Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 20: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes/old version}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes/old version}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Patchen}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Patchen}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Martinez}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomas (teacher)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomas (teacher)}} |
Revision as of 16:22, 20 December 2008
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- James Hunter (film director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Assertion of notability appear to be limited to non-notable films and companies. No reliable sources to assert subject as notable film director. - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources? I have listed several external links that prove Mr. Hunter is a film director. Your opinion if what is or is not "notable" or popular enough is your opinion alone and does not reflect any rules or criteria made by Wikipedia. All comments and items listed in the article are 100% true historical fact. I am new to Wiki however, and would appreciate any assistance you might give to make the article more sustainable. jwh3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwh3 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Jwh3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The one source is imdb, which is just a listing of all films made. See notability for films, reliable sources. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Actually I have given you three sources and there are more. IMDB, AMAZON.COM, CREATESPACE.COM, WITHOUTABOX.COM, YOUTUBE.COM, INDIEFLIX.COM
I have read the guidelines for film notability, and again that falls within the category of personal taste and opinion. Mr. Hunter's films were released, distributed, and of public interest. And the fact that he made those films at such a young age further argues my case for inclusion. Jwh3 (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: The Amazon sources state This product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media.. CreateSpace is also a self-publishing portal. It would appear that anybody can self-publish through these venues. Chasingsol (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyThis product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media.
So what? Does that mean James Hunter doesn't exist??
"CreateSpace is also a self-publishing portal. It would appear that anybody can self-publish through these venues."
Yes but not anybody has the resume or filmography of James Hunter. Again, these are opinions based on taste and preference, and your remarks are prejudicial in the least. Jwh3 (talk20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply "not notable"
Define "notable" please. Jwh3 (talk20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Additional comment: Wikipedia notability is described here.. Also, please try to be WP:CIVIL. Chasingsol (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: This also appears to be WP:CONFLICT. User:Jwh3 appears to be the subject of the article itself, per their user page. I have also reinstated the Afd after it was removed from the page here. Chasingsol (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, as well as appearing to be a WP:CoI XenocideTalk|Contributions 02:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of meeting the general or any specific notability guidelines. WP:COI doesn't help either. Cheers, CP 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I would delete for the present because of lack of independent references and the strength of the moves and roles therein. However, this may change in the future. Good luck. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--No one is denying that Mr. Hunter is a film director, or that Amazon sells his stuff on demand. However, the WP community does deny that sites like YouTube.com offer independent verification of notability. Moreover, the COI issue is a bit too self-evident here; not that it takes away from possible notability, but it does raise questions about the believability of some of the statements. Then again, a thorough edit has removed much of the unverifiable and trivial content. What's left is not necessarily questionable, but it's also not notable. Hundreds if not thousands of people have 16mm equipment and have shot movies. Thousands if not tens of thousands have gone to LA to make it big and worked as waiters. I could go on. Subject, until proven otherwise (and I know one WP editor is on the case, perhaps he'll turn up something I (or the original author!) couldn't), is not notable; article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources can be found which establish the subject's notability and verify the facts in the article. No prejudice against recreation if such sources subsequently become available. Wiw8 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyArticle has been re-written and it is my opinion that the sources cited are notable. Article should NOT be deleted. This was the first article I have written for Wiki give me a break.
- Reply"Hundreds if not thousands of people have 16mm equipment and have shot movies. Thousands if not tens of thousands have gone to LA to make it big and worked as waiters." You are being trivial and showing real ignorance. Hundreds and thousands have, but not at ages 14 and 17, and not producing those results, and certainly not in rural Alabama. Mr. Hunter was a local celebrity at that time. However, sufficient time has passed making this virtually impossible to prove. Also, I happen to know that Mr, Hunter didn't move to L.A. to "make it big" and end up as a waiter. In fact, he worked as a waiter for half a day and walked out. Mr. Hunter is at best a C-list celebrity, at worst he is a working actor. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT IF YOU PLAN TO CRITICIZE OR INSULT.
- Delete but do not salt I've made a good faith effort to search for RS coverage of this James Hunter, but end up finding the musician, a colonial painter, high school athletes, a guy going to prison... When a guy doing time for writing bad checks comes up higher than you in a Google News search, you know you've got a PR problem. The author's questionable behavior is excusable per his newness to Wikipedia--frankly, the vehemence with which this article has been identified as not meriting inclusion may have been a little on the WP:BITEy side. Still, at the end of the day, there needs to be verifiability, and IMDb doesn't cut it. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the other comments below, let's not pile on here. Yes, this should be deleted as it stands now. But the author has not expressed an intention to recreate this article (that I've seen), nor has this article been created multiple times previously. If it's recreated in substantially the same form, it's already going to be subject to a G4 speedy deletion. Salting the title is not merited by the interactions I've seen here--salting should be more about protecting the encyclopedia and/or targets of BLP violations from egregious issues, not for "sticking it to" new editors who try to contribute something that's not notable and react with misguided but understandable vehemence when "their" article goes bye-bye. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyEverything you've just said is not very helpful at all. Except this: "the vehemence with which this article has been identified as not meriting inclusion may have been a little on the WP:BITEy side." Thanks for that. You wont find our James Hunter writing bad checks, and there is no official website for him. You're relying only on Google? What a joke. IMDB is much more trustworthy. Verifiability? Try making up a phony film and getting it listed on IMDB. It is my opinion that Omarcheeseboro started this out of a personal bias against Mr. Hunter. You're not gonna find much for our James Hunter on Google, since he was making films before the internet went online. Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008
- So the only helpful thing he said was the one thing in your defense? Quite the one-sided view on things. Anyway, no one said this James Hunter writes bad checks. Google is a fine search engine and a pretty good indicator to one's notability. IMDB is not considered an indicator for notability and since most of the info is user added, it's also not always reliable. Claiming Omarcheeseboro has a personal bias against James Hunter is a completely baseless accusation and serious assumption of bad faith. Lastly, your argument that this James Hunter lacks google hits because his films were made before the dawn of internet, is quite frankly laughable. I guess Ludwig van Beethoven, who wrote all his music before the internet, is just a fluke with over 4 million hits then.--Atlan (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence this person has been the subject of substantial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Article does not show a shred of notability. ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply"Google is a fine search engine and a pretty good indicator to one's notability." Google is a joke. Example:Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. So what if Mr. Hunter doesn't have a publicist. That doesn't make his work any less real. "Lastly, your argument that this James Hunter lacks google hits" Is that your only argument? Google hits? LOL
And this: assumption of bad faith encapsulates the entire crusade against the inclusion the the James Hunter article. Thank. Ok last time:
www.amazon.com/dp/B001HZY1SO/
www.indieflix.com/Films/RobinHoodPrinceofSherwood
www.amazon.com/dp/B001HZY1T8/
www.indieflix.com/Films/TheRiverBridge
Not fancy enough for you? Ok here we go with the film festivals. YAWN:
ROBIN HOOD:
George Lindsey UNA Film Festival
Tracking ID: 1231
Entry date: November 08, 2006
Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival Tracking ID: 06-0003 Entry date: March 17, 2006
Hollywood Film Festival(r) Tracking ID: 4440 Entry date: March 13, 2006
RIVER BRIDGE:
George Lindsey UNA Film Festival
Tracking ID: 1230
Entry date: November 08, 2006
Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival Tracking ID: 06-0004 Entry date: March 17, 2006
Westwood International Film Festival Tracking ID: 06-1014 Entry date: February 08, 2006
Hollywood Film Festival(r) Tracking ID: 4186 Entry date: January 01, 2006
Atlanta Film Festival Tracking ID: 3932 Entry date: January 01, 2006
Los Angeles Film Festival Tracking ID: 8796 Entry date: January 01, 2006
VERIFIED. Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- You fail to debunk any of the opposing arguments. Entering your films at a film festival does not make one notable. Furthermore, this is about notability, not whether James Hunter and his films exist. Your rather hostile defense of this article is not doing you any favors, by the way.--Atlan (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Jwh3 has now been blocked for 1 week by Smashville for disruptive editing/personal attacks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vain vanity in vain. Obviously autobiographical. JuJube (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously. I have credits on IMDB and there's no Wikipedia page on me, as there obviously shouldn't be. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Any chance an admin can snowball close/delete this one? – ukexpat (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Respectfully request this one be blocked from re-creation for the time being because of statement here from now banned user. Chasingsol (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the salt. --Clubmarx (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He's blocked for a week, not banned, but the salt is probably a good idea. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that "Administrators should not use creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, but only in response to actual events."[1] Let's wait and see what actually happens. — Satori Son 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom, with a tinge of vainglorious COI Theserialcomma (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Author is subject of article, and protect from recreation, per all the hilarity posted above. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per not a single, solitary reliable source to establish notability (or anything else). I don't undey therstand why these can't be speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed at the low level of intelligence with which most of you are exhibiting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It states absolute fact and is backed up by the most reputable movie database in the entire world. And those of you who are crying "vanity" are only envious. I have yet to see any real reason from any of you as to why this article should be deleted other than you just don't like it. I can name hundreds of articles like that but I dont need to delete them. Its very simple, if you dont like James Hunter dont look at his page. Move on. And to those of you who are asking Wiki to block recreation, you deserve a high position in either the Bush Administration or the Nazi party. This is ridiculous. Jwh3 (talk23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.7.9 (talk)
- Comment: See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jwh3#User:Jwh3
- *cmt Please don't call anyone stupid here again. As for you, you apparently continue to fail to read the relevant policies on sourcing, notability, etc... Here they are for your reading pleasure. WP:NOTE WP:COI WP:RS WP:RF. Happy editing, and cut the accusations.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes/old version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dicdef. Outcome of delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes (word), but kept in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes. Yes have been dab page for 2 months with no opposition. Taemyr (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Nom no longer feels that the article should be deleted.[reply]
- I'm not quite clear why this still exists given that first AfD, and not sure why it wasn't shot down as a recreation in that second AfD, so I'm just going to vote on its merits: Delete as dictdef with no encyclopædic content. --fvw* 14:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the first two AFDs pertained to wildly different versions of the same article. - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Why is the AFD named after a temporary page? - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it was a temporary page when I nominated it. Taemyr (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to sentence words. Nominator change of hearts from this set of edits. Taemyr (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused, but keep at least one article, preferably both. Currently, the Yes and no article, a longish article, has a link to this AfD discussion; the page sentence words also exists and is short. I opposed changing Yes from an article to a disambiguation page because I wanted to add material about answers to negative questions in various languages; there are interesting things to say, not only about the words "yes" and "no" in various languages but also about replies such as "It is." or "Yes, it is." etc. and words such as "si" (French) and "doch" (German), so I would like an article (e.g. "Yes" or "Yes and no") where such information can go; if "yes and no" is only about the English words, perhaps another article is needed ("Replies to questions" or something, maybe). ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be less confused when you read the article and see that the French three-form system is already covered therein, as are languages that use echo responses (such as "It is.") rather than yes/no words. ☺
Personally, I think that the correct article to be getting rid of at this point is no, so that no (disambiguation) can stand in its place, with the lead linking to yes and no, just like the lead in yes does. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I'll be less confused when I read which one of the articles?
- Factual error in nomination statement: Taemyr said "Yes have been dab page for 2 months with no opposition". In fact, I expressed opposition and continue to oppose due to the above-mentioned material I wanted to add; and after it was converted to a dab page has been (arguably) converted back into an article [2] by another editor but this was reverted. (By the way, apparently the Oct. 3 conversion to dab page was done by cut-and-paste move, repaired on Dec. 20 by Anthony Appleyard.)
- Please clarify which article is being proposed for deletion. For example, I wouldn't want to see the relatively lengthy material currently in Yes and no deleted based on a discussion in which users really meant some other article. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was mistaken. I had assumed that you agreed that the possibility that Yes is ambiguous is better treated at wt:yes. Taemyr (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article I nominated for deletion was a pure dicdef of the word yes, and as such had focus on the usage of the word. IMO such an article would not be appropriate for wikipedia.
- The current article is far more so my deletion vote is withdrawn. Although I feel the article should focus on the consepts,ie. sentence words and the two(/three/four) form systems, and not on the words. That however is not a discussion for AfD.Taemyr (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be less confused when you read the article and see that the French three-form system is already covered therein, as are languages that use echo responses (such as "It is.") rather than yes/no words. ☺
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David Patchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be little more than an advertisement for a non-notable artist. There are also numerous links on the page solely advertising Mr. Patchen's artwork. It also appears that the article is being maintained by Mr. Patchen in violation of WP:CONFLICT. A Google search for "David Patchen" shows only 3,420 results, many of which are unrelated to this particular individual. Hence, I believe that article does not meet the requirements for notability. Chasingsol (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator: I have spent the past couple of days second-guessing this AfD trying to find reliable third party sources per WP:V, WP:CREATIVE and the comments from editors below. I have still failed to do so. The only references provided do not appear to meet Wikipedia reliability standards, and the majority of those that have been provided, including those below, are offering the subjects artwork for sale. The article has been stagnant for almost a year, with no attempt to provide and cite reliable sources. --Chasingsol(talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If Patchen himself has edited the article, there is only a COI if his edits are of a nature that conflict with the goals of Wikipedia (to produce a neutral sourced article). So I would leave that out of the argument entirely. I found a couple of articles that make a passing mention of him, but nothing extensive at all [3], [4]. I give this one a "delete" based on non-notability alone. LinguistAtLarge 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the advice and direction. Striked out. Chasingsol (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its' beautiful work and a pleasing article, but notability is not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Respectfully disagree here. Notability in the world of glass art should be clear by the presence in internationally-known gallery presence and participation in multiple shows in leading art markets. I would be happy to add additional external references to better establish notability but some references don't have urls such as teaching, demonstrations, lectures, especially in the Bay Area art scene (for example, my work was featured full size on the cover of the Arts section of the leading newspaper in Phoenix). I'm all for controlling the accuracy of the entry once it was brought to my attention--not for advertising. This should be clear from all my own contributions. I hope wikipedia agrees that the article is worth keeping. Davidpatchen (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)David Patchen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpatchen (talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: David, I have responded to your on your talk page. Best regards. --Chasingsoltalk 09:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- Per WP:CREATIVE. Presence in prestigious art galleries, exhibitions and winner of different awards:1 and 2--Jmundo (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Comment to Jmundo: Those don't appear to be verifiable third-party sources. They are art galleries offering the work for sale (the shopping carts are dead giveaways!). I'm an admirer of his work, without question, I just haven't been able to find any third party sources to establish it's inclusion as a notable subject. Chasingsol(talk) 12:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the article requires a large amount of expansion to Wikify and its subject's notability needs clear explanation; if they cannot be achieved then delete. Reserve judgement and keep therefore. Jubilee♫clipman 13:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep & tag to cite sources. I guess the literature around contemporary American glass artists is limited. Given the specialist field, gallery appearances & awards suggests it probably meets WP:CREATIVE. Franciscrot (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, editor who put this up for deletion arguments seem to be an issue which can be remedied with simple editing, not with the drastic step of deletion. travb (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per comments by travb. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE as I see it, certainly a check or sources and the article do nothing to prove it passes that criteria for inclusion. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Only found trivial mention in reliable sources about his work being exhibited. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adrian Adlam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
482 Ghits, no references, no notability. hence fails WP:BIO Rgds - Trident13 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article asserts notability-- "CD recordings of works for violin by Carl Nielsen received a supersonic award and his recording of the Schubert octet was voted surround sound audio DVD of the year 2005 in Germany." and "He has appeared as leader with several European orchestras, including the London Symphony Orchestra, the Deutsche Kammerphilarmonie and the Scottish BBC Symphony Orchestra". If some of these statements can be reliably sourced, (and thus meeting WP:N or WP:BIO) I'd be happy with keeping this. LinguistAtLarge 14:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found a reference for the supersonic award, but it's given by what appears to be a small recod label, so the notability is weak. Can't find an English reference to the German award. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The award was not given by Tacet Records. It was given by Pizzicato, a print classical music magazine in Luxembourg [5] which is quoted on the Tacet Records web site.
- My mistake, I thought pizzicato was a label. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only limited references I found are all on the same small record company's website, including [6]. Doesn't meet notability requirements. Chasingsol (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentativekeep. I haven't the time to research this properly right now, but he seems to me to meet WP:BIO & have a chance of meeting WP:MUSIC. He's head of strings at Winchester College,[7] which is one of the best-known public schools in the UK. He's director of an international music festival.[8][9] There's a BBC Gloucestershire review of his appearance at a jazz festival.[10] He has at least two CD releases,[11] with a decent-length review in German of one of them.[12] Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now significantly improved from the version I reviewed yesterday. Thanks to Voceditenore & others for their work on this. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Espresso Addict. Would be really good to find more sources verifying some of the info in the article, but based on what does check out, the subject seems to pass WP:MUSIC and maybe also WP:BIO. I have also added a review[13] of one of his CDs to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to regular Keep in view of Voceditenore's improvements to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've expanded this and added more references, including one for the surround sound award. It was actually for the year 2004, but like the Grammys announced the following year. In my view he has enough to pass notability for classical musicians. Please note that with classical musicians, simple number of google hits in English are a pretty poor way to judge notability. He has also recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra and with Hyperion Records. For those of you unfamiliar with classical music, the post of 'leader' in an orchestra is the concertmaster. Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music — Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets requirements of WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The thing to do with unreferenced articles is to look for references and see what they say & add them if appropriate, not just get a count of ghits. Adequate sources for notability in classical music.DGG (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per DGG's and my comments above, when nominating or voting on a classical musician, composer or singer article, particularly if it's not your area of expertise, it's a good idea to contact the relevant wikiprojects who can provide expert help in finding and interpreting references: WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; looks better after the referencing improvements by Voceditenore. He's sufficiently notable for us, as evident by his awards, recordings, and posts. Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above.--Kleinzach 00:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Bryanston School#Heads of Bryanston. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah Thomas (teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reason for notability, apart from being the head teacher of a notable private school. Fails WP:BIO Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can certainly be mentioned in school article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Bryanston School, into the Heads of Bryanston section. That section could have a two-sentence bio of each head. Additionally, since not all the heads of this school meet the criteria for their own article, it might also be a good idea to remove the succession boxes on the other heads of Bryanston articles. LinguistAtLarge 14:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Bryanston School#Heads of Bryanston. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep We have in the past held such people notable, because of the social importance of some of these schools I think including this one, judging by the alumni) --and that references have in the past always been findable. This needs a check for print sources. Given that 4 of the 6 other heads were notable (one deleted via prod, one active head only) odds are she is also.DGG (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge with Bryanston School#Heads of Bryanston. Willing to change !vote if references are provided to establish notability. --Jmundo (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dana Correz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. No refs. Exactly zero Google hits for "Dana Correz." Graymornings(talk) 12:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, most of it seems to be WP:BALL. --fvw* 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources can be found that establish this person's notability and verify the facts in the article. Wiw8 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen D Duffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A number of speedy and prods added to article and removed by article creator. Normally a speedy but given the number of removals have brought here for discussion. Whilst this is a procedural nomination my inclination is to delete. --VS talk 12:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 12:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete No assertion or suggestion of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and possibly salt as the editor seems determined that it stay. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to this page he signed with a notable producer, and thus notable label, but WP:MUSIC requires him to have released two albums with such a label. I can't find any evidence of Stephen meeting any of the other criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn musical artist and creator about to get blocked for username policy violation. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Non notable Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. — Peter McGinley 08:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Artist is a sub-article of parent Article Dito Godwin. Purpose of the article was to avoid any confusion of affiliation with Stephen Duffy included with the Godwin article, another artist with the same name. Artist is somewhat notable and more can be added to the article as information becomes available and/or is found. However certainly respect the opinion of others that this Artist may not be notable enough at this time. TheBigPurplePen 10:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blinkbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tagged and defended under speedy CSD A7 - notability not indicated. This is a procedural nomination so as to seek wider input. I offer no indication as to keep or delete. --VS talk 12:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I speedied it, and think it still stand up. No assertion of notability, keeping it simply because Joost is kept is a nonsense argument. Any software that does the same thing does not automatically need an article here. --Ged UK (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability can be referenced from Google hits - stories from the Guardian, Timesonline, techcrunch etc etc.--Londonclanger (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are easily a half dozen articles in gNews to support claims to notability under criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Of course, they need to be added to the article. LinguistAtLarge 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've actually heard of these guys (and I'm not in the UK). Several mentions in notable media sources seems sufficient to me. Chasingsol (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on Google News [14] actually discuss how they signed major deals which goes well beyond any sort of press release that would be considered unsuitable as a source. - Mgm|(talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. i've started to reference the article based on the two guardian sources. pretty sure newteevee.com doesn't count as RS. if anyone could help reference all the information or add any more of the sources mentioned in the gnews search it would be great. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the existence of multiple reliable sources that establish notability. Wiw8 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hashmi (Nekokara) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Verbatim copy or chunks-copy of Banu Hashim ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 12:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chaandni Raatain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Verbatim (or part/chunk) copy of Aaminah Haq ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 12:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as per nom.--OliverTwisted (Talk) 12:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Appears to be a notable program. If it's been copied from another article it can certainly be trimmed or rewritten. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, very few webhits. If it was a popular or well-known film, there should be more buzz, but I could find none.Chasingsol (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i get 40,500 hits on google with the spelling Chandi Ratein and no quotes, 620 hits hits with "Chandi Ratain" in quotes - the spelling problem is an urdu/latin transliteration problem, not a problem of notability. Boud (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this spelling "Chaandni Ratain" in quotes gets 873 hits. Boud (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i get 40,500 hits on google with the spelling Chandi Ratein and no quotes, 620 hits hits with "Chandi Ratain" in quotes - the spelling problem is an urdu/latin transliteration problem, not a problem of notability. Boud (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Hear:I wrote the material on the Aamina Haq page so, when I copied matter off it, I didn't think I was plagiarising. I was trying to give the dramas mentioned on the Aamina Haq page their own articles and, once that was done, provide links (in the Haq article) to those new pages. (Rk12m (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have done some minor cleanup and sourcing and tagged the article for Rescue. As sources are available and notability can be easily shown, it is now simply a matter for cleanup under "Alternatives to Deletion". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At the moment i don't see much overlap between the two articles, so the original motivation for deletion seems to be missing. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is relevant here: "The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as an intellectual rather than as a labourer (cf. Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005)." The present article (1) concerns mainly women, (2) is an art topic rather than a tech topic, is (7) from a country where Christianity is a minor religion only, (8) is from a country with nuclear bombs but is not a rich country. Those of us whose demographic profiles match many of the 10 parameters known to bias the en.wikipedia ought to be especially sensitive about this bias before jumping too quickly into AfD's, IMHO. The erroneous statement above that there are few "webhits" suggests an example of this bias through someone not realising that transliteration from urdu to latin script is generally quite ambiguous, and maybe being unfamiliar with the idea that the "true" spelling of a word may exist only in the original script, not in latin script. Boud (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, tagging articles for a deletion discussion doesn't seem to be unduly biased, as most of the articles tagged for deletion have not been victims of transliteration. Also, there are 2 citations on the page, both leading to the same review in a questionably notable online publication. This doesn't seem to be bias, so much as concern for notability guidelines. Please clarify your above statement. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i think there may be some misunderstanding. Firstly, i'm not suggesting that the majority of (or any) people who nominated or are involved in this discussion are individually biased. However, please have a look at the links and the text i quoted above and read them again. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should expect that the set of people in this discussion are statistically biased with respect to this article. This is not just my opinion. This is documented at Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005 and discussed NPOV-style at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Let's put it another way. Chances are that User:Rk12m is the only person among us who is a South Asiann woman who watches lots of films. Certainly i don't qualify by any of those three demographic/sociological criteria (i'd like to watch a lot more films, but i don't). i have no idea what other articles have been tagged for deletion by the person who tagged this one for deletion, and that would be irrelevant anyway - i'm not claiming that that person (Mr E. Sanchez) is biased.
- Secondly, even though i responded to the web hits argument, great care must be taken with web hit counts as a notability criterion, e.g. "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. ... The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet." This is a case of a popular culture topic, but is internet access in Pakistan and google ranking high enough on Pakistani websites to expect much more than a few hundred hits for this movie? Again, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias if it's not clear why this is relevant.
- Thirdly, as for the two citations to a (i presume) not-so-notable publication, i agree that this is a problem, but the same systemic bias applies to Pakistani cultural magazines. IMHO it would be reasonable to expect that probably 90% or so of movie reviews etc in rich Western countries are online without a subscription, and that maybe only 10% or so of movie reviews are online in Pakistan. i'm just speculating on the actual figures - but certainly the former must be bigger than the latter. If someone wants to search real estimates, please go ahead. As for what counts as a "reliable source" for movie reviews in general, that's something i can't judge very well.
- Summary: there is a fundamental conflict between notability guidelines and the hope to counter systemic bias in the English Wikipedia. We cannot give up notability principles, but at the same time, we should try to counter the systemic bias, because it's a pity to have NPOV without any hope to get anywhere near neutrality on humanities subjects. There's no magic answer as to what to do, although Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias does have a section on generic suggestions. In this particular case, one obvious thing to do would be to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan before even thinking of deletion. In the meantime, put some tags such as {{Refimprove}} and also try explaining to User:Rk12m the dilemma we have. S/he is clearly a relatively new wikipedian. IMHO people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan and in particular User:Akhwandk from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistani_Cinema would be people who in wikipedia jargon could be called "more expert" than "average wikipedians". However, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistani_Cinema shows that there's only one user listed there so far, and that user's contributions happen a few times a week, but not every day, and for a few weeks s/he has not been editing. This gets back to the point about internet access. A deletion process probably has a timescale of about a week (AFAIR, but i'm not an expert) - this doesn't give enough time for someone like Akhwandk to hear the call for help and give an opinion or practical help in finding reliable sources. Boud (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- Only 10% percent of the population of Pakistan use the internet 1 and probably internet sources are few. The fact that the drama was broadcast in the Pakistan Television Corporation should be enough to establish general notability.--Jmundo (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you are right about internet usage. Reliable printed sources are perfectly acceptable, but were not included. If the program appeared on national TV, there surely must be evidence of this somewhere? --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect to Amul STAR Voice of India. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Abhas Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
When mr. Joshi accomplishes something more of note, he ca be considered for an article. Right now however, at most he deserves a note on a Amul STAR Voice of India page Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Single event, will soon be forgotten. Next. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Following all arguments above. He was one of a dozen contestants in a TV show that auditioned in part by cell phone. None of the other contestants seem outstandingly notable, either. I.e., it was a minor contest on a show that ran for two ( ! ) episodes total. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you get that info? It ran for at least 20 episodes. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Piano. Chasingsol (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Amul STAR Voice of India so the reader is pointed to the article that has all info about this person (per our usual actions for contestants of reality tv shows). - Mgm|(talk) 16:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many links for this Bio on google search. http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USIN292IN303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Abhas+Joshi we need to expand it rather than delete. He is not only contestent of Voice Of India but also organising Sa,Re,Ga,Ma and performing in various TV shows.Aminami (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: nothing substantially notable, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As an Indian i know he deserve to be at Wiki.59.95.117.7 (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:MUSIC. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Mitcham, Victoria#Schools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Antonio park primary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article previously PRODed that can be safely named a stub or blank page with no substantial information on this "school". ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 10:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or speedy as advertising. --fvw* 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is pretty rubbish, but on the other hand I think all schools are inherently notable. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--This user has made little or no contributions outside this discussion. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 11:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you consider all schools notable, they should still meet standard guidelines like not being promotional or being verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to school district or (if there is no school district article) the article on the locality. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If any of these awards can be named and shown to be significant, this would be a no-brain keep. Right now, I'm neutral. - Mgm|(talk) 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Found this [15] reference in regards to United Nations Association of Australia Education Awards in 2004, but there doesn't seem to be anything else to back it up. All the other awards that the school has received appear to be school district "attaboy" awards. Chasingsol (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An article probably could be written about the Australia Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI), but this appears to be one of 52 schools that gets five stars in that program [16] Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Mitcham, Victoria#Schools per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mitcham,_Victoria#Schools. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Merge anything useful (which wouldn't seem to be too much) to Mitcham, Victoria, per the usual procedure for these sorts of articles. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect or alternately delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Randolph (Tuckahoe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:BIO, this is a pure genealogy entry. --fvw* 10:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the page's creator can say something notable about this person. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thomas Jefferson lived in his old house as a kid, but that was 20 years after he died. The house is now a tourist trap. Other than that, there's nothing notable about Randolph himself. Rklear (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Geneology project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication that he was notable in his day. I recall that we deleted an article about George W. Bush's great-great-grandfather earlier this year. Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of establishment of notability. Incidentally the article appears to have been wiped and replaced with a notice saying "delete this"... Wiw8 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) VX!~~~ 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rod Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:BIO, no secondary sources (google just gives a lot of press releases and such). --fvw* 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rod Machado gets thousands of hits on google, and did voiceovers for MS Flight Simulator. Definitely notable. But the article needs a lot of work. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Advertorial and promotional entry that doesn't show notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "The subject has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Microsoft Flight Simulator) and while the books are basically self-published, him having the highest level of aircraft pilot certification clearly makes him notable in his field. If you disregard Machado's own books, Google Books still offers enough dead-tree sources to back up an article on the guy. - Mgm|(talk) 16:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems like he's notable in his field, especially with the number of books he's written. Chasingsol (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as written, no mention of MS Flight Simulator, although I doubt a voice-over merits notability. Not a notable pilot many thousands of pilots have an ATP. No evidence that his books are notable. Reads like a promotion article for his products. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable not for his books but for the acclaimation they have received as training tools and for the wide variety of jobs he does. I was simply listing some of the books he wrote and contributed to as examples. The many speeches he has made would also show notability. There is mention of his voice being the flight instructor voice for flight simulator but that is minor. To MilborneOne. Spencer Divonn'io the glorious (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but please improve its source per WP:BIO. Dekisugi (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will add more sources. Issue resolved.Spencer Divonn'io the glorious (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is notable enough as said by Mgm. Merry Christmas, from ComputerGuy talk 16:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable as a speaker, as an author, and as a pilot. Chuck Yeager is notable as a pilot--this guy has a license held by thousands of other pilots, nothing more. If it survives AfD, the article needs strong cleanup and much better sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Books of him exist then he must be notable; still needs more references but that problem can easily be fixed --Antonio Lopez (desu) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but do expand the article. Machado is very well known within the aviation world, not only as an author but also as a very popular speaker. He is quite influential among the flight instructor community. Cmichael (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. There were valid comments on both sides of the debate. I was quite taken by Jmundo's comments and considered long and hard. In the end it wasn't the majority of delete !votes that convinced, but the consistent argument from the deleters that Javier Saade wasn't shown to be notable, and that other than promotional material from GEM (copied onto various sites) there was nothing significant about him on the sources given, nor on a search I conducted myself. Notability was asserted in the article by implication that he was the guiding force behind a major financial institution, however this was not proved. Sources from GEM showed that he was one of a number of senior figures. It is also noteworthy that his company does not have an article on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Javier Saade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability criteria - I cannot find multiple non-trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources to support notability. In addition, the references provided in the article merely mention his name in passing or are not independent of the subject. Prod was contested by anon editor with no reason given. Somno (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The combination of being managing director of the GEM group and being a founder of Air America Radio means that some people will be interested in reading an article about him. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Following reasoning by Somno. It's important to note that he is not "the" managing director -- nearly all the employees listed at GEM are "managing directors" of something (or better) [17]. As for being a "founder" of Air America Radio ... in several minutes' search I didn't find anything indicating he was more than an "Executive Vice President" -- in a hugely long list of "associated" people [http:/(blacklisted Wiki link)/focus/f-news/1467631/posts] -- in a company that's filed for Chapter 11 [18]. He's simply listed in the Radio Daze article as an "investor". There isn't evidence he's done anything notable, except to invest money and hold titles. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice ferreting Piano, delete. --fvw* 15:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The piece seems to meet the basic criteria need for entry. There are several good references and the person is notable due to his achievements. I feel certain that such information will be of interest to a certain block of people. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is what do the sources actually say about this subject? Is the coverage substantial? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the "several good references", and are you able to add them to the article? The independent references currently in the article are not about Saade and simply mention his name once (the reference from the website of the company he works for is not independent and cannot be used to support notability). I see nothing special in his achievements that justifies an encyclopedia article, especially considering the lack of sources. Somno (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because I'm not convinced that the sources establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--no notability established, although plenty asserted, per Piano. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Managing director of an important company is notable, and this is, based on its size. The refs are adequate for the purpose. We tend to have a cultural bias with respect to the commercial world. DGG (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As Piano non troppo pointed out earlier, the company (which doesn't have an article on Wikipedia hence there's no merge or redirect target) has several directors and managing directors. Saade is just one of them. He's not the director, he's not a founder -- he's just someone in the hierarchy. The refs aren't adequate for establishing notability, because none are actually about him at all. Somno (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Notable in the business world. Contributor for The Journal of Private Equity. --Jmundo (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm. An investment site. He's the second author on what looks like a white paper to encourage investment. (There's a charge or login to read it.) Marketing staff at any level may be assigned to write such. In Google, there is no reference to the article, except Wiki and the site itself. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Journal of Private Equity is a peer reviewed journal with an advisory board and the editor is a professor at the University of Chigaco.--Jmundo (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Piano summed it up quite well. Trusilver 07:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) — Added by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't list any sources or establish notability. Orphaned and abandoned. Adam in MO Talk 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One fact away from CSD A3, and that one fact isn't sourced. Delete. --fvw* 09:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and mark it as a stub Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a high school? Seems to be so I would say keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, primary schools are not high schools. - Mgm|(talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article only says the school exists and doesn't provide any encyclopedic information like an article should. Articles are not placeholders. WP:BEEFSTEW (while it is an essay) gives some insights as to the sort of stuff a basic school article should cover. Following at least one or two of these points would make it a stub I'd consider more viable which the current entry isn't. - Mgm|(talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of schools in Singapore#Government-aided schools. No argument has been adduced to delete a valid search term. TerriersFan (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article contains absolutely no encyclopedic content. What I doXenocideTalk to me 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for an absolute lack of content. The body of an article has to convey more information than the title and categorisation. Surprised it wasn't speedied to be honest. Cynical (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School. I'm going to relist to assess the notability of Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs, no content, and the claim it is a SAP school sounds odd.Should have read previous comment. Redirect as per User:King of Hearts. There is enough there to justify keep. And apparently it is a SAP school. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Keep - Merge Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary into Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School. However, as a point of order, while I think it is an admirable notion, I don't think you can simply "assess the notability" of another article (Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School) without tagging that article also for AfD. I would suggest this be resolved by changing the original tagged article to a redirect and closing the AfD|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. fvw withdrew the nomination, see my talk page. Mgm|(talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CORP. --fvw* 09:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article because of my inexperience. Please make the desired changes to bring this into compliance since I do not understand how to do so. Thanks, Keith Walker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalker51 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - diner is notable because it is discussed in multiple independent, reliable sources (e.g. Salt Lake Magazine Deseret News The Providence Journal CBS News) as well as several blogs and travel websites, both under its current name and its name when it was in Rhode Island, Tommy's Diner. Somno (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Should never have been nominated. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per multiple sources. Chasingsol (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good refs. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The article states "After construction, it was displayed on exhibition at the 1939 World's Fair in New York.[1]". That is a clear claim to notability and it's properly referenced. WP:CORP does not come into play, this place has historic significance. - Mgm|(talk) 15:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Westwood High School (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable school. Article was created 30 days ago and has been abandoned with out establishing notability. Adam in MO Talk 09:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't argue with that, 30 days is enough of a chance. Delete. --fvw* 09:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia isn't running out of disk space. Someone might add to this article at some point. Starting an AfD is a waste of everyone's time. Why do people start these AfDs ? Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto N.I.C.E. Community Schools, which already contains more information about the school than this one-sentence article. The district apparently consists of only three schools (with this being the only high school), so the district article should be able to handle the information about all three. Deor (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Changing to keep per expansion of article. Deor (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy keep High schools are notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Schools are NOT automatically notable, so speedy keep is not an option. Also, this is not a vote (so an admin will likely ignore your comment since you offer no rationale). TJ Spyke 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto N.I.C.E. Community Schools per Deor. I personally would have speedied the article for lack of content or context (it doesn't distinguish the school from any similar ones). Even when you consider high schools notable, the article should contain enough material to actually be an article. The community article has more information and does does a better job. As Deor notes, there should be no size issues that warrant splitting in the immediate future. - Mgm|(talk) 15:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Merge With the article expanded, it's now larger and more informative that the material I previously cited. But my last comment from then still stands. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as with all high schools sufficient sources are available to meet WP:ORG. The fact that this page was created 30 days ago(!) is irrelevant; there is no time limit on the development of articles. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Deor. No sources and nothing notable about this school. I think it should be deleted, but for some reason admins don't like to delete any school articles and the recommended option is to merge it into a article on the school district it belongs too. TJ Spyke 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and troutslap nominator. WP:NODEADLINE, WP:NOT#PAPER, Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Adequate sources for notability and encyclopedic content were easy to find. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NHS is just a essay, meaning it's just an opinion and is not a rule or guideline. If there are sources of notability, why not add them? There are 3 sources in the article and none of them are good enough (one is the schools website, one is the schools entry on its school district site, and one is a website containing info on almost every school in the country). You say it's notably, but fail to state why. AFD's are NOT votes. TJ Spyke 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not justavote... I explained why I think the article should be kept. And are you suggesting that a) I don't know the essay that I wrote is an essay? or b) that I can not cite my essay as my reasoning for my opinion in this AFD? Would you rather I transclude it or write the whole thing here? Because I can, but I don't see a reason to do so, when any editor can click the link and read it. Did you read it?
- The fact is that in 5 years of deletion debates on the English Wikipedia, there are *NO* high school articles that have been deleted for notability concerns which remain deleted today. Although not de jure, the inherent notability of high schools as a subject for Wikipedia articles is most certainly a de facto policy. High school after high school get nominated, and *ALL* get kept; many, if not most in WP:SNOW and/ or WP:HEY conditions.
- And you should probably also read this:
- WP:NHS is just a essay, meaning it's just an opinion and is not a rule or guideline. If there are sources of notability, why not add them? There are 3 sources in the article and none of them are good enough (one is the schools website, one is the schools entry on its school district site, and one is a website containing info on almost every school in the country). You say it's notably, but fail to state why. AFD's are NOT votes. TJ Spyke 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ | ...if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accommodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do... | ” |
- --Jimbo (dated November 7, 2003 Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, November 7, 2003. Accessed September 25, 2007.)
- Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is written in an overtly promotional style, and doesn't make any claims to notability or cite reliable sources. Cynical (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that the promotional style needs to be cleaned up, but WP:OUTCOMES #Education notes that high schools are generally kept as notable, while primary and middle schools are redirected to the school district. Mandsford (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OUTCOMES just says how AFDs usually turn out, it's not an argument to be used. If you think it should be kept, you need to explain why and not just say "high school articles are usually kept". TJ Spyke 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need to explain anything. Cite something different if you think that high schools aren't notable. Mandsford (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay is 100% correct, and rather than "opinion", reflects the consensus of hundreds of High School article AfDs. We do not delete high school articles on the basis of notability, because through an exhaustive series of attempts at doing so, over a very long period of time, EVERY high school inevitably is found to easily meet the primary retention criteria of WP:N through WP:V. There is NO DEADLINE to do this. High schools are a central institution within communities that generates news, and as such through a search of articles and archives can be shown to be notable. It is a matter of courtesy and convenience to preassume them to be notable to avoid deletion discussions that NEVER result in deletion. There is ample precedent to summarily dismiss deletion nominations for high schools. I invite you to peruse the innumerable deletion discussions that ultimately resulted in keeps... or find me even one that resulted in a deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the common outcome for HS's is common for reasons well explained in the dated but still-cogent argument from Jimbo presented above. Improve, don't delete. Townlake (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and improve per WP:ATD. No need to dispose of it because it isn't yet perfect, or because its been 30 days. TO REPEAT: THERE IS NO DEADLINE. Deleting because someone has not improved an article per some arbitrary time limit does not improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There doesn't seem to be any consensus on whether or how to apply notability to schools. As long as the information meets WP:V, I see no reason to delete. Mdwh (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't quite understand the logic behind the nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try looking at the state of the article at the time it was nominated. Deor (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not expedited article cleanup. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try looking at the state of the article at the time it was nominated. Deor (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I thought we had a consensus that all high schools were notable. That includes those with bad articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been significantly expanded since being nominated for deletion. As of 17:01, 20 December 2008, [19], it asserted being a public high school in the N.I.C.E. Community Schools school district in Michigan. The article has been greatly improved since. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per being a diploma-granting, taxpayer-supported high school. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Redirect to the school system or community. Egads, how much shorter would each day's AFD be if everyone actually read WP:BEFORE before making nominations. Neier (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect to Unreal Engine. Mgm|(talk) 15:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreal technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced neologism. All Google search results appear to be about Unreal Engine, not about this concept. Sandstein 08:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the unreal engine or otherwise delete. --fvw* 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Unreal engine per WP:NEO.Unsigned comment by User:Graymornings
- Redirect to Unreal Engine per OP Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Unreal engine. Chasingsol (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. A pub crawl? No need to let this drag on for five days. Black Kite 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 27th crawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable event. No hits in Google News archive for "27th crawl". Was nominated for A7 speedy, but didn't meet the criteria, and given the hangon tag I guessed that a prod wouldn't work, so taking to AfD instead. David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability given. --fvw* 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn per nom. JJL (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deadly Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Zoids and merge whatever in there is sourced and worthwhile. --fvw* 09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in relevant article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per discussion about Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|(talk) 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. Notability outside of Zoids not sufficiently established to justify a standalone article. Wiw8 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Death Saurer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIORDGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in relevant article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|(talk) 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge same as above AFD. Wiw8 (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bamburian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources, which does not include the trivial fan site used as a reference. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article; but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. DGG (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT as more zoidcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close this and all other similar nomination as this robotic boilerplate nomination of 5 to 10 articles a day does not allow enough time and consideration for proper discussion to take place, and just encourages robotic boilerplate responses, and does not lead to any meaningful consensus. Where is the actual discussion occurring about how to properly manage all these fictional weapon/character/toy/whatever articles? DHowell (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in relevant article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|(talk) 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - same as per above AFD. Wiw8 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect How many of these articles are there? Cant' we just start bundling new nominations like we did for super-robot wars? Protonk (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable businessman, doesn't meet notability guidelines. One mention in the Guardian however. Richard Hock (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks non-notable to me. LinguistAtLarge 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Shoessss has me convinced that he's (barely) notable enough. LinguistAtLarge 21:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Able to find this [20] with a quick Google News search. Not sure if the piece should be about Confetti or Andrew Doe. Likewise, a general Google search showed these results [21]Overall, believe he or his company meet the notability guidelines. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 21:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator himself provides a source which demonstrates notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails WP:BIO. The sources cited above are trivial and fail WP:NOT#NEWS. The article itself contains no evidence that this web retailer has established notability in his field, or anywhere else.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment This relist was unintentional, I missed the first orange line when reviewing the log. However, it looks like the discussion could use a little more imput so I'll leave it be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Crot has heard of Confetti plenty & even bought himself a bubblegun there, WP:IAR. Never of Doe though. Franciscrot (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Crot believes his bubblegun is notable, only notability non-heritable). Author of Doe (Doe?) better off authoring Confetti article? Franciscrot (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is just conceivable that the company might be just barely notable, but i don't see how he is. DGG (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Initially I was excited when I started to read the piece. It started like a really good entry. Then, however, it went nowhere. The sources are poor and an major independent on the individual is non-existent. The company, after some searching is semi-noteworthy at best but the individual seems to be lacking in three major categories: 1. notability, 2. references and 3. general importance to a substantial group. Also, one would need to know his actual input into the company.Royalhistorian (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — no significant coverage established through the usual reliable sources. Notability not established. MuZemike (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/rename: what little sourcing is there is focused on the company, not the co-founder. If enough can be cobbled together then rename it 'Confetti (company)' (or similar), otherwise delete. HrafnTalkStalk 17:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My World, My Way (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Adam in MO Talk 08:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would say speedily. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BALL.Chasingsol (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not yet sufficient information available to support an article 0-Mgm|(talk) 15:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice against recreation if and when reliable sources cover this sufficiently to establish notability and verify the included facts. Wiw8 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AfD isn't cleap, this is why we have that "unreleased videogame" tag, etc. As it stands now, this is a game being published by a notable company with coverage in dozens of sites and magazines. The article sucks and is unsourced, but it isn't speculative and unsourcable. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is speculative. We are not a crystal ball in which to include articles based on rumors based on their own (i.e. primary) sources. Such future articles need secondary sources at the least. MuZemike (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked Joystiq, gonintendo and etc weren't primary sources. On top of that, the game is already out. It's known in Japan as "Sekai wa Atashi de Mawatteru" or something. And please don't requote wikilinks at me and use the word "we" like you're in an exclusive club, that just grinds my gears. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is sourceable, source it. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources from Joystiq are fine. Be bold and add them instead of being crass and uncivilly calling out other users, because that grinds my gears. MuZemike (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, I'm good. You be bold and do it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked Joystiq, gonintendo and etc weren't primary sources. On top of that, the game is already out. It's known in Japan as "Sekai wa Atashi de Mawatteru" or something. And please don't requote wikilinks at me and use the word "we" like you're in an exclusive club, that just grinds my gears. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is speculative. We are not a crystal ball in which to include articles based on rumors based on their own (i.e. primary) sources. Such future articles need secondary sources at the least. MuZemike (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, by the way, per above. MuZemike (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Salamander (Zoids) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. The only independent source is fairly trivial when used with this topic, as the toy is just a random example used to criticize Zoids in general. It may be good to place within the main article, as the comments about the Zoid toyline are pretty relevant. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIO
- Delete as nn zoidscruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|(talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per all the other equivalent Zoids-weapon related AFDs of 20th Dec. Wiw8 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Malder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR. DGG (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|(talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hayate Liger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|(talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Zoids. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gustav (Zoids) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIORDGG (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:NOT. in-universe fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|(talk) 15:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gojulas Giga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIORDGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per my comments on Gojulas and per ChildofMidnight. When something is not notable for a separate article, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered at all. - Mgm|(talk) 15:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gojulas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Zoids and merge whatever is not there yet and can be found to be independently verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 15:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of 90-minute television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As per Appropriate topics for lists, lists should not be too broad. No country, decade or language category included in article title. The Appropriate topics for lists explanation (towards end of the section) points out that there must be a reason how such a list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Earlier nominated for PROD, but declined stating incompleteness of list is not reason for delete. Text including the word Incomplete in text was introduced by initial author only and not by any person proposing or seconding the PROD - it was not the reason for PROD. Also, the person agreeing on pro-d pointed out, there are many series that were 90-minutes in duration for a few episodes only and title does not say whether it is country specific. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. It does not specify that it is for a specific country or broadcast market. So, it needs to be expanded to include the rest of the world. How can you say it's to broad, and too narrow at the same time? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The title and hence the list is too broad. Hence the article is being nominated as it does not add any value. It is not appropriate for a list. There is no mention of narrow. There is no comment on existing entries from my part, though the person who seconded the PROD mentioned that the title is not mentioning US market (again in the sense the title leads to the list being too broad). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Much too broad - not to mention useless. Graymornings(talk) 10:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, no evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete much too indiscriminate. What next, lists of two-hour films? Three-minute songs? Five foot ten men? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too broad. Chasingsol (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too broad. The criteria for inclusion or trivial and don't make for useful sorting. As per Totnesmartin, it would also set a precedent for other lists that are not useful or suitable for inclusion. (One question: are those listings with or without commercials included? ) - Mgm|(talk) 15:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep As the article points out, the 90 minute format for television series has been rare. The premise of the list as "shows that have aired 90 minute installments" is overly broad (no pun intended, but The Biggest Loser is not usually 90 minutes). However, Wagon Train and other westerns did run for 90 minutes back in the days before remotes. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Charlie Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. This footballer only played 20 minutes in his whole career, in a Scottish Challenge Cup match against a semi-professional club. I think he therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, as elaborated upon in the football notability guidelines. Although several sources are provided, most just mention his name as part of a list and do not go into any depth on his football activities. His conviction for arson does not make him notable either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It could be construed that he meets criteria within WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN since he played at the highest level of professional football. However, despite the guidelines, I just don't think 20 minutes of competing at a professional level meets notability requirements. Chasingsol (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Has made a competitive first team appearance for a professional football side. Ck12 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because he played against a semi-pro side, he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't accept that 20 minutes in a cup match against a semi-pro outfit connotes notability for a footballer. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I too would have to question the importance of 20 minutes. If the individual had saved a sinking ship or ended a battle in 20 minutes, notability would be shown. However, in this case, I also question the entry as it was merely for semi-pro activities. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even if he played, using common sense is allowed. Punkmorten (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted per CSD-G10 --Versageek 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bicycleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable how to ____ DVD. The article is sourced exclusively to forums. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete No reliable sources, comes just this side of attacking its subject. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 06:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just another how to DVD, verging on an attack page. even Bicycle Repair Man can't rescue this. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This can be considered an attack page aimed at the person who created the DVD, but at the same time it also promotes a DVD with supposed ethical issues. (I totally agree that no one should sell DVDs teaching tricks that belong to others without permission, but writing this article is not the solution). - Mgm|(talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable and does appear close to being an attack page. Chasingsol (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to the above 'attack page' concerns and the fact that its 'sources' amount to Youtube and some message boards. Cynical (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gold Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested speedy, and because of the citation of some RSes in the footnotes I think it ought to be discussed here rather than just speedied Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not one, not two, but five (count em, five) cites to other Wikipedia articles. Wow. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible the article was created to link to a "Gold Party" website, which I removed. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Advertorial. Relevant information can be included in gold article or relevant sales/ marketing article ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Too much like an advertisement. Sorry...ttonyb1 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge with Gold Article - I had reported the article creator's username earlier (for promotion) because I spotted this article on vandalism patrol. After rereading the article I do agree it reads too much like an advertisement, however after reading the USA Today article that it cited I would support adding a section about gold parties to the gold article and have this page redirect to that section. The USA Today article suggests to me that the topic is notable and it can be addressed in a way that does not resemble an advertisement. --Aka042 (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Evidently not notable enough for inclusion. — Aitias // discussion 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Mark Titus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a well-written article, but the attention this person has gained from this blog has largely been local. Google produces about 4,000 hits, but aside from one link to CNN, it's all local press, forums, and Wordpress. Cue the Strings (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User: Anonymous Mark Titus is blowing up if you aren't paying attention. His blog now has over 100,000 hits and about 80,000 have come in the past two days. Give him a chance before you pull this deletion crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.245.128 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 63.236.245.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Well written article. Titus's blog is getting some serious exposure on sports.yahoo.com and also by "The sports guy" Bill Simmons. My vote is that the article stays. Redrocket55 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Redrocket55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mark Titus is attracting attention from people all over America, and even in Europe, as proven by a comment left on one of his blog entries by a European basketball player. Also, basketball players from universities other that The Ohio State University have praised and encouraged his blogging. A young man with such talent should be documented. Mark Titus has a future in writing and I feel that a Wikipedia article can help track his life and career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.43.121 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 24.239.43.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep If there is a sports-only version of wikipedia, I concede fully that Mr. Titus' entry belongs there. But in my opinion, his contributions to the blog-revolution are perhaps as important as all you wikipediists' contributions to the wiki-revolution and they need to be recorded. Please keep the entry! Kingpin (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Martinhurn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"keep" The blog is so good that in no time Titus will have National recognition. I heard a rumor that he's possibly going to be a guest on the Jim Rome show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.36.175 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 68.253.36.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- With all due respect to the IP commenters, can some registered users speak up? I'm just not sure how far Titus's contributions to the blogsophere have been recognized other than from fellow sports bloggers and one national supporter. There are an unlimited number of talented bloggers out there who get thousands of hits a day - but just because you're a strong writer doesn't mean your work merits an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia isn't a stepping stone to help bolster your career. I don't mean to imply that this article is being used for personal gain, but I haven't really seen a case made yet for his notability other than the fact that Yahoo supports him. - Cue the Strings (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment This AFD seems to have attracted comments from new editors. Their input is welcome but this discussion could use some input from experienced editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's Christmas. Might be worth clarifying the "trillion" goal / linking to relevant basketball rules articles 81.152.129.12 (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 81.152.129.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Bah, Humbug!! MuZemike (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There's a certain paradox in obtaining notability for being utterly unnotable. I'd require a good deal more attention from mainstream media for an article here. And ""keep" The blog is so good that in no time Titus will have National recognition." a little above, is of course an argument for deletion until he does perhaps have recognition. DGG (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Notwithstanding the flood of single-purpose accounts and/or meatpuppets above, I come up with a couple of sources from gNews that can minimally establish notability of this blogger. MuZemike (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Put quotes around the name and then check the false positives. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I know. This looks like the Mark Titus we are discussing about here and here. MuZemike (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two links don't do it. In addition, I couldn't find his name mentioned in any of these links. The articles are about certain games in which he might have played a part, and it thus mentioned. In any case, it does not satisfy the "significant coverage" required by WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. See above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without better sourcing, this must be deleted. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grand Duchy of Westarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Supposed "micronation" with very few (849) ghits, most to blogs or to sites selling wooden coins. I haven't seen any secondary sources/news coverage. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It gets four pages (pp. 111–113) in ISBN 9781741047301, where it is listed as simply Westarctica. Uncle G (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep and rename per Uncle G. If the micronation is mentioned in a book it is not merely made up as the nominator appears to imply. Likely covered in other books about micronations as well. - Mgm|(talk) 15:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. More sources establishing notability. LinguistAtLarge 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's 6 sources at best, not really significant coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason behind rationale is provided. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and don't rename - Lonely Planet has a section on Westarctica, all micronation articles are known by their full names. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not rename - Listed in books, as well as news sources... per WP Micronation should be titled as it's long, proper name... it needs some work, and better references, but does not deserve to be deleted... - Adolphus (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not rename --Yopie 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- No reason behind rationale is provided. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listed in Lonely Planet, minted coins --Yopie 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not rename This is getting monotonous, isn't it? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of the news sources cited were covering this "micronation" as a real geopolitical entity, but as more of a humorous "water cooler story" or silly factoid. Fails WP:N due to lack of substantial (non-tongue in cheek) coverage in independent and reliable publications. Edison (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (edit conflict) I must be missing something, but where are the sources that establish this is a micronation? Can someone point me in the right direction? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- here is the Micronations entry... also added to the article... - Adolphus (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article says that there is a "claiming" of unclaimed land in antarctica by some Americans and that no one lives in Westarctica. It also says the area is known as Marie Byrd Land. The supposed Micronation which seems a front to sell coins, was founded in 2001 and is a "monarchy" with a website? I feel like people are pulling my leg. What is notable about this non-nation except perhaps as a ruse, but since it hasn't been covered substantially I don't think an article is warranted even for that. Can I put a Hoax template on the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The guy appointed himself "Grand Duke, and designed a flag. Should this be merged with a/the Byrd Station (1957-1972) article about the scientific research and drilling station and the Byrd Surface Camp opened by the US Antarctic program? Is it going to be made clear this is a hoax? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably don't understand, what is "micronation", please read articles about it. --Yopie 01:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I'm satisfied that the level of notability required for micronations has been established. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Suggest keep closure per nominator withdrawal above. However I think it may be wise to offer some explanation within this article as to what a "micronation" actually is, to avoid confusion in readers who aren't familiar with the fact that this term means more than just "small country". Wiw8 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the link micronation for that. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would usually agree, however in this particular case, the reader has to realise that micronation means something very different to the obvious meaning before they have a reason to click that link. While this won't be true of all readers, I think it is this same confusion that has lead some AFD commentators to suggest that this article may be a hoax (and perhaps also lead to the AFD nomination). I'm not suggesting we include the full contents of the micronation article in this article, just that it should be made a little clearer that this is not a recognised country/nation without relying on the reader knowing that this is true by definition of the term "micronation". This article currently refers to Westarctica in several places as a "country". Anyway we digress (this may be a topic for discussion on the article talk page though). Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct in saying that the word "country" should not be there, it should be "micronation". In the past there was a discussion on including the definition of micronation - however there is no reason to do this. The reason why there are links in Wikipedia is so that A) We do not have to repeat ourselves in every article and B) Readers can find a detailed article on the subject if they wish. If readers do not want to spend time researching the subject by simply using the link, then we don't have to waste time bringing the research to them. I think that it is important that we mention it here, seeing as AfD nominators in particular should learn about the importance of research, because they have the burden of proof, and therefore they need to do their research - not us. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the article and the introduction in particular don't make clear what "Westarctica" is. It's an unrecognized land claim from 2001 by some American guy. It's used to sell coins. The article is very misleading and it doesn't do a good job describing "Westarctica". I'm going to try to fix it up a bit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct in saying that the word "country" should not be there, it should be "micronation". In the past there was a discussion on including the definition of micronation - however there is no reason to do this. The reason why there are links in Wikipedia is so that A) We do not have to repeat ourselves in every article and B) Readers can find a detailed article on the subject if they wish. If readers do not want to spend time researching the subject by simply using the link, then we don't have to waste time bringing the research to them. I think that it is important that we mention it here, seeing as AfD nominators in particular should learn about the importance of research, because they have the burden of proof, and therefore they need to do their research - not us. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would usually agree, however in this particular case, the reader has to realise that micronation means something very different to the obvious meaning before they have a reason to click that link. While this won't be true of all readers, I think it is this same confusion that has lead some AFD commentators to suggest that this article may be a hoax (and perhaps also lead to the AFD nomination). I'm not suggesting we include the full contents of the micronation article in this article, just that it should be made a little clearer that this is not a recognised country/nation without relying on the reader knowing that this is true by definition of the term "micronation". This article currently refers to Westarctica in several places as a "country". Anyway we digress (this may be a topic for discussion on the article talk page though). Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the link micronation for that. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Micronations only exist as nations in the minds of their claimants. They are a variety of vanity, like vanity books and there have even been vanity patents. With a very few exceptions they are all NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that most are non-notable (you see several new ones pop up each week if you have List of micronations on your watch list). But, I believe if they have been written about in a book, and/or several times in notable newspapers, they pass WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS concerns just like any other entity... - Adolphus (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I'm satisfied that Westarctica may have enough coverage to be included, but it needs to be made clear right up front in the intro of these articles what the subjects are and are not. The term micronation (tiny nation) is VERY misleading, even if it is established. So making clear that these are not officially recognized and are simply land claims aspiring to nation status is VERY important, especially when the claims are used to engage in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Le Vieux Pin Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable winery that doesn't pass WP:CORP. Written as a blatant WP:ADVERT in a WP:WINEGUIDE style. Extreme dearth of reliable, independent third party sources to try and rewrite the article with as evidence by google and Google News as well as leading wine publications like Wine Spectator, Decanter and Wine Enthusiast, etc. Maybe the winery will eventually become notable and warrant an article that will written in a WP:NPOV and non-advert way. But apparently there are not enough sources now for that to happen AgneCheese/Wine 04:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Very advertorial. Perhaps could be merged into article on wineries in that area? ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently there isn't any rticles on Okanagan wine or British Columbia wine. However, in looking at the reliable sources that could be used to create such articles (like the World Atlas of Wine, Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia, Oxford Companion to Wine and the BC wine guide), there is no mention of Le Vieux Pin Winery in these sources to even establish notability in that localized context. AgneCheese/Wine 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of WP:Reliable sources needed to create a NPOV, V, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And Then There Were None (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- The Hope We Forgot Exists EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Who Speaks for Planet Earth? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No notability asserted, no reliable sources. One of the albums was tagged for A9 (which I almost did myself) but that's clearly not the case as the band does have an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. What I doXenocideTalk to me 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, band is signed to Tooth and Nail Records. That being said, this article isn't going anywhere without more reliable sources. TheLetterM (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Some evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The signing to a notable label is a good claim to notability and it can be referenced "and+then+there+were+none"+"tooth+and+nail"&btnG=Search. - Mgm|(talk) 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I created this article not knowing much about the band, but simply because they had been signed by a record label, and I assumed that that granted enough notability to make it worthy for inclusion. I am new to creating pages on wiki though, so whatever you guys feel is appropriate. Dudebri1 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately many bands sing to a label and never release a single album and disappear into obscurity. So until album has been released they remain non notable. --neon white talk 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while they maybe signed to a notable label, WP:MUSIC#C5 calls for multiple releases, so far there is 1. I can find bugger all outside self published sources to back up any of the claims. No prejudice against recreation of the article if they release a second album on Tooth & Nail though. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: insufficient notability WP:MUSIC#C5. JamesBurns (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - but only because they have toured around the Northeast. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet, if you've got some reliable sources to back that claim up, I'd be happy to change my vote. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouyldnt matter anyway local tours arent a criteria. --neon white talk 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot find anything that firmly establishes notability at the current time. --neon white talk 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete all, with creation protection (see And Then There Were None (band), yes click to see), until which someone find material in reliable sources to improve this. Wikipedia ≠ MySpace and similars Cannibaloki 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all (and salt if necessary) - no evidence of notability provided. Terraxos (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snowball/Speedy Delete clearly a CSD candidate, only reason it was taken to Afd was because of objection by creator but community clearly wants speedy deletion.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Defending Nerds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It's essentially a blog.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It does not even attempt to be an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a signed personal manifesto, written in the first person and exhorting the reader to a single point of view, in violation of our basic Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. There's nothing whatsoever salveageble here. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete First-person manifesto, violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete Unencyclopedic for the reasons stated above - it's a persuasive essay. HeureusementIci (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons above. What I doXenocideTalk to me 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete — while I sympathize with the author's conviction to stomp out intellectual discrimination (I face a lot of adversity in regards of my intellectual "qualifications," as well.), the page is nonetheless a soapboxery style essay, not even close to being remotely encyclopedic. Also this is not your own webhost, and I would even borderline go for G11 for trying to promote a blog/YouTube channel. MuZemike (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G3, vandalism blatant misinformation. Mgm|(talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacob Santiago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable (fails WP:BIO). No sources. IMDb does not list him in cast of ANY of the films in filmography. In fact, he has no entry whatsoever at IMDb. Possible hoax, but more likely the article is self-promotional. Ward3001 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Blatant misinformation, given that none of these roles is listed on IMDb and even someone who's just been in commercials usually turns up more sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think this is a hoax, but the user's contributions warrant more scrutiny, which afd offers. User's other article Jacob Dionisio is also up for deletion, and I see numerous notices on the user's talk page. --Aude (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as blatant misinformation. The supposed award "Primetime Emmy Award for Best Child Actor" doesn't appear to exist, especially not in 1997. And the Emmy website doesn't have him listed. And I'm also absolutely positive this person did not have a named part in the Harry Potter film. I know all the named characters and the one listed here does not exist (I checked with the film's end credits). = Mgm|(talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanguard Unlimited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unable to find reference to this in news media or general Google search. Non-notable. Would have done speedy but want to avoid re-creation. Bongomatic 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability per inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if the reason for the claim to notability (the cargo ship incident) isn't considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article then I fail to see why one of the participants in the incident should be considered notable Cynical (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I Believed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-charting single, no sources outside youtube. Not a good redirect choice as a.) it seems a fairly common title, b.) it seems prone to being undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The second reason to not redirect is not sound. Redirects can be protected if they're the target of repeated reversal. - Mgm|(talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searching on Google or Google news only yields unrelated hits, or hits to lyrics, videos, unreliable blogs and forums. There's no reliable sources and a redirect would likely interfere with similarly named material. - Mgm|(talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan and Robbie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable book series. IP (possibly author) removed prod with no explanation. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I'm the editor that placed the prod. After the user contested the prod, I decided to search for sources and all I found was the author's site. Schuym1 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apparently, the author dosen't like the fact that his article will go bye bye. He keeps removing the templates.Someone should block him for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After I said that I would report him to AIV, he stopped removing the tag. Schuym1 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apparently, the author dosen't like the fact that his article will go bye bye. He keeps removing the templates.Someone should block him for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this fails G7 and makes no effort to claim the book's notability. This appears to be a vanity advertisement page for a manifestly non-notable product. Direct the author to the relevant policies, kill the article, and save us all the time and energy. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a G7, G7 is "author requeests deletion". Do you mean A7 perhaps? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy per A7 and G11. Self-promotional, no notable third-party mentions. Graymornings(talk) 10:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 does not apply to books and I don't think G11 is so serious it cannot be solved with editing. I'd rather see this AFD run its course. - Mgm|(talk) 15:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right - I somehow mistakenly thought the article was about the author, not the books. But I still think it's G11. If I could find any outside sources, I wouldn't, but it's irreparably an ad. Graymornings(talk) 02:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article appears to be an advertisement. Additionally, recently added links are of random information that do not establish the books notability. Chasingsol (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Lack of reliable secondary sources establishing any notability. MuZemike (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack Says (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The guideline on notability of films gives an admittedly nonexhaustive list of reasons for inclusion:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. No evidence of such.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: None of the criteria in this grouping is applicable as five years have not elapsed since the film's initial release.
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. No evidence of such.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. No evidence of such.
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. No evidence of such.
The references given do not amount to "significant coverage", and the external links are not "independent of the subject." Bongomatic 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:EL the external links need NOT be independent of the subject... the sources must so be... and they are. The nom's statement should not be taken as a refutation of notability because of the use of external links, as they are not what establishes notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Those criteria are in addition to the general notability guideline, and coverage from 4 film festivals satisfies that. Also, I remember a criterion that mentioned a film being notable when it marked an important point in a contributing person's career. Since this is Mike Reid's last film, I'd say that would qualify. - Mgm|(talk) 15:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree on being in minor festivals qualifying for GNG. The other point you're referring to is that the "film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," but that it should be have its own article "only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." If Mike Reid is notable, then it seems unliklely that there would be too much about this film to include in an article on him. Bongomatic 15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in agreement with Mgm. Per WP:GNG the extensive coverage shows notability. Further, as this is Mike Reid's last film, it further qualifies as being a final landmark in a notable contributing person's career. The nom will certainly disagree, but that's why we are here. Further, I have just done a bit of cleanup of the article per film MOS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G3 as vandalism/nonsense. Wow, I forgot to sign, that's rare. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- HidenSeek Nursery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nursery's aren't notable, I think. Could be G3 except seems not to be to blatant. WP:HOAX Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you mean G3. G3 anyway, "vagina nursery" seems like something that wouldn't have been around 5 years ago much less 100+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs) 2008-12-20 02:56:31
- The article cites no sources. Searching, I can find no sources (although nurseries named "Hide N Seek" exist). The topic is barely discernable from the text, which is almost incoherent. This is on the borderline of speedy deletion territory, as a combination of vandalism (see the reverted edits, which don't inspire confidence in the non-reverted ones) and simply no context. The article gives no clue as to what sort of nursery this even (purportedly) is. Uncle G (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Self Help Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is no doubt a worthy charitable organization. However, to date there is no reason to believe that it has generated any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 01:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unless notability can be established.ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Actually, it has generated media coverage: [22]. A luta continua! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable. Just added six news refs to the article. An active & visible Irish charity Aymatth2 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources mentioned above. Thanks to Aymatth2 for finding them and adding them to the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the usual do WikiDoGooders have stuck again! :) I thought I heard bells. Keep ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted. Nonsense articles like this don't need to come to AFD. Please tag them for speedy deletion. --Aude (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr peeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a neologism. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as no context. Tagged as such. HeureusementIci (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy close as redirected. This didn't need an afd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Roben Talow (Bazi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Roben Talow (Bazi) has been replaced with Roben Talow which is the same athlete Honana (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Bduke (Discussion) 10:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishops Bridge Rural Fire Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable volunteer fire brigade. Contested PROD Mattinbgn\talk 20:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete unsourced, no apparent notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no coverage found through Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:CORP notability guidelines. Matt (Talk) 09:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Except for the most unusual cirsumstances, a volunteer fire department with one station and two apparatus is not going to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted - G3 Vandalism by Masamage (talk · contribs) - (non-admin closure). Matt (Talk) 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beenus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probably a hoax. I have been unable to find verification of the claim that Beenus is either a hair dye or type of lingerie. Instead Urban dictionary defines Beenus as a 'black penis' ([23]).
Additionally the article claims that "the meaning of beenus comes from the Greek word Beenalosto", however the Latin dictionary University of Notre Dame lists no such word as "Beenalosto". Icewedge (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One is unlikely to find Greek words in a Latin dictionary, note. But my well-thumbed Greek–English lexicon doesn't contain any such word (even when allowing for the idea that this might not be the nominative case). I have found no sources on anything named "beenus". This is a hoax article, filled with random fiction. Uncle G (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A-Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable manga series that fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-MANGA. Single short direct to DVD adaptation is not a "significant adaptation." Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since when were OVA adaptations not counted towards notability? The series, short as it is, must have had some level of popularity at very least, or an OVA would not have even been considered. They aren't the cheapest thing to produce. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a single episode OVA. OVAs are direct to video releases. Most full length films released direct to video are not generally notable nor even an indication of popularity. Without significant coverage in reliables sources, this appears to just be a minor manga series with an minor OVA adaptation. There aren't even sources to confirm the OVA exists beyond the mention on ANN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Direct to video releases in Japan have historically had a different status than in the West -- an OVA adaptation had, at the time of this one, as much cache as a theatrical movie, and had animation quality that compared to same (and better than television shows). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That only applies when the OVA is notable, per criterion 3 of WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a single episode OVA. OVAs are direct to video releases. Most full length films released direct to video are not generally notable nor even an indication of popularity. Without significant coverage in reliables sources, this appears to just be a minor manga series with an minor OVA adaptation. There aren't even sources to confirm the OVA exists beyond the mention on ANN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [24] might be useful here (Press release?). I also suspect a search in Japanese would turn up a number of reviews. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...I'm not seeing anything in that article about A-Girl at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, no, it's not about A-Girl, but the live-action movie adaptation of a different series by the same author. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, I think I grabbed the wrong link. SorryHobit (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you retrace the one you thought you had? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, I think I grabbed the wrong link. SorryHobit (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, no, it's not about A-Girl, but the live-action movie adaptation of a different series by the same author. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...I'm not seeing anything in that article about A-Girl at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I can't see a bit of notability in the article itself. While I have no idea about the subject, the article as it stands seems rather trivial.Mrathel (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Evidence of notability based on authorship and likelyhood of Japanese sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the series is two volumes with only being serialized for six months, so it had to have used some serious space in the monthly magazine in which it ran. As others have noted, OVAs are generally not cheap to produce, and the fact that a six-month series spawned an OVA as well as an accompanying soundtrack release shows that some serious money was put into this series. While single OVAs may not normally be notable on their own, taken with the manga as a whole, I think this one meets the criteria. I will look in the magazines I have from around that time period to see about coverage in articles (1984 and 1993). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per above. It would help if Nihonjoe were to find just one direct reference in a magazine, as one strongly supports the notion that there's more. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Nihonjoe's comment. Extremepro (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nominated in good faith but kept per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Burnt Hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent sources to confirm notability. What I doXenocideTalk to me 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:CORP notability guidelines. Matt (Talk) 09:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep A search showed lots of mentions and coverage. What am I missing? should be retitled Burnt Hair Records. Maybe try searching that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just searched that and all I found was a bunch of trivial mentions. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they are noted in a Detroit Newspaper and on MTV's website for releasing albums for bands. Several of the bands they released albums for have articles on Wikipedia (some more notable bands than others I'll grant you). I think it's clear the the label is notable for their work with these bands and as part of their recording history. I think it's a fine stub article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have expanded the article with much better sourcing and references. Some of it is just for verifiability, but there are also some reliable sources to establish notability. There is ample evidence of notability for the label. They recorded many bands and were part of a notable music scene. If I need to do more please let me know. But I'm hoping to move on... ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They are "unquestionably the label most responsible for cultivating Detroit's sound" of the mid to late 1990s[25] (this info and new ref just added). Also multiple mentions cumulatively pass the bar. Ty 19:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. 'Reliable sources'? Someone's not much of a music fan. Burnt Hair was responsible for incubating the careers of a number of very important bands, and I think the person who nominated this for deletion was doing so in bad faith. Keep keep keep. Tzaquiel (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pump up the volume Keep Notability does not appear to be in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- D-Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, all that and a bag of chips. JBsupreme (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 20:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep D-Styles has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works, some examples of which can be found here, here and here, so passes WP:MUSIC#1. sparkl!sm hey! 21:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two articles look identical and the third isn't very substantial in its coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no substantial 3rd party coverage, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. discussion to merge/redirect can take place at the talk page –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kokborok tei Hukumu Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable organization. Shovon (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As pointed out by Juzhong below, the nominated version (sorry, admin only) appears to have been a copyright violation of this, I deleted those revisions. All comments below down through mine are based on the deleted version. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think there is an indication of notability. Substantial published works and activities. The article needs work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Merge Makes sense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. "conducting Kokborok programs in All India Radio, Agartala since April 1994. " That would pass WP:WEB's "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (except for the online part, of course) Juzhong (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's kept it should be reverted back to [26] because the current content appears to be copied from their website. Juzhong (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent catch, but you didn't go far enough. Whether it's kept or not, the copyvio has to go. I've reverted to the version you indicated and deleted the remaining versions as tainted. I'll put a note up top to notify the closer. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank God there are editors on wikipedia which protect all wikipedians from perceived and imaged legal threats which may or may not ever happen. I sleep better at night knowing their are so many valiant editors cutting other editor's contributions to pieces. travb (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kokborok_language#Institutions_and_organisations Juzhong (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting Comment No votes/comments were posted since Xymmax reverted to a non copyrighted version so a second relist seems to be warranted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, there was one !vote for a redirect. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested by Juzhong, moving content and refs. Not enough refs or info to keep as a stand-alone article, but worth mention in the Kokborok language article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This article can merge in Kokborok language or Kokborok language can expand to Kokborok language and culture and merge this article in this. Aminami (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per above, "there is an indication of notability. Substantial published works and activities." The article simply needs work, not deletion, I encourage the editor who put it up for deletion to take some time to improve the article, not delete it. travb (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I went looking for sources to try and improve it, but I found almost nothing from independent RS's. Juzhong (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jess Dunsdon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable local TV journalist and presenter. No independent reliable sources offered to show how the subject meets WP:BIO and none available on searching Nuttah (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:CREATIVE. No coverage bar those from current or previous employers. LeaveSleaves talk 04:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepSeems to have some notability as television reporter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Weak delete Perhaps not enough notability yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no independent 3rd party sources, non-notable WP:BIO. JamesBurns (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sue Lenier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Poet - few google hits, despite claims to be bigger than Shakespeare, Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath, doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines Richard Hock (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If kept, this needs dablinks with Susan Lanier. LinguistAtLarge 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - move to Susan Jennifer Lenier as this appears to be her publishing name and a definite POV/OR cleanup. Claims of being regarded as better than Shakespeare need to be backed up by something. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the claim about Shakespeare is backed up. Can anyone dig up the article? - Mgm|(talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Book jacket claims--which is what I assume they are-- are meaningless, as is an absurdity in the Daily Mirror. She has two published books. Swansongs has only 51 holdings in WorldCat. Rain following : poems has 82. Even for poetry thats very low productivity & I'd want something much mroe reliable in the way of references.DGG (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I've been following the discussion as I wasn't sure, but there didn't seem to be notability for inclusion. Unless something substantial is found and added I don't think the subject meets guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Swansongs received rave reviews on publication and the fact that this was before the internet age should not count against the notability of the writer. Calling sources 'an absurdity' does not count against their relevance. Nick mallory (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Two publications with a few reviews does not seem notable. Without the review text, a very thin article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca t|c 11:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony Stringfellow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced, does not seem to pass WP's notability guidelines, v. little external coverage Richard Hock (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources to support a claim to notability.LinguistAtLarge 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep based on the sources found by JulesH. LinguistAtLarge 05:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and mark for cleanup. Review of one of his books here. Another one here. Brief mention of his prop-making work here. Featured in local radio show here. JulesH (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough as a poet. Good grief we keep articles much less notable on third string footballers who have only played in a few games in their careers. Lets not dumb down wikipedia. Manitobamountie (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:CREATIVE criteria with JulesH's sources. Matt (Talk) 09:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephanie Brookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Journalist and Author, unreferenced, doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, no references found by searching Richard Hock (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article in local press: [27]. Interview with specialist magazine web site: [28]. Review of her novel in Vision Magazine, Issue 8, according to amazon (although there are several vision magazines, and I can't figure out which one they're referring to). JulesH (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Jules H ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I would consider dropping this entry since being a writer occasionally for a popular magazine does not make one an authority or notable. Notability is this case should be if she is 1. an authority in her field, 2. if the writer is well written in many similar magazines works or 3. if the individual has had numerous interviews. Also the concern I have is the lack of good independent references. Although the magazine to which the author writes is well known, so are Fate, Let's Live, American National Biography, American Fitness and Health. Writing for any of the magazines would not warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Being a Senior Editor would be worthy of inclusion. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vicki Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral – I was able to find this [29] imdb. Therefore, we know that not everything is made up in the article. If someone could reference only half the claims made in the piece, would gladly support as a Keep. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - I removed the more blatant WP:BLP violations like info about what she's doing and info about her children. I suggest someone who knows how to do a blanking template, do it. It reads like a tabloid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Only source is IMDB and if there are no others to be found, she is clearly not a notable person. Chamal talk 13:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Can the article be sourced? Where it the information from? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delelte. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JavaScript editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article's topic is not notable. The actual topic should be covered by Integrated development environment, because most of the listed programs can handle more than just JavaScript. In addition, there are no articles on C editor or Java editor or PHP editor (simply a redirect to a list page). Given the placement of the external links in the article, it is possible this article is used by companies to increase their marketing profile or SEO rating. Voidvector (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make this into a disambiguation page. "JavaScript editor" could mean either an IDE or text editor for writing Javascript, or a Javascript-based WYSIWYG editor embedded in web apps. In my opinion, JavaScript editor should be a disambiguation page pointing to Text editor, Integrated development environment and WYSIWYG editor. LinguistAtLarge
- Turn into a list and move to List of Javascript editors (like the PHP example mentioned above), keeping this title as a redirect (or a disambiguation, as LinguistAtLarge suggested). --Waldir talk 13:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but trim it down to a list of programs. No need to discuss what javascript is, or what an ide is. There are separate articles for that. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references = not notable. Some of the intro content could perhaps be moved to Source code editor, but otherwise this is just a list of commercial software products with links to vendor pages. The entry on JavaScript could make the obvious point that people use editors to create JavaScript programs, but should surely not provide a vendor catalog. The analogy is that Chinese Cuisine is a legitimate subject, but Chinese Restaurants in Chicago is not. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ok for the references argument, but the analogy is not quite correct IMO. What would you say about List of restaurant chains in the United States, then? I think the point here is that all restaurants are for-profit, and a list of these may be interpreted as some sort of catalog; but javascript editors can be free/open-source, so a list of these is not automatically spam or whatever you want to call it. It might be a mostly a list of commercial products by now, but it certainly has the potential to become more neutral if we let it evolve the wiki way. --Waldir talk 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I am not against articles about commercial products if they are notable. Microsoft Windows, Paris Hilton etc. reasonably have articles - millions of people are affected by or have opinions on these products. They are clearly notable. But I am against articles about less notable (to the general public) subjects that are structured in a way that will attract advertisers, with endless edit wars. Both JavaScript and Source code editor are entirely reasonable articles, just like Chinese Cuisine and Restaurant, but I am uneasy about the intersection, naming specific examples. If we dropped all mention of specific vendors, would there be enough left about JavaScript editors (as opposed to editors for all the other languages) to make a worthwhile article? I doubt it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, maybe I should vote keep and add an entry for the Aymatth2 JavaScript editor. Amazing value at $19.95 plus shipping and handling. Many unique features. Be the envy of your neighbors. Everyone is buying it - but stocks are limited. Buy now and get a free fortune cookie with each order! I am sure I could find a vendor who really has a product and would be willing to give me a commission on the sales... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ok for the references argument, but the analogy is not quite correct IMO. What would you say about List of restaurant chains in the United States, then? I think the point here is that all restaurants are for-profit, and a list of these may be interpreted as some sort of catalog; but javascript editors can be free/open-source, so a list of these is not automatically spam or whatever you want to call it. It might be a mostly a list of commercial products by now, but it certainly has the potential to become more neutral if we let it evolve the wiki way. --Waldir talk 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Move. The article if kept must be technical: how is built a JavaScript Editor. Why it is special. Would have to me moved into wikibooks in my mind. Macaldo (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No references, content is borderline G11, delete as per WP:V (none). Suggest disambiguation redirect to Text editor - DustyRain (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff Isom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete. Non-notable baseball player and manager. Marked as unreferenced since June. Does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ——Wknight94 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Articles on minor league players or managers need reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom fails notability as stated. JBsupreme (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. AcroX 02:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn athlete. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly non-notable. Nothing else to say really. Chamal talk 13:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable. Chasingsol (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Command Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Not notable as independent article subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect permy comment on Bigasaur. - Mgm|(talk) 14:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Of the articles of Zoids on Wikipedia, this could be one of the more deserving of a keep. The Command Wolf is one of the most reproduced models in the entire Zoids range, with twelve distinct releases across the twenty-five 'lines', and four limited edition releases. The mecha also plays a major role in four of the five anime series', appearing in most episodes as the mecha of a major supporting character (Irvine in Chaotic Century and the first half of Guardian Force, Brad in the first half of Zero, Helmut in Fuzors), and appears throughout all five series' as minor characters.
- Having said that, I don't care either way about the fate of this and other Zoids articles, as I contributed to them when I was young and stupid towards the Ways of the Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and discuss how to do the merge None of the reasons given are reasons for deletion, only for merging. The best way to clarify this is a straight keep, followed by a discussion about which of these articles should be kept or merged and how much to merge--none of this can appropriately be done article by article here.DGG (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and/or redirect to Zoids. (And update List of Zoids.) Merging is a completely acceptable outcome for an AFD discussion, and saying we can't agree on a merge here would be to impose excess bureaucracy, which Wikipedia is not. To quote our anti-bureaucracy policy (albeit with a touch of irony), it's obvious that we can resolve this AFD "through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures". 64.231.195.170 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because merging is an acceptable outcome for an AFD discussion does not mean that is acceptable to nominate something for AFD that should be merged. AFD is for things that need to be deleted, not for things that can reasonably be merged or redirected to more appropriate articles. WP:BEFORE says to consider these things before nominating, not after. Individually nominating dozens of similar articles with the same boilerplate rationale is excess bureaucracy, and it's obvious that most of the AFD's that are brought by the nominator could be resolved through the normal procedures outlined at WP:MERGE, instead of wasting the time of AFD participants and administrators for something that could be resolved "through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures" without needing an administrator to hit the delete button. It is far easier to apply a {{mergeto}} tag to an article than to nominate for deletion, the nominator could have added a merge tag to each of these Zoids articles and pointed them to a single discussion on Talk:List of Zoids, for example, to determine which of these articles should be merged and which (if any) should be kept as separate articles. It is likely that no one would have objected to a reasonable merge of these articles. It seems clear for the dozens of prior "discussions" (what little discussion there is) that the consensus for the majority of these articles is to merge and/or redirect, and I can't for the life of me figure out any reason other than obsessive-compulsiveness to continue to bring these to AFD after such consensus has already repeatedly been determined. DHowell (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and/or redirect, as usual, and slap the nominator with a school of trouts until he figures out that he can use merge tags, talk-page discussion, and bold, revert, discuss (with emphasis on the "discuss" part after a "revert" happens) to accomplish his goals without wasting the time of AFD participants and administrators. DHowell (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bigasaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Zoids and merge a reduced amount of material. No independent notability, doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered at all, just not in a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 14:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and discuss how to do the merge None of the reasons given are reasons for deletion, only for merging. The best way to clarify this is a straight keep, followed by a discussion about which of these articles should be kept or merged and how much to merge--none of this can appropriately be done article by article here.DGG (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep as I don't see why this needs to stay open any longer. Partly WP:SNOW, partly withdraw nomination so it works either way. (NAC)Tavix (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bill Nagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable wreck diver. I couldn't find any sources on him and the article fails to mention exactly why he is notable. Tavix (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable as mentioned. JBsupreme (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO. What I doXenocideTalk to me 04:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: "... it was his pioneering approach to wrecks that set him apart from other divers of his era. In 1985 Bill Nagle lead the team of divers who recovered the bell of the Andrea Doria, which had previously been thought lost and unrecoverable.Bill Nagle was also one of the first people in the Northeastern United States to commence dive chartering as a full time business with the custom dive vessel, the Seeker." These seem to be an assertion of notability to me, admittedly sourced offline. I leave it to others to decide if this makes him notable among wreck divers. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I created the article, and I don't believe in voting on one's own articles, but I would just point out I only created it because of a number of redlinks in other articles (click on "links here" to see). Nagle's life and death were fairly well chronicled in the best selling book, Shadow Divers (which is what I used as my primary (and only) source), although the book is more principally about the mystery U-boat. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Read through the Google results. Of course he's notable. Why on earth was this article nominated? Deletionist timewasters. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil and refrain from calling people childish -ist words. MuZemike (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no attempt to first discuss the issue on the article's talk page or on the creator's talk page, so the nomination was deletionist. Prior discussion could avoid unnecessary AfDs. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil and refrain from calling people childish -ist words. MuZemike (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think he is notable enough. He has made some important discoveries. Looks to me like a pretty special person in his field of profession. As for failing WP:BIO, recovering the bell of the Andrea Doria seems to be a very notable achievement particularly since it was thought to be unrecoverable (which I think makes him suitable for inclusion per criteria "...has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"). Chamal talk 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fact the nominator failed to find sources is irrelevant, because the article already has multiple sources. Also, Chamal's assertion that did something notable in his field of expertise is something I would totally agree with. - Mgm|(talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And cleanup/ rewrite. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Sofixit !! :D --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite keep. Notability is clear. DS (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are 666 ghits for '+"Bill Nagle" +dive' - no prestigious sources, but in the field of wreck-diving, he is undoubtedly notable. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article has multiple reliable sources, fail to see a reason for deletion. Wiw8 (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to CollegeHumor. MBisanz talk 01:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jake and Amir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
no reliable sources are available to attest to the notability of jake and amir. i posted on the talk page 2 weeks ago asking if anyone could provide reliable sources, and none were added. the only response was an affirmation that this article should be AfD'd. the article right now just seems to serve as a vanity page for jake and amir, and a magnet for lame vandalism Theserialcomma (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to http://www.JakeandAmir.com, http://www.facebook.com/jakeandamir, and http://www.bustedtees.com/jakeandamir for required "notability" of Jake and Amir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.203.11 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 67.176.203.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- None of those meet reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What I doXenocideTalk to me 04:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, mostly for lack of notability via reliable sources as well as this is not your own webhost, as noted on their website, which says "Learn more on Wikipedia." MuZemike (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the article's section titled Media coverage. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources, and they seem to be using the Wikipedia article for promotion, as indicated by the official web site. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor is it a web host to keep material like this. Chamal talk 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only third-party sources provided (the Wired article and the scans of Cosmopolitan and US Weekly) only give a few lines on the topic, all basic information. This hardly establishes notability. It would be a different story if one of those sources featured a detailed interview. As it is, though, it's not enough. Also agree with MuZemike and Chamal_N on the treatment of Wikipedia as a webhost. There's no reason why they can't publish "more information" on their own site. [Phlyght] 13:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Phlyght. The media coverage is by Wikipedia standards trivial. There's no indepth information. An interview or a listing that shows an award from any of these publications would be another story. - Mgm|(talk) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be substantial coverage and recognition and involvement in web awards and web comedy community. Good news search [30] ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the main CollegeHumor article. Graymornings(talk) 21:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Videos avg near 100k views each, Show started ind. of college humor, the videos themselves can be used as reference, media coverage, web awards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.168.154 (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the videos themselves don't qualify as reliable references for their WP:N or WP:Verifiability
- Keep Jake and Amir have been interviewed multiple times on various programs that cover pop culture, including, most notably, Yahoo's "The 9" by Maria Sansone, who herself is a public figure. Also of note is the fact that CollegeHumor was recently given a timeslot on MTV.
- Keep JakeandAmir are a pair of comedians. This wiki entry assists in detailing the history of their career, and their development from the beginning. It also allows people to understand the recurring themes in the videos, without having to watch all of the videos to find the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.118.86 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Textbook example of what "trivial" coverage means. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and smerge to CollegeHumor seems like a reasonable compromise. They're really notable on their own but are probably worth a mention. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.