InvaderC1 08:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that game has more notability due to the involvement of EA & Microsoft, but that's just my opinion. Corpx 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The fact that there exist other articles of questionable notability on Wikipedia does not affect the notability of this one. And by the generally accepted notability standards for Wikipedia (which, by the way, is an encyclopedia, and is not a social networking tool or a place to seek publicity), there is not a shred of notability evidenced by this article. If you have significant coverage in reliable sources, we'll talk. Regards, Iknowyourider (t c) 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so its because they are mega multinationsals is it? didnt they have to start somewhere too? i think this stinks of hypocrasy and an obvious attempt to discourage wiki involvement - JamesD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
- "JamesD", please, please, please read those notability guidelines. We practice what we preach here. Before you accuse anyone of hypocrisy, you should make yourself aware of exactly what we preach. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so that game has major corporations as backing. Are you suggesting that only people with money behind their projects are worthy of a wiki page? This is all centered around giving people information about outlets for the classic battletech game. Our page is not meant as an advertisment and we aren't forcing people to play it. What would you suggest our page needs?--InvaderC1 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again its not about the money, but rather about the notability. A major corporation like EA/Microsoft doing something would gain much more notoriety than if I had done the same thing. Corpx 08:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest it needs notability. And even if you had that, it would still need to be written from a neutral point of view. Read. Please. It's good for you. Regards, Iknowyourider (t c) 08:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so just because EA is big they can have a wiki about their game but because invasion is small they cannot?
- (edit conflict) To be perfectly frank, that just about sums it up perfectly. Simply replace the word "big" with "notable" Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so we just need someone notable to reference the game then or what? The game is also used by US servicemen to relieve stress. It has it's good sides, and of course we can mention other things. --InvaderC1 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could build a bigger base for the game (without using wikipedia to promote it) and get mentions in gaming magazines/major review sites etc to get notability. Corpx 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so just because EA is big they can have a wiki about their game but because invasion is small they cannot?
- Short answer - Yes. If this game gets big and notable, it can have an article. Corpx
Alright, so we just need someone notable to reference the game then or what? The game is also used by US servicemen to relieve stress. It has it's good sides, and of course we can mention other things. --InvaderC1 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the game is endorsed officially by the US army to relieve stress, then it would be a notable reference. Actions by individual servicemen/women does not constitute notability Corpx 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, please define "big", how many players would be needed for it to be commonplace? - JamesD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
- "Big" enough to be directly mentioned in gaming mazines/review sites/other media. Corpx 08:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "big". It's notable. PLEASE read that article. Essentially, you need media coverage. Preferably in multiple sources. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Battletech was big and is the basis of the game. Wouldn't the fact that it was a well known board game and is the entire basis of this game be notibility? --InvaderC1 08:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Battletech's notability only applies to Battletech Corpx 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Sorry. That's how it is. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (double edit conflict!) :No, not any more than if I built a board game based on Battletech tonight. Being based on something notable doesn't make a game notable. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming Magazines don't mention anything thats not major label, or that they're not paid substantially to mention. Also: building and programing a game, and paying for the infrastructure to support it isn't exactly a basement project. - James B—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
- To put it frankly, that's your problem. Your goal is to publicize your game; Wikipedia's is to build an encyclopedia. The fact that they don't intersect shouldn't surprise you as much as it does. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But could it be used as a reference to perhaps increase the strength of our weak article? And as for review sites, if we had enough people review us would that help for notibility? --InvaderC1 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if said review sites qualified as reliable sources. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have your mind made up that its not going to fit in wikipedia no matter what I say, sorry to waste your time - JamesD
- Comment. This forum is for a discussion of whether or not an article should be deleted. If you want to discuss our guidelines and policy more extensively, or solicit help in creating an article that meets them, we should take this to your talk page. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for notibility, the game is on www.mpogd.com to be voted for as the top online game of the month. There is a website mentioning the game with a neutral point of view about the game.--InvaderC1 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The game will now also have the notibility of having a debate marked on two wikipedia entries.--InvaderC1 08:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- InvaderC1, I've left a comment on your talk page about this. I would like to encourage you to read it, and also please read the page found here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To what Invader says, I'd like to add that the website he linked is a community kept reviews and rating site, and for the subject at hand is a reliable and mostly objective source of information regarding this sort of game. -James B
Alright, I need sleep. My closing point is that I simply wanted to add to wikipedia something that I deemed was missing. The message sent to me indicates that we are able to, and will try again at this endeavor. For now, it looks like the game needs to make a name for itself first, or receive endorsement from a credible source.--InvaderC1 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! That is exactly correct. Rock on. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote notibility and deletion: "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Further, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may garner more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." James B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
- Put very simply: So far, no one has demonstrated that the game is in any way an even mildly significant part of the sum of human knowledge. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- James, I don't see that quote in WP:NOTE. Could you link to where you see it? The relevant part I've been trying to point out is this: "Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. [...] A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote, actually was found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_and_deletion
And in response to Iknowyourider: The context of that quote is to illustrate that anything, however insignificant or non-notable at one given time may be at a later date, and conversation and old information about a given topic lost due to deletion could later prove to be interesting, notable, and valuable(In a non-monetary sense). If the game, in ten years, has five hundred thousand players, the game mechanics when the game was first introduced would likey vary greatly, and be of much interest to those five hundred thousand. A second key point is that, simply put, no one uninterested in this has to look at it, ever. Unless they're looking through at the classic battle tech wiki, or searching invasion 3042 specifically, they are likely never to see it. Or perhaps if they are looking for new posts. Also, the article is less than twenty four hours old, and is still being announced to the attached community, to be developed into a more mature an informational page. 67.187.2.188 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)James B67.187.2.188 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- James, at the top of that page you will find this notice: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." Certainly there are editors here at Wikipedia who feel that way, but it is not the policy. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another point, which I made on InvaderC1's talk page, is: do not panic! Even if the article is deleted, you can recreate it. The information won't just "disappear". However, because of the nature of the subject matter, you should probably get some consensus from editors here before moving it to the main site: I suggest developing the article at his talk page in the meantime. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to meet criteria for web notability. No evidence for notability asserted in the article, nor likely to be forthcoming. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the author seems to have requested page deletion on his talk page, so the article now meets a second speedy criteria, in case the first speedy is declined. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what we have here is a fairly new editor and an extreme question of notability. Would a userfy be in order if any of the creators want to do the work behind it? (For the newer editors, see WP:USERFY to understand it. It's especially important to note that a userfied article is intended to be worked on, it's not a substitute to "get" your article "in" by having it in userspace.) But it might be a better solution, if there is a good faith desire to build on the article's notability.
So will this article be moved to a private page where all of the users can add onto it while the game gains notibility until we can move it to the mainstream, or will we have to start over anew?--InvaderC1 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can move it yourself, keeping all the text that is currently there. Go to the page, then click the 'move' tab at the top. Rename it as something like User:InvaderC1/Invasion3042 and you will have the page in your own user space, where you and others can edit it as you wish. Post here or on my talk page if you need more advice on how to do this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no evidence of notability or coverage in secondary sources. Kevin 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on Userifying it. Thanks for clearing this up in a respectful manner. InvaderC1 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well... I know I am new to wikipedia and everything so I know most of you will probably disregard my arguement before I even start typing,but here goes... I was asked to help build the wikipedia page for the Clans of Invasion3042. The Clans are actually a group of just 17 of the 39 factions in this game and actually were the term Invasion3042 comes from... since that is the year that the 4 of the clans (in official Battletech History) invaded the Inner Sphere. the whole purpose for building the Wikipedia page is of course so that people that are interested in Battletech will see this as an online alternative to the boardgame. and actually this game was as an alternative to another online battletech game that had strayed too far from what the community wanted. so the Community stood up and did something about it. Yes.. this game is still in Beta phase. but it has an expansive Roleplaying community and that community makes use of a WEALTH of "secondary sources". We use the battletech sourcebooks and Novels for the official backstory. but when you add roleplayers to that established enviroment and let them loose... the established history differs from the history in the game. There are currently several forums around the internet for the 39 factions in the game.. each faction currently has up to 70 individual players. so you can see that that is alot of history to keep track of. all we ask is to be able to record our little bit of history.. True this might not apply to everyone.. but we have players from over 20 countries that are working and playing together... this is not just a dozen kids and the game they came up with on recess. It will be great to have the history of the game and the universe we had created recorded for those that come later.--Rianna Rose 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia's guideline at WP:WEB, and try to see if your forum meets the criteria there. Corvus cornix 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm not sure how being programmed in C# gives this a heavy case of notability. Actually, I wonder if a heavy case of notability is contagious, because it sure sounds nasty. Anyway, this site fails WP:WEB fairly comprehensively. Sorry guys. Lankiveil 10:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Agree with above comment about letting them move this information to their own wiki Q T C 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus noting that there is substancial keep opinion voiced they arent necessarily a comprehensive keep all, the delete opinions are of a similar note. Gnangarra 12:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yves Makabu-Makalambay
- Yves Makabu-Makalambay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
- Michael Woods (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lee Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Craig Cathcart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mark Randall (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Armand Traoré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stephen Darby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Craig Lindfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andy Barcham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dorian Dervitte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Scott Jamieson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
*Keep I don't know much about soccer, but it appears all of these players are a part of a professional soccer team. Henceforce, they are notable. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Please see note below[reply]- No. A player must have played in a professional league, not just be a benchwarmer never making an appearence. Mattythewhite 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering they are a part of the team, which is professional, they will, at some point play, which will automatically guarantee notability. Why delete just to recreate? Waste of time. Whether he has physically played or not is irrelevant to me. He's on the team, he's listed on the official roster as being a reserve player, which means he can go in at any time. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the players who play for big clubs be kept? And why should players for smaller clubs be deleted? Injustice. Mattythewhite 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I don't understand your question? You are kind of proving our point. Guidelines state that if it's a professional club, or even the highest amateur level, it's notable. These guys are on a professional level, and should be kept --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". Note played. It means actually having made an appearence. Mattythewhite 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't we already go over this a few lines up? /sigh --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did we? Where. Well you're wrong, they don't pass notability. Mattythewhite 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- /sigh. I !voted keep. You said they didn't pass notability because they didn't play in the professional league yet, they are just benchwarmers. Then I replied and explained my reasoning. Then you bring up the played issue again. Hence why I said "didn't we go over this" I would think someone could someone could miss that if it was a large discussion, but geesh it's only a few lines up --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then.... they fail notability. Sorry about repeating myself, but they fail! Mattythewhite 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- /sigh. I !voted keep. You said they didn't pass notability because they didn't play in the professional league yet, they are just benchwarmers. Then I replied and explained my reasoning. Then you bring up the played issue again. Hence why I said "didn't we go over this" I would think someone could someone could miss that if it was a large discussion, but geesh it's only a few lines up --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did we? Where. Well you're wrong, they don't pass notability. Mattythewhite 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't we already go over this a few lines up? /sigh --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". Note played. It means actually having made an appearence. Mattythewhite 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I don't understand your question? You are kind of proving our point. Guidelines state that if it's a professional club, or even the highest amateur level, it's notable. These guys are on a professional level, and should be kept --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the players who play for big clubs be kept? And why should players for smaller clubs be deleted? Injustice. Mattythewhite 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering they are a part of the team, which is professional, they will, at some point play, which will automatically guarantee notability. Why delete just to recreate? Waste of time. Whether he has physically played or not is irrelevant to me. He's on the team, he's listed on the official roster as being a reserve player, which means he can go in at any time. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP for Michael Woods. He has played for England at U17 level and has made two appearances in FA Cup games for Chelsea last season. If you delete him now, the article will need to be replaced very soon, probably next season as he has a very promising career ahead of him. I have no opinion on the other players. --Vivenot 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. A player must have played in a professional league, not just be a benchwarmer never making an appearence. Mattythewhite 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom unless it can be demonstrated that they have indeed played at the professional level. Keeping because they "probably will play someday in the future" is conferring notability via speculation and is inappropriate - the claim that "it may become notable" could be speculatively applied to anything. Arkyan • (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be advised that WP:BIO is a guideline. Considering the fact that he is 1) on the roster of the team, it's acceptable in my opinion for this to be kept. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought Without looking this up, and just going from my gut...do you think that there have been articles on players who were drafted into the NFL (or the like) and haven't yet played? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment & Keep Take a look at the 2007 NFL Draft article. Here's an example of one player drafted's article:Jermon Bushrod. Granted WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here, however these players are the equivalent of the draftees for the NFL this past season. Wildthing61476 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I did some more information on everyone, by reading up on their articles and doing cross references. Please read and review this, as my opinion has changed ecause all have stablished notability with some exceptions, according to the articles.
- Michael Woods - Has played in a professional game. Per his article: making him the fourth-youngest player to ever play for Chelsea as he was 16 years and 275 days old on that day. He came on as a substitute for Frank Lampard in the 79th minute -- KEEP
- Lee Sawyer - article says Played in England U18's. Don't see anything else really -- DELETE
- Craig Cathcart - Team captain of Manchester_United_F.C., which is a professional club -- UNDECIDED on this one, could go either way
- Mark Randall - Has played in 7 professional games, per his article: Randall signed for Arsenal on schoolboy forms and played seven matches in the FA Premier Reserve League in 2005-06. -- KEEP
- Armand Traoré - Has played in 6 professional games, per his article: making six appearances in the FA Premier Reserve League in 2005-06, -- KEEP
- Stephen Darby - Plays for Liverpool_F.C. and played in the FA Youth Cup, which it seems is a youth professional club -- KEEP
- Craig Lindfield - Plays for Liverpool_F.C. and played in the FA Youth Cup, per his article: Lindfield is a striker who was part of Liverpool's FA Youth Cup winning side of 2006, scoring 7 goals in the competition -- KEEP
- Andrew Barcham - Plays for Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C., and per his article He made 19 appearances for the reserve team, including 15 starts and scored a vital goal in the key win against Arsenal that gave Tottenham an initiative in the title race. -- KEEP
- Dorian Dervitte - Plays for Tottenham_Hotspur_FC, and per his article On 14 July 2006, he scored the first goal of his Tottenham career on his debut appearance in a pre-season friendly for the Spurs XI team in a 7-1 win against Enfield Town. Obviously he has played if he scored a goal. -- KEEP
- Scott Jamieson - Played in the 2005_FIFA_U-17_World_Championship, per his article: He has represented Australia at U-17 level and was a member of Australia's squad for the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship. -- KEEP
- Yves Makabu-Makalambay - Ehh, I could go either way on this, if you go strictly by the BIO guideline, then technically he's not notable -- Abstain from a vote
--sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a few clarifications here: Firstly, I don't understand why you think Sawyer's England Under-18 cap is non-notable, but Jamieson's Australian Under-17 one is. Secondly, Catchcart is the captain of Manchester United's youth team. Thirdly, friendly games, youth team games and reserve team games are not first-team games, and therefore are non-notable. I don't think Mattythewhite is disputing that they've played a game of football at some point in their careers!
- Well I don't know much about the U18 things...is it professional league? I say it's notable for Jamieson because he played in the FIFA world cup (ie: super bowl of soccer yes?) --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He played in the under-17 world championship (very different from the FIFA World Cup!). I don't think it denotes notability.. Mattythewhite 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I don't know much about the U18 things...is it professional league? I say it's notable for Jamieson because he played in the FIFA world cup (ie: super bowl of soccer yes?) --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In past AFds, generally players have been kept if they have made an appearance for the first team of their club, be it in the league or cup. None of these players have made appearances for their club in league competition, but Randall, Traore, Woods, Barcham and Dervitte have all played for their clubs in cup competitions. It should be noted that the clubs these players play for frequently put out weakened sides in cup competitions, and that's something you might want to take into consideration. At present, I abstain from voting, but may return later. HornetMike 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a few clarifications here: Firstly, I don't understand why you think Sawyer's England Under-18 cap is non-notable, but Jamieson's Australian Under-17 one is. Secondly, Catchcart is the captain of Manchester United's youth team. Thirdly, friendly games, youth team games and reserve team games are not first-team games, and therefore are non-notable. I don't think Mattythewhite is disputing that they've played a game of football at some point in their careers!
- Strong Keep they all have squad numbers at Premiership clubs, in most cases very big clubs. ArtVandelay13 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally Armand Traore has played in the League Cup Final. ArtVandelay13 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the big Premiership clubs get special treatment? Football isn't just about the "big" clubs. Mattythewhite 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a precedent was set with (possibly before) this nomination ("Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles"), in fact I've never seen a player with a squad number at any league club be successfully deleted, although it's not unreasonable that those at bigger clubs would stand a better chance, this is about notability, after all. P.S. How do you square these nominations with your creation of Neal Bishop, ten days ago? (I'm not looking for Bishop to be deleted either, as he will clearly be a first-team squad member). ArtVandelay13 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes.. as you said, I made him as he is looking to be a first-team regular at Barnet; and these nominations clearly aren't. But thats just speculation if anything really from me.. Mattythewhite 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, under similarly stringent rules as those set by this nomination, that would fail WP:CRYSTAL. But it would be mad to delete him, just as it would be mad to delete these - these players are first-team squad members in Premiership, and often Champions League clubs, so they're going to appear on squad and team lists in a lot of major media sources, and people are going to want to find out more. Additionally, it makes Wikipedia's squad lists incomplete, and I fail to see that as any sort of benefit. ArtVandelay13 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes.. as you said, I made him as he is looking to be a first-team regular at Barnet; and these nominations clearly aren't. But thats just speculation if anything really from me.. Mattythewhite 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a precedent was set with (possibly before) this nomination ("Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles"), in fact I've never seen a player with a squad number at any league club be successfully deleted, although it's not unreasonable that those at bigger clubs would stand a better chance, this is about notability, after all. P.S. How do you square these nominations with your creation of Neal Bishop, ten days ago? (I'm not looking for Bishop to be deleted either, as he will clearly be a first-team squad member). ArtVandelay13 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - given the diverse comments about individual entries here, I would suggest that having them in a group AfD is probably not the best idea. At this point it would probably be beneficial to close this discussion and renominate each player individually to be judged on their own merits. Otherwise this is more than likely to end up being closed "No Consensus" in a few days anyway. Arkyan • (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with Arkyan, these should be moved to individual nominations. Also some of the reasoning given above has no relevance to football, and seems to be based upon little or no knowledge of the sport and seems to be based upon other sports, where different circumstances apply.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, this AfD is turning into a cluster and should be closed and the articles re-nominated separately. I think it's great that (unlike a lot of people who !vote in AfDs) sumnjim has put a lot of thought into his !votes, but his reasoning clearly demonstrates that he isn't particuarly clued up on football......... ChrisTheDude 20:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commentIndeed, the effort put in by sumnjim should be applauded even with by their own admission little knowledge of football.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blush Thanks guys, but being from the United States I call it soccer :) True, I'm not up to par with soccer like I am with American Sports, but I think I did a reasonably decent job of trying to assert notability Have a nice day. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. The fact that they all have squad numbers at prestigious, top-level clubs means that they are notable enough. I watch the squad templates, and have noticed that Arsenal and Liverpool, in particular, are careful to only include notable players. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The three Chelsea players may well have squad numbers but that is as part of the Reserve squad rather than the First team squad. They are not listed as being part of the Chelsea First team squad. They are listed in their Reserve Squad only.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But squad numbers are only used in first-team football. If a player has a squad number, then it's an acknowledgement that they're part of the first team squad; available for selection (Sawyer was on the bench in the last league game of the season). ArtVandelay13 23:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Woods, Darby, Barcham, Dervitte and Lindfield as they play for pro league teams. The others I will remain neutral.--JForget 22:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although checking back the articles, most of them are part of big teams such as Manchester United, Liverpool F.C, Arsenal and Chelsea - so weak keep for the remainder of the noms.--JForget 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Close this AfD and relist in smaller groups. But my own opinion is, sitting on the bench for a professional match counts as playing.Garrie 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cathcart. He is the captain of the Manchester United F.C. Reserve team and was named as an unused substitute for a few games at the end of the 2006-07 season. - PeeJay 02:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Darby & Lindfield. Both have professional contracts with Liverpool FC and have first team squad numbers which appear on the back of the first team Programmes. Both are registered with UEFA and are eligible to play champions league football. Winning back to back FA youth cups is a notable event. Playing for your country at any level is a notable event.TammyDog 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I always thought it was acceptable to have articles for players in squads where the rest of the squad has an article and meet notability. I can't find the page with this guideline on but I'm sure someone can clarify whether this is a valid reason to keep these articles. Dave101→talk 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for Yves Makabu-Makalambay. His transfer to Hibs is even on page 2 in the Belgian sports journal Sportwereld. Karma-AH 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep all as they are on the squads of teams where almost all have articles per "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles". Dave101→talk 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Although the player doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements, he's likely to make his professional debut shortly. U-21 international, who made the CL squad, notable ebough for me. BanRay 10:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lindfield & Darby, for the reasons suggested by TammyDog; winning back-to-back F.A. Youth Cups constitutes a notable event. Univalonso 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sr13 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Dale (author)
- David Dale (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article was written by David Dale himself and as such cannot be unbiased. Foobaz·o< 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as WP:COI and copyvio, copying text from publisher Allen & Unwin. -- Rob C (Alarob) 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy as (poor & puffy) WP:AUTObiography--ZayZayEM 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there seem to be few independent sources corroborating notability. I don't see how it's speedy-eligible, myself. WP:AUTO is not even a valid deletion argument, let alone part of WP:CSD. I don't find the supposed copyvio source, either (the text Alarub seems to refer to is merely dressing for a link to a capsule bio shorter than our own). --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've cleaned up the article. A google search can show that he does contribute to the Sydney Morning Herald [5], and his published works are enough to push him to notability. Sources do need to be added. Recurring dreams 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - wikihistory shows that people have previously created their own BLP's and those BLP's have been upheld if notable and sourced. Just fyi and not endorsing that practice. Piperdown 12:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and source as per recurring dreams. Notable Australian journalist and writer. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well published author, widely distrubuted newspaper columns, presents at writers workshops, sits on judging panels for awards. I think he meets criteria. Garrie 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:COI problems seem to have been fixed. Subject is notable per GarrieIrons. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have the copyvio complaints been resolved? MrZaiustalk 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleteapparent WP:COI not addressed, WP:RS concerns not addressed, hence notability not established. Gnangarra 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TradingPlaces
- TradingPlaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Doesn't appear to present reliable sources to meet notability standards for web content. The article was also created by Tradingplaces (talk · contribs), suggesting a conflict of interest. Google search did not turn up sources. Wafulz 03:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Below are a list of online links which make reference to TradingPlaces
http://thesource.gov.au/find/career/documents/youthleap.doc
http://www.finsoc.unsw.edu.au/
http://www.perthpcug.org.au/memberslinks.html
http://clubs.uow.edu.au/websites/finance/
http://www.herman.com.au/
http://www.travismorien.com/FAQ/links.htm
http://media.arts.unsw.edu.au/s1-2002/1000/webassignurls.html
http://www.down.co.il/cgi-bin/searching?search=TRADING%20PLACES&get=sites&count2=3
http://www.ansearch.com.au/directory/au/Business_and_Finance/Online_Banking/atoz_T/page3.html
http://directory.infochoice.com.au/Investment/Superannuation/page32.html
http://www1.trading-8748fd.mo.az.pl/
- Making references to the subject and writing about the subject are two different things. We need some sort of publishings that are independent, of a non-trivial length, and are primarily about TradingPlaces.--Wafulz 11:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepneed some sort of publishings that are independent, of a non-trivial length, and are primarily about TradingPlaces - these things should have been discussed in the talk section of an article which is being actively edited rather than being bought to AfD. I see this software as notable for it's widespread use in Australian education sector. Garrie 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The best way to prove that there are sources is to provide sources. We don't define notability based on an arbitrary definition of "widespread" use.--Wafulz 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree that the article fails WP:NOTE. I couldn't find even a newspaper article on the software. Articles needs reliable secondary sources to be kept. Assize 11:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. This clearly isn't notable.--cj | talk 05:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monterey Boulevard
- Monterey Boulevard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
PROD deletion contested, so the page has been restored. But IMHO the reasons for it's PROD deletion still stand. Non-notable local road. TexasAndroid 12:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, non-notable road. No references cited. Hut 8.5 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly nn. JJL 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reasons listed for notability do not in fact convey notability, and no sources. Capmango 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Had it really been a site for illegal racing, there ought to be reliable sources mentioning such incidents, but there are not. Hence it's not a notable road.--Kylohk 15:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable thoroughfare - see [6] for a map. Articles should only exist for major thoroughfares. Orderinchaos 14:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Orderinchaos. No sources and it is unlikely that non-trivial sources establishing the notability of the road will be found. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not really a notable road. If hooning is good enough to get onto Wikipedia, then my street definitely qualifies. No sources either. Initial reasons for the prodding were definitely valid. Lankiveil 11:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back To The 80's!(musical)
- Back To The 80's!(musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article does not assert notability. This appears to be a minor musical licensed mainly to schools. — MusicMaker 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Appears not to have had any notable productions. -- Ssilvers 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete to start with the current format of the article belongs at Wikisource not Wikipedia. Secondly, it's unreferenced. Thirdly, it doesn't mention anything encyclopedic. Garrie 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but only if someone cleans it up. I have a suspicion the content on the page at the moment is plagiarised however, if so, delete in accordance with wikipedia's plagiarism policy. Flage 122.148.36.229 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, large parts of this article seem to be a copyvio from here. Lankiveil 03:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hatpin (musical)
- The Hatpin (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
NN musical. In the process of being rewritten and may at some point deserve inclusion in WP. — MusicMaker 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No notable productions. -- Ssilvers 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. -- Steve Hart 16:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
St. Edward's College, Gosford
- St. Edward's College, Gosford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non notable school 2good2btrue 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)— 2good2btrue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The school appears notable, but the article is crying out for a rewrite. Orderinchaos 10:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough, and the Central Coast Express should cover WP:RS Recurring dreams 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I'm having no luck scaring up a source demonstrating notability, although it's late and I'm lazy, so I'm sure there must be something out there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gosford, New South Wales per WP:LOCAL.Garrie 00:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, as notability is not even asserted, and WP:V, as no facts are cited to WP:RS. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, sufficient coverage to become a decent article. Web search also provides more.[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] John Vandenberg 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per refs found by John Vandenberg. --Oakshade 00:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Rebecca 02:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep There is no consensus here to move or redirect, but there is no ban on doing so as an editorial decision at any time. DES (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The House at Riverton
- The House at Riverton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This appears to be a non-notable book, by a previously unknown author, and essentially publisher's spam Grahamec 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It does seem a little early, to list as notable a book that has barely appeared, if it is in the stores at all. Brianyoumans 03:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot claim to fame... non notable... if it was a best seller or had a lot of pre-publicity energy...Balloonman 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to keep and possibly rename as book appears to be best seller in australia per link below.Balloonman 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax and patent nonsense. --TWENCIL4 08:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a hoax.Weak Keep, based on research below. Lankiveil 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC). Kate Morton is a real Australian writer, but her debut (and by the looks of it only) novel is entitled "The Shifting Fog" ([12] [13]). By the plot summary, "The Shifting Fog" might be the same book as the one in this article, but it's hardly conclusive. Even if real, and looking past the fact that this article is under the wrong title, I'm not sure that the book is quite notable enough, yet. Lankiveil 10:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- note - at this point article was renamed from "The house at riverton" to "The House at Riverton".
- Comment [15] [16] The book has two different titles, it seems - one published by Allen & Unwin (Shifting Fog) and the other by Pan MacMillan (The House at Riverton). The information about Richard and Judy is verified from the UK newspaper The Guardian. The author Kate Morton appears to be notable from The Courier-Mail, Sydney Morning Herald etc, however I'm not sure that her book actually meets the criteria, unless the Richard & Judy thing causes it to do so.
I am not voting as I can't decide, but thought I'd present my findings.Have voted below. Orderinchaos 10:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Comment Definitely not a hoax. Has ISBN number 0330448447. There seems to be a number of reviews in reliable Australian magazines which would make them notable. Assize 10:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there are two books by this name [17]. Assize, do you have links for those magazine articles? John Vandenberg 11:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No unfortunately. I looked at her website at http://www.katemorton.com/default.asp?z=8 and got those usual puff piece reviews. One of them was the Womens Weekly. Anyway, the book looks significant as I assume that Richard and Judy is a TV show in the UK. Assize 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom. Fails criteria in WP:BK.--Edtropolis 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect seems to be the best solution to a second release under a new title of the previously released novel.Garrie 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Move to The Shifting Fog. There are 46 Google News Archives hits for it [18] including this [19] that states it has been a bestseller in Australia and been sold in 13 countries. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Capitalistroadster. John Vandenberg 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Channel 4 is a major British TV channel, it has been featured on a show there, so that is some kind of notability. Others have cited other instance of it being noted. If it is a re-release of a previous title for which an article already exists, then Redirect. Hu 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to The Shifting Fog per Capitalistroadster and others. Orderinchaos 05:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand with properly sourced information. It's a new book - apparently just came out a week or two ago. Search hits at booksellers (eg: Amazon.com) and reviews (here). ISBN = 0330448447 / 978-0330448444. Article seems to shows promise for improvements. Seems premature to nominate for deletion at this point. Perhaps if the book flops and proves non-notable, and nobody even attempts to improve the article, then re-submit for deletion. Patience is a virtue. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect and possible merge to AC/DC. Most of the keep arguments fail to address the issue of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The relevant portions of this article can be merged at editorial discretion, the edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AC/DC in popular culture
- AC/DC in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete This is the third nomination for this article, but I hope those who are going to look at that fact and be inclined to !vote "keep" because it has survived previous AFDs will look at the article and at the quality of the "keep" arguments. In the 1st AFD, two of the four keepers appealed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX, arguing that if this article is deleted then other similar articles would also be deleted. In the 2nd, three out of the four "keeps" were based on the notion that the article could be improved and the other keeper at least partially agreed with the nomination. As to why this article should be deleted, it falls under WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:AVTRIVIA. The mere presence of something that AC/DC did or that a character in a movie is dressed like a member of AC/DC or that someone drew a picture of an AC/DC member for an album cover for another band tells us nothing about AC/DC or the thing in which AC/DC appears or the real world. The fact that a character wears an AC/DC t-shirt or regrets missing an AC/DC concert is trivial and again tells us nothing about the band, the fiction it's drawn from or the real world. A strong consensus has emerged that it is not notable that an artist covered another artist's song and over a dozen lists of such cover songs have been deleted. The only part of this article that is encyclopedic is the list of tribute albums, and I have preserved that in List of AC/DC tribute albums and located it where it belongs in Category:Tribute albums. This article is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. Otto4711 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia. The band AC/DC is part of popular culture. Some of the entries in this article are really about ac/dc current!! --Charlene 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that need for cleanup is not a ground for deletion - often crap ends up in articles which simply should not be there, but the subject itself is notable of an article and a decent article *can* be written. Orderinchaos 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is sourced and most of the references appear relevant. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that an article is sourced does not mean that the rest of WIkipolicies don't apply. Simply saying "it's sourced" does not address the policy violations asserted in the nomination. "Relevant" does not appear to have any foundation in policy or guidelines. Otto4711 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I think "relevant" was in reference to your nom, which asserts that many of the references to AC/DC are not relevant to the band. It would also seem pertinent to WP:AVTRIVIA, since that which is trivial is presumably non-relevant. -- Visviva 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article covers a specific area of knowledge about AC/DC and its influences to culture during the last 30+ years just like the Beatles, Elvis Presley and Beethoven this is notable beyond the genre of Music. All claim of fact are referenced, its even notable to enough for Rolling Stone to recognise AC/DC infleunces in popular culture. Gnangarra 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That similar articles may exist about other acts is not a valid justification for this article. Jimi Hendrix, Aerosmith, The Who and Rush all had an influence on pop culture but articles filled with this sort of stuff were deleted for them. This article does not in any way establish AC/DC's influence on pop culture. It establishes that there have been a few instances of people mentioning AC/DC or dressing up like someone from AC/DC in movies or TV shows. In almost every instance noted, some other band could have been substituted and it would have made absolutely no difference. Otto4711 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please dont put words in my mouth or try to refactor what I'm saying, I said "The article covers a specific area of knowledge about AC/DC and its influences to culture during the last 30+ years" I didn't say xxx has an article so this one should, referencing demonstrates Notability together woth Verfiability the sources are reliable the indiscriminate unsourced pieces were removed during the previous AfD, but then you know this as you initiate the second nomination a week after the first AfD closed and have now started a third, I suggest that you go and read the policy WP:POINT and since your demanding further policy considerations also read WP:CIVIL and respect the opinions of others. 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of civil, falsely accusing people of violating POINT or CIVIL just because they disagree with you and expect you to be able to defend your statements is in itself highly uncivil. I respect your right to have your opinion but I also disagree with it and I will continue to challenge it. If you don't like having your opinion challenged then you should probably reconsider participating in these sorts of discussions. Otto4711 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As someone who actually normally opposes "popular culture" articles and sections, the AC/DC "brand", if you will, is widespread and distinctive enough in the 34 years they've been recording to actually have one. Reliable sources do not appear to be a problem. Apart from Jimi, I'd have voted delete on the ones Otto cited. Orderinchaos 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just a trivia fork. Lots of other notable subjects have had these type of articles deleted, and we don't need to list every single thing about a band to have an article. Just widdle down the cruft and merge anything needed to the main article. There is no reason for this fork to exist. Biggspowd 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per other "In popular culture" articles that have passed through here recently. If the content had been suitably encyclopaedic, it would have stayed contained in the main AC/DC article. - fchd 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no different than most other popular culture articles. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the references which say "still shot on imdb.com" are a true reference. They are original research. A reference would be to an article discussing how (eg) Jack Black looks like Angus Young when he wears a schoolboy uniform styled outfit. BTW: Abstaining, because WP:ILIKEIT is no reason to !vote Keep.Garrie 00:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep, although there are still some legitimate issues with some of the references, overall this seems like an example of what articles like this should be. -- Visviva 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - this is really not sufficiently encyclopaedic in its own right as an article. Anything relevant in it is already in other articles, or should be moved there by those above concerned enough to become emotional about the topic. Agnetha1234 07:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete by Blnguyen. WjBscribe 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left Alliance (Australia)
- Left Alliance (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Verifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the
National Broad Leftor National Union of Students.--JForget 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per nomination. Factions which have been documented independently of the NUS should be mentioned at that article. Filling the NUS article up with a list of short-lived factions that didn't really get off the ground, won't be improving it.Garrie 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if there is any evidence for actual separate existence. I think this the only way of dealing with the possibility of bias. If there really is no evidence at all for this, then merge. I advocate this approach to groups of all political persuasions, including ones I sincerely dislike--its the only way I've found to deal with my own possible bias. DGG 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Google News Archive comes up with some relevant hits mainly from the Green Left Weekly. The list of office holders needs to go as well as other material needs to go. The question is whether there is enough material to warrant a stand alone article. [20]. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Garrie. I don't think the GLW is a reliable source, and as a student faction they get little press elsewhere - hence the value to the encyclopaedia is slight. Orderinchaos 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No secondary sources, therefore not notable per WP:N. Agree with Orderinchaos that GLW isn't a reliable source on its own. Assize 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete as articles like this often become a seething mess of speculation and defamation, and are not worth the bother if there is a question of WP:N. Weak because good archived news sources from 10-20 years ago can be difficult to find online, and the sheer amount of press for these guys on GLW suggests they may have been covered by more reliable sources. Aliasd 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasDelete per consensus and the fact that the sources come from GLW, which are not RS.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National Broad Left
- National Broad Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Vverifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the National Union of Students JForget 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Factions which have been documented independently of the NUS should be mentioned at that article. Filling the NUS article up with a list of short-lived factions that didn't really get off the ground, won't be improving it.Garrie 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are independent references mainly from the Green Left Weekly. Whether that is enough to sustain a standalone article is another question. [21]. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Garrie. I don't think the GLW is a reliable source, and as a student faction they get little press elsewhere - hence the value to the encyclopaedia is slight. Orderinchaos 10:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and wikify. Well possible to rewrite into an encyclopediatic article. [22], [23] deal with NBL. --Soman 17:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Existing and doing something notable are two different things -- Steve Hart 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia) and merge Australian Labor Students into National Union of Students of Australia. It was unanimous that the first two articles should be deleted but there was no consensus on ALS. It is an editorial decision, for the talk page of National Union of Students of Australia, whether Australian Labor Students should be resplit or remain as a merged article but with no sources, and an article that is redolent of OR, I would expect that any recreation would feature in a fresh AfD coming soon to a computer near you! TerriersFan 03:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Labor Students
content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research Croster 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update I am also nominating the following related pages because they all follow the same criteria, per User:GarrieIrons:
- Small + Regionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Love and Rage (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croster 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert-Update Removed National Broad Left, Non-Aligned Left, Left Alliance per Rebecca. Croster 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For a student organization, notability is sketchy. Only 700 google hits, and not much from reliable third party sources. YechielMan 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom and ors. Another waste of electronic space article. Thewinchester (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verification is provided in full.Garrie 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are we going to see Grassroots Left, Independents, National Liaison Committee and Student Unity all listed? They are all unsoureced / undersourced.Garrie 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google News Archives comes up with four references. [24] Seems to be faction of the National Organisation of Labor Students and possibly worth a mention in that article. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - put a mention in the NOLS article, but nothing more. JRG 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Update votes start hereCroster 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Split into their own respective AfDs.
- Australian Labor Students was a major national faction, and as with the others, has received coverage in the mainstream media accordant with that standing. National Broad Left is a similar case. Neither of these should be here at all.
- There are, I would argue, enough sources to warrant keeping Left Alliance (Australia) and Non-Aligned Left. I suspect these may need to be slimmed down, as some of the material there seems to be OR, but there is enough there to have a good, sourced shorter article explaining their history and influence.
- I can't really find any sources to back up Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia). These would seem to me to be fair candidates for deletion. Rebecca 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert-Update votes start hereCroster Croster 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - All three are now non-existent, or defunct, student organisations, with little hope of acquiring Verifiable, Reliable sources and thus becoming devoid of Original Research. Croster 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Australian Labor Students, delete Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia). The first one is clearly notable; the latter two, while interesting, there's just no reputable sources about. Rebecca 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Australian Labor Students and delete the other two. I havent been able to find any proof of the other two; not enough to warrant a merge. John Vandenberg 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Australian Labor Students, delete Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia) per Rebecca. The first has won a number of NUS elections in various guises and forms and hence would be notable and sourceable. Orderinchaos 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no secondary sources cited, therefore the subject is not notable under WP:N. Four incidental mentions in a newspaper ain't enough to constitute non-trivial mentions. Schools and churches get deleted here even when they have double or triple the mentions of these subjects. Assize 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Australian Labor Students, delete Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia) per Rebecca. JRG 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to National Union of Students of Australia. Australian Labor Students is at best borderline notable, but it is clearly part of the target article, for which sources can surely be found. --SmokeyJoe 02:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Australia MfD's
The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:
- None open at this time
Australia TfD's
The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:
- June 16 – {{Aussie Rules in New South Wales}} | Discuss
Australia related deletion reviews
- None at present