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.
Flying a jet pack is unusual, but that alone isn't enough to create notability and I can't find signficant coverage about Dan Schlund to show any real notability. This article is mainly an excuse to promote Dan Schlund and his jet pack entertainment business. Basil Richards00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A quick search got me three news stories involving Dan Schlund, including one piece exclusively on him (which I added in the External Links section pending a rewrite). I think there is some notability here, and though I could wish for more, I think it's enough to keep the article around. The article has NPOV/COI issues, but those can be edited out over time, and aren't generally cause for deletion. - Fordan (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears that he is the only person in the world who does this for entertainment, and if this kind of show becomes more popular (as I think it would) this page would simply be recreated.--Mr Beale16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete It's fancruft more than it's spam. Kellie Pickler is a notable entertainer, but every song she publishes isn't necessarily notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Maybe it will grow to be a notable song in the future, but it doesn't qualify now and might never qualify. See WP:CRYSTAL. OfficeGirl00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete per nom. Dicdef which isn't really a dicdef. Original editor has already explained that only he and one other person have ever used this attempt at a neologism. OfficeGirl22:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep if an hoax-y idea receives enough mainstream coverage (which I think this has), it can become notable. And as the nom shows, it's also verifiable (the google book seems to quote the New Scientist for ex.) --Bfigura(talk)00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should also mention that the cat is not buttered, it is the toast that is buttered, so the article title is incorrect. --Pixelface02:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't the references in the article alone prove that it's a notable concept in popular culture. I think people are confusing notability with seriousness of a topic. Key to the city09:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way the 'loophole theories' section is written, doesn't make it clear enough that the subject is not scientific though. That needs to be removed or changed. Key to the city08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 1996 article in New Scientist shows that this is a somewhat popular joke. Still, I'd rather see it mentioned in a half sentence in perpetual motion or something like Science humour. The current section "Thought experiments" also is somewhat confusing (is there some actual thought experiment going on like with Schroedinger's cat, or is this just elaborating the joke?) but I don't think that could be much improved, so nothing remains to write an encyclopedic article. --Allefant11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This joke has definitely become a well-known part of our culture. I think it could use some editing, however, particularly to merge the "Thought experiment" section with the rest of the article. Ariah19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one has been around, as evidenced by the sources. Just because it's a joke doesn't mean it's not "worthy". I think it deserves mention that the premise is flawed, though. MythBusters proved toast doesn't always land butter side down, and I've proven cats don't always land on their feet (though that last part is WP:OR and not acceptable for the article). --UsaSatsui16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was on QI once that cats that fall from between the 5th and 7th storey of a building are more likely to die from the fall than cats that fall from above or below that height. That would suggest that it's not OR, though where one would start to look for that research I haven't the foggiest. I tried attaching some buttered bread to the back of my own cat, until he tried attaching his claws to my face. -- Roleplayer21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a non-frivolous reason: it's a very simple example of a paradox that people can understand, and the other paradox articles go into mathematics and formal logic to the point where a lot of them are confusing and marked as too technical. Kuronue | Talk00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - OR that implies the "science officer" job in one series is comparable to that in all the others. Not particularly useful, either - those interested in clumping people together by job can use an infobox (e.g. Template:Enterprise captains) between character articles. --EEMeltonIV22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Useful? I guess it depends on your point of view, but this is a concise table for separating the many characters from the many progeny of Gene Roddenberry, and it is preferable to having multiple articles about the casting. Like they say in baseball, you can't tell the players without a scorecard. Mandsford01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response And neither is "It is not useful"... whether it is or is not useful, it's a concise table for sep... well, whatever I said up there. Mandsford14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The main problem here is that the article says absolutely nothing. This isn't even a POV or original research list/essay, it's simply a sketchy restatement of subject matter already discussed in the Queen article. I see no need for a separate article. Calgary22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Failed congressional candidate from 2004. No other claim of notability and subject does not meet WP:BIO. The subject dropped out of 2006 race and is now a mid-level bureaucrat. It appears unlikely that this individual will become more notable than he is now. Previous AfD, in 2005, resulted in a "no consensus keep". ·:· Will Beback·:·21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete A Google search of "Shonen Joufu" -wikipedia turns up one hit to an unrelated page, which itself is an unaccredited copy of a different Wikipedia article. --Farix (Talk) 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sources have been provided but article body needs more content. Allow me to work on it for a few days in order to improve the article--Sabature02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE NOTE: I've looked at the sources that you have added to the article and they consist only of (1) the subject of the article and (2) press releases from the PR firm hired by the subject of the article. If you can't find any truly independent sources that have published stories about this subject, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for the article. I hate to tell you that after your hard work to find those links, but the article is still only an advertisement, and that's a no-no on Wikipedia. But you could publish it on another internet website if you like. OfficeGirl09:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE NOTE: OfficeGirl I checked out the article links as well and it seems majority of them are independent sources for example:-
This page is a community calendar for the week of June 15, 2007. It contains only a brief mention of Dubai Lime, and that is in the way of printing an event announcement which was no doubt provided by the subject's publicist. This is not the same as when a publication independently deems a subject to be newsworthy and investigates the facts and writes a story about it.
This is a small blurb in a section of the website called Coffee and Culture (things to do in Dubai). The blurb itself is four sentences long, and it isn't even a blurb about Dubai lime-- it's about a coffee shop called Central Perk. At the end of the sentence it mentions that Dubai Lime is scheduled to have an "Open Mic" night there. That's all. There's no real information about the subject of this Wikipedia article, except that the subject really exists. I don't think anyone has doubted that the subject really exists.
This is the only article which is actually written by an independent reporter of the facts. It is very brief and it reads like a press release (reporters often rely heavily on press packets from the promoter to get the content of their articles, it saves them from actually doing the work of writing), but it still counts as a third-party source. Thing is-- what we learn about this subject is that it is a new corporation of music promoters trying to drum up some business. They are trying to get themselves established and working hard, but we all know they got this article through their paid publicist more so than on the merits of serious newsworthiness.
This one is an interview of the subject. It's a lot like a primary source, since the publication is only printing word-for-word what the subject says without analysis, but it's a whole lot better than a press release. Again, the article seems to tell us that these folks are just getting started. It takes a lot for a music promoter to be considered notable, and it may be premature to label them as such.
Karenarttodd, you have reacted to my post as if you believe I am rushing to judgment on deletion. If you check my contrib history you will see that numerous times I have changed my delete vote to keep whenever an editor overhauls a problem article. I am really glad when they do that and I have endeavored to do that on several Irish-based articles myself. I am not against the City of Dubai and I am more aware than most that it is a rich cultural and international trade center, as one of my dearest friends lives in the UAE.
I still have my doubts about this very commercial entry qualifying as an appropriate entry on Wikipedia. And I hate having these doubts when I see how much work these editors are doing to try as they can to find something that makes the article work. Kudos to the hard work, but we aren't going to be able to change the facts about this brand new commercial enterprise which has had only minimal coverage on a local level in their own city.OfficeGirl19:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. All sources added thus far are links to subject of article. Still probably fails as spam, definitely fails on notability and verifiability. --Bfigura(talk)03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not an advert. It reads like an advert therefore request help from wikipedians to edit the wiki article.The articles provided within the Wiki Article are valid sources in the city the website is based in please check and confirm.--Karenarttodd11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then I guess there is no changing your mind OfficeGirl...I am an Art writer in a U.K. art publication and have heard about the great things they are doing for the Art Community for Free so I thought I would look them up on wikipedia. Do what ever fancies you I just know from being a part of the Art world that Dubai Lime gets no money what so ever from their Art Project.--Karenarttodd22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. Unlike my other "procedure" AfDs today, I'm throwing a Delete up with this one. It's completely unnotable and makes no sense out of context. UsaSatsui20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Everything Dwight does on the show is not automatically notable and this lacks coverage from independent real world sources Corpx04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete Will change to Keep if reliable sources are provided. Plenty of Google hits, but no reliable, independent sources. Not documented on snopes.com, normally my first stop for verification of "popular urban legends". Perhaps another editor knows of better secondary/tertiary sources that might have discussed this ghost story? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the telltale words of "legend", "rumor" and "tale", there is not even a fig leaf of a source to support any of the supposed spooky happenings in Atco, not even a reference to the questionable sources at Weird NJ. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; This article provides no evidence, let alone the extraordinary kind. I will be willing to reconsider if some semblance of sources are added supporting the claims of supposed mysterious happenings. Alansohn21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Contested prod on this article about a manga series. Notability not established. Also nominating the "list of" page. Procedural nom, no opinion (yet). UsaSatsui20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An "up-and-coming" tag should probably be added to this article, but with the pricing, reads as an advert, for which it should be deleted. 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs)
Delete both Google search of Dagekimaru -wikipedia turns up only 8 hits to unrelated pages, several of which are unaccredited copies of other Wikipedia articles. --Farix (Talk) 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing more than a list of one type of business in a specific area. This is Wikipedia, not wiki Yellow Pages. The majority of links are to non notable pubs, or former pubs. Nuttah6820:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently written as it is a directory. There might be case for an article on the history of pubs in Balmain especially given that we appear to have an article on most of them. Certainly, Dawn Fraser's pub might be worth an article. Capitalistroadster03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is not a directory - and categories won't be necessary as most pub are just ordinary pubs like zillion others.--JForget22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirectArticlfy and move to Pubs of Balmain, New South Wales. Thirteen Balmain hotels are listed on the online database at NSW Heritage. Many of these have architectural and historic interest and are not your average suburban beer barns. There should be enough material available from various sources to create a good article on this subject, and many of the linked stubs could then be merged into the article. --Melburnian03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If all those pubs have an article, there is no reason not to have a list, tho it's purpose may be better served by a category. :: maelgwn - talk 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Redirect to Balmain article per directory guidelines. An article (not a list) could be created on Pubs in Balmain. :: maelgwn - talk23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 article fails to assert the notability of this profession computer game player who peaked in 2002. The non-notability tag has been removed on grounds that he satisfies WP:BIO, as allegedly he is equivalent to a competitor who has played in a fully professional league. I would suggest that professional sportspeople inhabit the real world where they can receive independent coverage in newspapers & magazines, whereas Park Jung Suk occupied a virtual world, which is relative annonymous, ephemeral, but ultimately non-notable. --Gavin Collins20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Ample google hits, clearly meets WP:BIO criteria, and stating that he is a professional gamer is an assertation of notability. Neither the shortcomings of the article nor the appararent bias of the nominator against electronic sports are any reason for deletion. PC7822:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong DELETE. Just stating that the subject of this article earns his living by playing games is NOT an assertion of notability. For example, there are a great many professional golfers and professional tennis players who are only known by the people that they work with and compete with. They earn a living, but are not notable figures for encyclopedia purposes. Unless Park Jung Suk has received real recognition in the press which is verifiable from reliable sources there is no reason to have an article about him on Wikipedia. This fellow belongs on MySpace.com, not Wikipedia. OfficeGirl00:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BIO, Athletes: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." This sufficient criterion for notability is satisfied. Debivort04:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think OfficeGirl has made a fair comment. Although computer games are very popular, they are a relatively solitary pastime, with little coverage outside gaming magazines and fansites. Notability is not inherited, and playing a notable computer game does not confer notability. The point is if there was more independent information about him, then notability could be established regardless of his sport or nationality. --Gavin Collins09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've put this on Gavin's talk page and I'll put it here for others to read. Starcraft in Korea is not a "solitary past time" (and how many times do we have to repeat this) but a spectator sport, it has become significant that even across the world the BBC should write:-
"In some nations gamers are looked down upon, but in South Korea professional gaming, or e-sports, is worth billions of dollars and players are seen as heroes...as if to prove that computer gaming is like sports, in a stadium used in the 1988 Olympic Games...Around 30,000 fans have turned up to see the biggest stars battle it out...they are playing Starcraft...It is the most popular game in South Korea and the only one with its own professional league." follow this link to read the article in full.
It is systemic bias and an unwillingness to accept any World view that is not your own narrow and parochial one as having any truth and validity to paraphrase Swift "...only a fool believes that the customs, and mores of his native land, has the weight of natural laws." that computer games are "solitary and "annonymous, ephemeral"(sic) where you live, does not mean that the same is true everywhere.KTo28809:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these nominations are systemic bias of the worst order see thisBBC page to see how big e-sports are in Korea, and as to champions vs journeymen, read the article, he has won one of the leagues and has regularly come in second.KTo28802:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that sources do exist to verify notability. The fact that they're not in the article would be a cleanup issue, not grounds for deletion. I'm adding sourcing templates to the page to this end. --Bfigura(talk)03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. The nominator asserts that "professional sportspeople inhabit the real world where they can receive independent coverage in newspapers & magazines". This is in fact true in Korea, where video gaming is very much akin to a national sport, and winning major events would make one notable in the same way as for a physical athlete. Although all articles should in principle be referenced, I have no reason to doubt notability in this case. --Dhartung | Talk04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The link to game fan articles provide no evidence of notability; I assume they would have been translated and quoted if they did. --Gavin Collins18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was None. There is an ongoing Arbitration case here about the whole Allegations of apartheid mess. There was a consensus to undelete and blank those articles that had been deleted for the purposes of gathering evidence for the case. The discussion can be found here. Because of the case, I am suspending/closing the AfD, without prejudice for keeping or deleting the article in question. If you wish to renominate it, please do so again after the ArbCom case closes. --Hemlock Martinis05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an inflammatory issue that exists solely to denigrate and delegitimize the State of Israel. By its very nature, it is not possible to say anything about it in a politically, ideologically, or epistemologically "neutral" fashion, and therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Skaraoke08:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis nomination hasn't been processed properly. It therefore does not appear on the list of active nominations. You should check the process again. There is something you haven't done that the process requires. When you do process it, please note that this is the seventh nomination, not the second as you say. Look at the article talk page and expand the AfD list and you'll see the lot. I would also suggest looking at the arguments that have allowed this article to allow for over a year and these six nominations before putting forward yet another nomination.--Peter cohen10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think its OK now. --Gavin Collins21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Thanks to you and Cerejota, it is much better now.--Peter cohen08:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the "(second nomination)" part was added automatically by the afdx template, and it was beyond my control. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the reason that this inflammatory article has survived so many nominations for deletion is that it's heavily patrolled by members of the antisemitic, Israel-hating fringe and an (unfortunately smaller) group of people who know what these antisemites (and discredited self-loathing Jews, e.g.Norman Finkelstein) are up to and are dedicated to countering their propaganda. This situation creates the illusion there is a "bimodal consensus" about whether this issue is valid, when in fact if everyone in the English-speaking were to voice their opinions about this, there would be a clear consensus that the credibility of this issue should go the way of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which many anti-Israel groups sell at their rallies, BTW). The Israel-haters take advantage of the obscurity of this fringe issue. If the only people who had ever heard of Nazism were members of the Aryan Nations and the ADL, the same thing would happen with that article too. Luckily everyone in the country knows about Nazism, but they're not familiar with this lesser-known brand of antisemitism, so they're not there to reign in this problem. - Skaraoke20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the other explanation as to why the article has survived numerous nominations is that the subject matter is notable and verifiable. In fact, WP:V's main tenet is "verifiability, not truth". The article does not exist to push the claim or assert its truthiness (thanks Stephen Colbert!); rather, it exists to cover the issue. BTW, it would do you a world of good to strike some of your inflammatory comments above. Labeling those that are in favor of keeping the article as antisemetic is going to cause you more problems than its worth, such as a trip to WP:WQA. Tarc21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the etymology of the word "verifiability," this standard is a logical contradiction, and therefore it makes no sense. Anyway, if this "rule" really is part of Wikipedia's fundamental philosophy, it explain why Wikipedia has become such an epistemological cesspool, and why the lunatic fringe has found such a secure home here. - Skaraoke00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously trying to skip an editing dispute by way of AfD. If you have problems with it, join the debate in the talk page. An inflammatory, ill-advised, POV-pushing, disruptive AfD is the last thing we need. As to epistemology, I suggest you check Nigger. If you tolerate such an word being a title, you are being an hypocrite. And don't give me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS lip, if you are claiming systemic challenges, please act like it or don't claim it. All your nom and comments show is that you are just concerned about your own POV. Thanks!--Cerejota03:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have gone through the differences between this article and Nigger. But again, this article is written from the perspective of the users as to why they believe the term is appropiate. Nigger is written from the persepective of a black person as to why the term is an insult. It is not written from the prespective of a white supremacist, describing why they believe the term is appropiate; if it was, I would nominate that article for deletion, as it would be a racist anti-black POV fork. But it is not, so you are not comparing apples to apples with that analogy. Unless the article begins with something along the lines of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid are made by antisemites who despise israel..." and make that the thesis of the article, there is no comparision between the two. If you have another example that is an apples to apples comparision, please mention it, so it can be nominated for an afd as well.--SefringleTalk03:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As is yours, as is most everyone else's here. When you can address actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines as to why this article should be deleted, I will gladly respond. If all you're going to do is engage in ad hominem asides, then that really isn't a productive use of our time. Tarc02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's time to put an end to this whole Allegations of apartheid mess. However, I think the nominator does his cause more harm than good with his inflammatory rationale. --Groggy DiceT | C22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls under the category of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. There is not possible non-POV answer. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MarkBul23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given in my above comments and in several of the past AfDs. Subject matter is notable and verifiable. Nominators rationale misrepresents the article's point and rather disgustingly drags out the "antisemite" slur for his opponents. Tarc00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually kind of like this, except that I would prefer it to say "Proposed Analogy with Apartheid." And, the article needs to be more honest about the character, credibility, likely motives, and conflicts-of-interest of the specific people who are promoting this analogy. As it stands now, people with an obvious anti-Israel agenda are using strong-arm tactics to whitewash these folks in the article. - Skaraoke01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply Oh, what a quagmire. "Israeli Apartheid" would be a perfectly good title, since that is the name used by the accusers and the most likely search term for those seeking information on the topic. The name that is being used now is more POV than anything in the article, though the "Opposing Views" section sounds more like the response in a debate rather than a dispassionate reporting of the published record as found in reliable sources. I see you've dedicated quite a bit of energy to the problems inherent in renaming this article. But I still think it needs to be renamed. OfficeGirl01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for nominator (or others). First, most importantly, please clarify how you distinguish the grounds for this AfD from the previous ones. Second, please clarify what "it" refers to in your statement "By its very nature, it is not possible to say anything about it in a politically, ideologically, or epistemologically "neutral" fashion, and therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia." If "it" is an "inflammatory issue", then how would you explain the existence of encyclopedia articles (Wikipedia or otherwise) on such topics as abortion. If "it" refers to the current Article Name, would you deny that it is possible to formulate a neutral title about the similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa? Thanks for elucidating the grounds for yet another AfD. HG | Talk00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It" in this case refers to the accusation that Israel practices "Apartheid." Abortion is a clinically recognized medical procedure. It's a fact that it has been performed. The contentious issue of its legality and/or morality is notable because, for example, it has been the subject of several cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, which body is established by the United States Constitution to be the highest-precedence Federal court in the land. Every person living in the United States is affected by its decisions. Therefore, issues brought before it are per se notable within American society. On the other hand, in this case we're talking about an idea being debated by people whose own notability (to say nothing of "objectivity") is in question. (i.e. Not every tenured English professor is considered "notable" just because she says what she thinks about Shakespeare, so why do we assume that every Middle East Studies professor is "notable"?) Also, as I've said elsewhere on this page, certain issues such as abortion are much more widely known than this "Israeli Apartheid" thing, so the articles on Wikipedia have a larger and more representative "gene pool" from which to draw contributors. I hope that these explanations help to answer your question. - Skaraoke01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this one speaks for itself:
Please do not feed the trolls.We've had two move requests in the last week, with no consensus for a move. We don't need to have this discussion again in yet another ___location. It's time for the people who want to rename the article to just stop for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as no consensus, as I can promise with absolute certainty that such will be the end result, one way or another. CJCurrie01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, possible speedy close - Nominators comment is not supported by the wealth of notable, reliable, and verifiable sources that provide complete encyclopedic value to the topic in itself. Deletionism around this article seems to always be based around POV WP:BATTLE ideological reasons: since the topic includes politics contrary to the existence of Israel, or against policies put in practice, historically or currently. The nominator obviously has not read the article (which needs work) and is obviously having a knee-jerk reaction to the existence of the topic, because the article as it stands doesn't support his nomination comments: In fact, the bulk of the sourced material that uses the analogy is from self-described Zionist sources or sources that are sympathetic or support the existence of Israel, but think certain policies are harmful to a peace process and in fact contribute to increased insecurity in Israel itself.
Furthermore, it being a controversial topic, which has been over many AfDs in the past (some of which have been bad faith, but most of them have been solid and well discussed.), is currently under ArbCom, and has been the subject of several RfMs and very active discussion in its talk page, the nominator should at least have had the common decency of asking for the opinion of editors before jumping the gun.
This nomination is a best a mistake by an unexperienced wikipedia, and at worse one of the most egregious example of WP:BATTLE disruption. Either way it is disruptive and should be speedy closed.
Lastly, this is not the "Second nomination" and this needs URGENT admin attention, so that people are no confused as to this issue being a long-standing controversy. Thanks!--Cerejota02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trolling: this is not a vote, and just because you and your meatpuppets continue to be disruptive and unproductive doesn't mean it cannot be speedily closed. Edit, don't delete. Thanks!--Cerejota03:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and enough no-consensus closes. It is unlikely this issue will ever be resolved. as long as the closing admin closes this debate as "no consensus." The last few nominations closed that way and that has created major conflicts which lead this issue to go to arbcom. My opinion is this article is an insult to Israel and zionism, and should not be kept. Sure, it may be notable, but sourced insults (even from scholars) are still insults. Notability alone does not mean a topic is encyclopediac. But even th notability is questionable, as most of the material is original primary sources claiming to prove some form of notability. The criticism section is the largest section, but most of the critics do not use the term "apartheid" in their rebuddle; instead they explain how the anti-israel, anti-zionists are wrong in their statements. If the primary sources were removed, there would probably be only 3 paragraphs remaining, which could easily be merged into Human rights in Israel, where the topic would at least be given all the weight it diserves, and would at least be presented in a neutral manner. Garbage like this should not be kept, as it is proof that WP:NPOV does not apply to afd debates. As for Malik Shabazz's comment, why go through this again? The answer is because we haven't resolved the previous issues. The article is still an anti-Israel, anti-zionist POV fork, and attempts to move this article to a more neutral title have all failed so far. --SefringleTalk02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is a gross exaggeration of reality. "This issue" went to Arbcom not because of the article's controversial content (which you well know Arbcom does not rule on) because a group of editors (including you) have been accused of disruptive editing in relation to this and the subsequent POV forking articles, most of which have been since deleted or moved. Tarc03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical Note I have moved nomination to the correct title (it is the seventh nomination), and nominated the redirect for deletion and recreate protection here. This is to fix the technical clusterfucks around this nomination. I am operating under WP:SNOW, and hope this is not controversial in anyway. Thanks!--Cerejota03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are miscounting. Whichever their quality, there have been seven nominations for deletion. There are two who allude to "2nd" and "second" nominations, and there is no "third/3rd" nomination. What needs to happpen is one of those gets renamed "third/3rd". No complex and error prone "rollback" of numbers needed. Although in all honesty, I would leave the past alone, less issues. Thanks! --Cerejota03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Minutiae, much too detailed information unsuitable for an encyclopedic entry, listcruft which borders on fancruft Chris19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also listcruft not found in encyclopedic articles for any other country:[reply]
Merge all into respective main articles and trim down to feature only the most notable awards, then delete as listcruft. Tx1777720:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Amitab Bachan winning those awards are really significant, just as winning at the Oscars would be, but most of the other ones can be merged back into the main article, but I think it is really better to relist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
reply-if you're accusing me of systemic bias, that is bad faith and you should stuff it. No other country has boilerplate lists for their film industry. I'd be happy to include the ones you mentioned and any other-those didn't jump out as there isn't a concerted effort to push that particular listcruft. Chris06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not accusing you of anything, I just noted that you left out the only three non-bollywood articles, for reasons I did not (and still do not) understand. But do I interpret you correctly now that you are saying that lists like this are only bad if there is a "concerted effort" to generate them? Whether or not they are listcruft is actually the topic of this AfD I assume. And shouldn't we judge articles based on their content instead of who makes them? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly merge the smaller ones into the biographies. The big ones will clutter the main articles. Award lists should be comprehensive, especially is the award itself has an article. It would be a serious omission to not have a comprehensive list of awards that have articles. The lists are well sourced, and their omission would show cultural bias for Wikipedia. The articles are also much better formatted and referenced than their American actor counterparts. See the examples above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )07:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I just noted none of the additional articles included in this AfD have been tagged with the proper AfD tag. As (looking at the votes until now), these articles will probably not be deleted, I am not sure someone even need to add them. Just to let you know. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)14:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I think all of them should be deleted, including the three others mentioned. None of these are too long to go within articles. I suppose though to be fair we will have to go about it slowly. Personally I would suggest starting with Oliver and going from there. The significance of the artist has nothing to do with it--this is fragmentary content. Even for Amitabh Bachchan, the list is a small portion of the article. DGG (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think some of the articles are well sourced and since Bollywood tends to have many award ceremonies, it would make sense to create a seperate page for them, instead of putting them on the actors pages. -- Pa717:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No delete and no merge. There is nothing to merge here. The award articles of Bollywood actors are too long and it's a non-sense to return it back to the article and load it. They load more than half the page. So that's all. They should be left as they always were, before you're unnecessary intervention (BTW, I still remember that you didn't put for deletion the Hollywood pages and it will play only against you if necessary). --Shahid • Talk2me12:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bollywood has come a long way from where it used to be: It has become international now!! Nowadays, not just Indians, but many people watch Indian movies. Many actors are being approached for Hollywood projects. If there is so much attention on Hollywood pages then why can't we do the same for Bollywood too. Hollywood awards are given so much importance then why can't we do the same for Bollywood awards too?? Why aren't the Hollywood award pages nominated for deletion?? Many of the award pages are too long, thus having a separate page for the awards will help show most of the awards, the actor/actress has won. --BollywoodDreamz Talk19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL: Looking through the pages, I find it amusing that almost all the articles nominated here are better sourced and referenced than the pages of the Western stars (most of which have ZERO refs and yet are not nominated for deletion or mergers). Merging these pages back to the original articles would be impractical as the merged articles would then face article size issues. The Wikipedia is not paper and these articles have a place in it. They are researched and documented, not 'cruft' (as the nomination crassly dismisses them), "I don't like it" cannot stand as a reason for deletion. --Eqdoktor07:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete As is it could include about 550,000,000 living people plus all the departed Geminis. Even if it were List of notable Geminis it would be 1/12 of the persons eligible for biographies on Wikipedia. If anything, it could be a category, for those who think that Geminis or those born under other signs have special characteristics as a consequence. Edison01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What possible notability could a person's star sign give to him/her? Please don't tell me there are such lists for the other 11 signs too. JIP | Talk10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate info. Even categorizing would almost seem to be original research, unless a subject self-identified as a Gemini. - Dean Wormer04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep I don't think middle schools are inherently notable. This one is bigger than many high schools (970 students in just 3 grades), however, and it has some claims to local fame for its history of athletic prowess and its new program to boost academic achievement. Needs some more sources in addition to its website, though. The "references" cited when I visited the article seem to have been bogus -- not only were they pseudo-URLs, but they were about a Columbia Middle School with an International Baccalaureate curriculum, which this school does not have. If this is not kept, please merge into Aurora Public Schools (Colorado).--orlady23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the related school board or with the town - as it doesn't look significant enough for it's individual article - nothing extremely special either.--JForget22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Do not delete First of all the sport is called football. Second of all, I dont see what you guys have against this player. He seems to be really good, and this article isnt hurting anyone!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosskyline (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, the article clearly states it is about superhuman powers. I wonder if the nominator has those as well... Anyway, lists like this provide a perfect way of navigating articles with similar topics. Apart from lack of sourcing, there is not much wrong with lists like this, as they are way superior to the use of categories (extra information, different sorting, sourcing). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)06:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a very elaborate multi-part discussion of these in March 2007, decided finally on March 14 as [4] closed with great skill by Radiant; this was one of those to be listified. I don't want to go into the incredibly confusing details again, but I think the closure at CfD should be followed as a matter of practicality. I do not say that I necessarily agree with everything decided, but it reached a compromise and I think should be maintained. Please go read it carefully before trying to upset it. I can see us going back and forth on every one of these as there is no absolutely secure decision basis. Let's settle it for this & others by simply following an expert decision already reached. Any minor improvements will not be worth the time & effort. DGG (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of excellent organization in table format that is exactly the well-organized kind of reference stuff people expect out of a non-paper encyclopedia. Adding references, which should be easily found, would only make this otherwise well put together article all the better! Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep While WP:BIO states that local elected officials may not be notable, I would believe that this is mostly intended to prevent articles about school board members and city councilpersons, who really aren't that notable and the articles would be nothing but resumes of otherwise private people. Mayors are at the top of the local governmental structure and I would think would be considered to be fairly notable as they would have been written about extensively. Further, Carlbom in particular was the second of two consecutive mayors of St. Joseph who were elected at age 23. This in itself is fairly unusual and makes him stand out among other mayors of St. Joseph for whom the notability argument might be harder to make. I have added a couple of more links to the article to be used as sources. I will come back and inline reference them if I have the time, but anyone else is welcome to. In fact, I encourage it. In my search for sources, I also came across this document which may imply a small scandal, perhaps relating to Carlbom's involvement in Tim Walz's campaign while he was mayor and may have been an impetus for his resignation. I have not added this to the article particularly because it does involve some speculation on my part and borders on OR (that I did in under 10 minutes using Google!) but I mention this because it may point to the existence of some sources providing coverage of this. Speaking of Google, while a search of "Richard Carlbom" (in quotes) returns only 654 results, most of them are in fact about the subject of the article. This is in contrast to many other notable person AFDs in which a search for the subject will return thousands of results, but only a handful are actually about the person in question. I point this out because it's important to keep in mind that the Google test is not the best standard for supporting a case of non-notability. LaMenta301:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete honestly, would anyone outside the town/county care about this person? From reading the article, I'd say no. Delete per narrow scope of notability Corpx04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaMenta3. This person is actively involved in the political process and has accordingly received significant press coverage (in contrast to the variety of small town mayor who's the town's doctor most of the week but presides over votes on fixing potholes one evening every two weeks. Sarcasticidealist09:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very small town indeed, under 5,000 population. The minor things he did there do not make for notability, even if the local paper reported them.DGG (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, per nom. Very few wrestling DVDs are notable. This one isn't because it doesn't provide any new information. It is just a bunch of matches, that like it says, are also included on other DVDs. Nikki31103:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. And apologies for missing it in the other AfD, you may want to check the cats at the bottom of the article and take a nother look at all the other DVD articles. Darrenhusted16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The article as it stands differs substantially from the article as nominated, but it's unclear that latecomers to the debate realized this. Mackensen(talk)16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There could be a good article in this... where else but in video games do you see teenage boys playing the role of a woman? But in this one we read about an "increasing trend", two games being "criticised" and that "many Japanese games" reward rape. If it doesn't get deleted, please tell us what else you've heard lately Mandsford19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Yes, this could become a very good article. But the person who created it has an obvious agenda and lacks the skill. Maybe it could be brought up to minimum standards, so that editors of more ability can make something of it. It's true that many Japanese games portray rape, look at the Wiki articles (or do other research) on dating sim, bishoujo games, and especially eroge. -- AvatarMN19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is the germ of a good article here, but in it's current state, it fails woefully on WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Needs major work to bring it from its current state of a barely started persuasive essay up to an encyclopaedic level. If anyone wants to work on it, then I'd say keep and expand, but in its current state it's a simple delete. Tx1777720:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious; how's an article expected to be able to expand after its been deleted? Isn't it bad form, and an uphill battle, to undelete an article? -- AvatarMN20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm never one to dismiss an article with potential because of a current poor state. I'm saying that, if someone with the knowledge and time to turn this article into something useful is willing to expand it, then it would be worth keeping, but if that isn't the case and it shows no signs of being improved, then it should be deleted. Tx1777720:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone with the knowledge and time to turn this article into something useful is willing to expand it, won't they be unable to because it's been deleted? The article's talk page shows that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies has expressed an interest, maybe they'll do something if it's not deleted. I'll alert them to this AFD. -- AvatarMN21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Video games - I saw this notice at Project Gender stdies. This is an interesting topic, it'd make a great book or article or thesis. However, this is not what wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not here to publish any piece of research. WP is here to record notable phenomena, their histories and the reliably sourced, notable views on/about them. "The portrayal of women in video games" might make an interesting section in Video games but it is not notable enough for its own article. Also everything in this piece is original research e.g the piece about rape in Japanese games - its horrifying, and from what I can see about 177 (video game) its true - but we have zero reliable sources and zero verification of it. Wikipedia articles are not judged on their merit as interesting areas of research or on their truth value - they're judged on how well verified they are and how notable they are. This article has no verification and very very limited notability. In short if anyone can find the book, do the research and write a NPOV piece put it into Video games, but this article has to go--Caililtalk23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to recreation of a sourced article, unless anyone wants to work on it imminently in which case rewrite. It looks like there has been enough written about the topic for an article [5] but the current version is a mess, full of unreferenced hearsay and probable original research, and not a good starting point, or the sort of thing we should keep around on the off-chance that someone might write a proper article one day. Find the sources, then write the article - not the other way round. Iain9923:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds the time to delete the original research which fills the article, to find reliable sources which discuss the topic, and to basically write a new article. I believe some of the criticisms of the role of women in video games are reasonable. If it is deleted, a new and referenced article can certainly be created later. I recall the beginning of video games, and the graphics were a bit crude for them to be about raping womne or to be like Tomb Raiders. More like ping-pong, dungeon mazes. airplanes, miners, gorillas, & tanks. Edison01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework. The fact that its current incarnation is OR doesn't mean it lacks the potential to grow; I'm sure this has been the topic of many a published paper, and a worthy, sourced article can be created. Google Scholar lists plenty of papers for sources. [6] as most of the votes are delete due to lack of volunteers, I'll volunteer to work with it for a little while, get the ball rolling. Kuronue | Talk00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striking nomination, article has been significantly expanded and properly sourced by Kuronue (well done!). Obviously, the subject is notable, but the revision at the time of the nomination ([7]) was unsourced OR. It looks like a fine article now, certainly eligible for expansion. Melsaran (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete According to the late Jackie Wilson, disappointment was a guy. But then, you came, and he soon departed. And, you know? He never showed his face again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Even though they're a publicly traded Wendy's franchisee, they're listed on the Pink Sheets. They got delisted from another exchange (the American Stock Exchange?) because they didn't meet minimum reporting requirements. Also, according to this press release, the company is "exploring strategic options", which can be translated as, "We're circling the drain." I can't find any other real sources of news on this company other than press releases, and being listed on the Pink Sheets doesn't really amount to notability, so delete this article. --Elkman(Elkspeak)01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local branches of anything are rarely notable--this is certainly no exception, based on the information available. DGG (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW delete. Sandwiches are not notable subjects in and of themselves. Content should be made an aside in the primary Wendy's article. ALKIVAR™☢22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I have tasted other spicy chicken sandwiches, but the Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich is by far the best. It is the acme of spicy chicken sandwiches, by which all other spicy chicken sandwiches are measured." (Dave Thomas, 1932-2002) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few items at any given fast food restaurant (McRib comes to mind here) garner their own article. This sandwich, while quite delicious in my opinion, is not one of those few. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My grandma used to make a spicy chicken sandwich, too. My grandpa said her sandwich was the best one ever, and if he had known how to use the word "acme" in a sentence I'm sure he would have used it here. And, like Dave Thomas, my grandparents are dead. We would have to have a disambiguation page to distinguish this one from my grandma's and from every other chicken sandwich that anyone else makes, as long as their sandwiches are spicy as well. Or we could just delete this, since it's darn silly to have a Wikipedia article on this topic.OfficeGirl21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge. This probably should have gone through the merge mechanism instead, as there's no real disagreement on keeping the material in itself. Mackensen(talk)16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for deletion over a year ago, and the result was keep, with most users supporting an expansion. However, the article has barely changed in that time, so I am putting this article before the community again since the article hasn't improved in over a year. I believe that all the information this article contains can easily be summarized at the article on the entire book, and having an article on this individual chapter isn't necessary. Also, the articles ordination of women and glossolalia both cover the minimal information contained in this article. Some biblical chapters are more important than others. I believe my original nomination text still stands: This article has very little content, and does not explain why out of the 16 chapters of the epistle, this one stands out enough to be significant in an encyclopedia. Surely we could create articles like this one for every single chapter of every single book in the bible, but previous consensus seems to suggest that that isn't a good idea.Andrew c[talk]16:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the epistle's main article. This should also apply to the other articles on individual chapters of 1 Corinthians that currently exist; an exception should be made for chapter 13, often known as "The Love Chapter," as it is widely known and notable on its own. (That chapter article was subjected to AfD twice with a strong consensus to keep.) As much as I love the Bible (I'm involved in Bible Quiz), I don't think each individual chapter of the Bible deserves an article. A case can be made for certain chapters, especially Psalms such as Psalm 23 or Chapter 2 of Acts, which is central to much of Pentecostalism. I think the general principle should be that individual chapter articles are not necessary, except for certain chapters that are notable on their own. Realkyhick17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 1 Corinthians, since the current article doesn't say much unique about that particular chapter. A section of 1 Corinthians can be created for "Notable verses," and this can be done for other Biblical books, allowing a merge without the loss of any data. I'm in agreement that some chapters of certain books do have independent notabilty, and these would each need to be evaluated on individual basis. ◄Zahakiel►16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There will be thousands of commentaries over the last two thousand years on this and every other bible chapter. The discussion of them has been the main preoccupation of Europe and much as Asia for centuries, and there is material to support an article for every one of them. this should simply be regarded as a stub. there's something much needed though, and thats the necessary expansion. I think they are all notable. In fact, i think probably most individual verses are--there's been much more written on each of them than on almost any video game character, and notability is permanent. . the answer to the noms question is that every one of them stands out enough to be notable. We havent written the others yet, but we have to start somewhere. There's a lot of notable things we havent written yet. Doesnt mean we delete the articles on the ones we do have. DGG (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and yes, that an article hasnt been improved in a year is no reason for deletion either. there's no time deadline here--its not as if we had to go to print once and for all. DGG (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and I added a few more references to start it off--including an entire book on this particular chapter--and articles on individual verses within it. DGG (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your references emphasize why this article shouldn't exist. One citation deals with speaking in tongues. Another 3 deal with the role of women in church, and one deals with multiple chapters. I believe these citations would be good additions to the articles dealing with the topic. I believe it is better to have a more holistic article that can discuss the topic from multiple sources, and not limit it based on semi-arbitrary biblical divisions. For example, in addition to what Paul says at 1 Cor 14 regarding tongues, he adds to the topic at 1 Cor 12, but of course mentioning that in the 1 Cor 14 article would be off topic, and we'd need to create the 1 Cor 12 article to discuss what Paul says about the exact same topic there. On the other hand, an article like Glossolalia, can go into detail about all the places tongues is mentioned in the NT. -Andrew c[talk]14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All chapters of the Bible are notable, but we plainly can't have an article on each one. So is this chapter a particular standout in its own context? Not on the scale of the preceding chapter, no. TCC(talk)(contribs)06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why can't we? WP NOT PAPER. Everything that's notable we can have an article on if there are sources. In fact, everything that's notable we should have an article on if there are sources and someone to write the article. that's the basic principle of an encyclopedia. Paper encyclopedias may have to compromise here, but we dont. What you're saying is advocating removing content that you admit to be notable and sourced, because it isnt particularly important to you. This one, by the way, is one of the proof texts for why women cant speak in churches, and has been cited with derision by feminist literature for centuries. That was already mentioned in the article. DGG (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note -- I have listed this AfD at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible]] in the hope of further input--after all, I'm just an amateur in this and I may be wrong.DGG (talk)
Merge - retaining the option of recreation later. I'm no expert either, but my own feeling is that (1) this article is sooo minimal that there really isn't much to be lost by merging it at this point, and (2) my own personal belief is that the chapters of the Bible were created significantly after the texts themselves, and on that basis are in several cases not the best way of "breaking up" the texts. There has been discussion on the talk page of the Bible project regarding which "storylines" (for lack of a better word) or events are notable enough for a separate article. Unfortunately, that discussion dealt almost exclusively with the historical narratives, not with the epistles. The matter of the epistles hasn't really been addressed yet. I would welcome any party interested in helping us come to some sort of guidelines regarding the basis of creation of subarticles regarding the epistles to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Bible summary of every chapter. Thanks. John Carter14:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Look at the article's history, it's a spamfest and even contains unsourced claims. Could be replaced by a category of notable products, but I still think there aren't many. Roadmr (t|c) 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has become a link farm pointing to many sites either promoting products or with exessive amounts of advertisements. Falls under WP:SPAM. Calltech01:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is directory info - Replace the notable ones with a category, but I see no purpose for this list other than advertising Corpx04:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Don't Delete It's an important background story of the best selling music group this side of '00. It's important enough to stay. Jay19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or merge pertinent info into the Linkin Park and/or Chester Bennington article. Grey Daze is the band Chester Bennington was in before he joined LP. This doesn't particularly make the band notable, and the fact that the band is now more or less defunct and was barely a blip on the musical radar on their own makes me lean toward this article's information needing to be merged into the article(s) of it's more notable progeny. It also doesn't help that the Grey Daze article is a complete and utter mess and doesn't have ANY references. This is not to say that references don't exist, but a quick Google search turns up mostly lyrics repositories and one news story with a trivial mention in relation to Bennington. LaMenta301:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. This article is important enough (although it would be great, if someone would provide more information about it to make it longer). I don't think merging is a good idea either, it's still a separate band, not some prequel to Linkin Park. I have also thought about making separate articles for the albums (which'll make it even shorter...). AnRod07:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind...may I have a few weeks to contact...might be able to clean it up...even if I have to Generate a source...get someone to do an interview that can be placed on a POP press site...I see the popular press used so often on Wikipedia it makes me sick...still it should do for its standards...I have found it usefull...even if it is utimately wrong(i have no clue as yet)...just Mark the Hell out of it :-)Hoboscience 11:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Hoboscience11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the info I saw in it checks out, but I don't have sources, as I know most of it from random interviews or chats with Chester, or in threads on LPAssociation.com where Derek might've mentioned something that Sean (Dowdell) said to him (they're in contact). I will mention the situation to Derek, and see what he thinks as well. I know most of it isn't sourced, but that's because most of it is common knowledge among Linkin Park fans, and therefore no one in the LP community would question it. But I do know that here on Wikipedia that's not really enough, and definite sources are needed. Jay19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment As merging seems to be so popular, can anyone explain why there needs to be a redirect from "Rail transport in Gibraltar" if there is no rail transport in Gibraltar? Must there be a redirect from "Elephants of Gibraltar" (and every other mammal that does not inhabit Gibraltar) to List of mammals in Gibraltar? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transport in Gibraltar. I'm usually kind to rail articles, but this railroad doesn't exist. Even if there was rail transit in Gibraltar, or even a credible proposal for such, I'd vote keep. But alas. --Oakshade19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Real estate is so scarce in Gibraltar, it's doubtful they'd utilize precious square footage for a right-of-way, station and auxiliary infrastructure. However, it would make sense to run a line over (or even under) water from La Línea that terminates at the port. --Oakshade21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I was considering changing my vote, but noticed this tunnel is planned to bypass Gibraltar proper and go directly to Spain. --Oakshade16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please realize that merging articles does not involve the deletion of the parent articles. When articles are merged, the now obsolete parent articles should be turned into redirects so that the author history is preserverd. Failing to keep track of author history of Wikipedia content is a violation of the GFDL, which is the reason why we keep the redirects rather then deleting them. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)13:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Little more than a list of pubs in an area, with a piece of advertising detailing what happens in each. No indication of why they are notable. Amounts to nothing more than directory listings and fails WP:NOT, WP:NOTE and WP:CORPNuttah6816:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. This is a good example of a spun-out article from a main article, with adequate sourcing and a summary in the main article at the appropriate section. The article as written is not a directory but discusses pubs in the area in the context of their architectural and historic significance. -- Mattinbgn\talk02:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Surry Hills, New South Wales. It may be a spin - off but the article does not have enough real content to justify spin-offs and it would be better if it was a more general spin-off, like Gallery of Surry Hills, or Buildings in Surry Hills :: maelgwn - talk23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing but original research, and I seem to recall a policy against that. Each of the references are about individual examples of pubs - there is not a single reference discussing any overall themes about the pubs of surry hills as distinct from any other pubs in Australia. Just because it's verifiable doesn't make it suitable for an article.Garrie05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the references need improving and it is at least partially OR. These problems are fixable and not necessarily a reason to delete. Why does the article need to establish any specific distinction between hotels in Surry Hills and elsewhere in Australia? If the material is verifiable and would be suitable for inclusion in the main article, surely it is still suitable for inclusion when it has been spun out of that article. For example Court houses in New South Wales are not specifically different from court houses elsewhere in Australia, but they are interesting and relevant enough for an article in their own right. Even using your criteria of establishing a distinction and theme in the article, the article does that, referring to a range of architectural styles and patronage (diversity is a theme) and discusses the long term trend towards closure and renovation as a result of the gentrification of the area. While this is common in many parts of the inner cities of Australia, this does not mean that it isn't interesting and relevant in the context of Surry Hills in particular, provided it can be sourced. -- Mattinbgn\talk05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The distinction and theme though is not referenced. If the article is going to be based on the styles, patronage and commercial trends it has to be backed up with references discussing that. At the moment it is disparate references with OR linking them. The references also need to be as geographically specific as the article, otherwise if the trends are at city/state/nation wide the details should be covered at an appropriate level. That is why the article needs to make the distinction as to why these pubs are different to any other in Australia. Nuttah6816:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article reads nothing like a directory and why not fabric shops? If it is demonstrated that a number of fabric shops in the area have architectural and historic significance and play an important role in the social and cultural life of the suburb, I'm all for inclusion. You fix systemic bias not by deleting content but by encouraging a wider range of contributors and a wider range of contributions. -- Mattinbgn\talk07:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your right, it doesn't read like a directory, it reads like a guide book article on pubs in that area - hence we have a problem - Wikipedia is NOT a guidebook. I'm not anti-pubs, but I rather think these articles (the 3 pub guides up for AFD) would be excellent additions to Wikitravel instead of an encyclopedia.--Eqdoktor07:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is mostly copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia and gives the Catholic POV on the indulgence controversy of the 1500s. The orginal article should be used as a source in WP's other articles on the topic, however it itself could never be a neutral article on WP. Even the title is POV. Steve Dufour16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, then say three "hail marys". If you take out the POV problems, there's nothing that couldn't go in the article on Indulgences. Oh, Wait... if you take out the POV problems, there's just nothing. There's no justification for a separate article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. OfficeGirl18:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Review of article history finds the creator's comment: "initial article -- taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia online" Nobody likes a thief. Mandsford19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note The Catholic Encyclopedia in question dates from 1911 and is in the public ___domain. I didn't intend to imply any copyright problems by my nomination. Other WP articles are copied from it, lives of saints and so forth, and are not a problem. Steve Dufour21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the complaint from the various editors that this public ___domain history of the abuse of indulgences, published by a Catholic source, is POV by being too critical or too exculpatory? For another source with many of the same views, see the 1911 Britannica articles Indulgence and Johann Tetzel, which is a reference for the related Wikipedia article Johann Tetzel. It was a money making tool, Luther criticized it, later the Church agreed there had been abuses. What exactly is the impermissible POV? Edison01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of it. Sentences like this one (besides being terribly LONG and convoluted by modern taste) are pretty full of POV words:
After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the traders (quaestores) in indulgences continued their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre (Sess. XXI, c. ix).
nefarious; faithful; heavenly treasures and other words are, in this context, loaded with POV. The other issue is that Indulgences has a Controversy section which would do with some expanding, and the Indulgence article itself is no where long enough to need forking out yet. The NPOV parts of Abuses of Indulgences can easily be placed inside Indulgences, in the controversies section. I think it'd be best if the Catholic Encyclopedia article was used as a source on the Controversies section of Indulgences. Ealdgyth | Talk02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I mainly object to the title (and/or concept -- who is to say what are abuses?) of this article. I agree with you that the history of indulgences is an important topic. Steve Dufour02:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. This is not intended to be a NPOV title, as it is a common-use name for topic of historical importance. e.g. 160 books hits. This no different to The Edge being the name of an article instead of "David Howell Evans". John Vandenberg06:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:COI. Nothing found in google news. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to sleepassociation.org. Was speedied previously. Other related Sleep association
Delete Couldn't find in-depth coverage from secondary sources. And that could be because there isn't any. I also sense some self-promotion here because the user who created this immediately added an external link to the website in another article. Spellcast15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Red flags galore: No id of physicians/scientists founders, or indication of existence prior to 6/07 private ___domain reg, no mention/listings on similar resource listings at sleepfoundation.org, sleepnet, etc., generic articles written by MDs whose only search results bring up nada or free article sites, thin actual content with "abstracts" or "events" sections bringing up framed pages from other websites, or promised benefit from joining the association. If overkill, I apologize -- there is a growing number of legitimate associations dealing with sleep medicine, but this one isn't one of them and likely won't be. Flowanda | Talk22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per above. Maybe you can have a purge festival afterward. I'll reconsider if that guy who sang Margaritaville shows up. Mandsford19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The article is one of a series describing stations on a main inter-city railway line. BTW it isn't a bus station (please read my edit comment first before criticizing it). And there is no need to quote WP:POINT in an irrelevant fashion. I consider the examples of railway stations I quoted (as well as many others on WP) to be adequately notable, even though their content may appear to be little different from this one.--Redaktor16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little advice for the nominator: Giving uninterestingness as a reason for deletion, even as a corollary to something that could be reasonably backed up, is probably one of the top ways to get your deletion attempt nerfed in the quickest possible fashion. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. LaMenta302:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep article subject is notable, precedent is for retention of such station articles, and article meets notability standards. Excuse given by nominator for this AfD is inexcusable. We should delete an article because it's "uninteresting"?!?! Alansohn02:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on this issue seems rather clear, but let's hear why this would be a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
List of every bus stop, bus station, bus, railway station is directory info. If they're important, it is safe to assume that reliable sources would've paid coverage to it. Corpx05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not other "crap", this is precedent. Other than a small, stubborn minority, we have clear consensus that this article is notable and that other, similar articles are notable as well. The specious slippery slope claim that keeping this article means an article will be created for every "bus stop, bus station, bus, railway station" carries no weight. As usual, WP:NOT#DIR has been completely misinterpreted to mean that anything one editor doesn't like is a "Directory" listing; this is not a listing of railway stations, it is an article about a particular, notable station, and even listings of stations are encyclopedic and notable. Alansohn16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are major nodes of an area's transportation network, and some stations smaller than this make their way into printed paper encyclopedias (Hallingskeid has an entry in Aschehoug for instance). Some further points: WP:RS points to "reliable" sources which is NOT the same as "independent" sources. WP:POINT is being quoted in an utterly silly fashion in the nomination (who is trying to disrupt Wikipedia here?). Sjakkalle(Check!)14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I deleted for you, to don't get exhausted (It was a list of railway stations that already is on wikipedia, and those are not more interesting than this station. Elmao03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
STRONG KEEP I found a lot more ghits than that, and her conducting competition appears to be a really big deal. She's notable. There's no doubt about that. And this is an appropriate article for Wikipedia. OfficeGirl18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if those who claim "there's no doubt" about notability would add the undoubtable citations to the page so the rest of us could see them. MarkBul19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a founder of what appears to be a fairly prestigious conducting patronage and also has a noble title. The latter almost definitely makes her notable, while the former certainly helps. I've added some sources into the EL section of the article, to be integrated either by me if I get the chance or someone else if they want. LaMenta302:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for Flick family and conducting competition. Also a friend of Prince Charles -check?? Sure article needs improvement, but is not deletion worthy. --mervyn10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. Definitely needs a re-name, and a re-write, at least. Apparently, he was a baron, but that's probably not very relvant. Google search complicated by a C17th person of the same name, perhaps why the creator has seen fit to make a János Kemény disambig page. Undecided on notability so far; are published works a sign of automatic notability? --kateshortforbob15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's that person going to say? "Trust me, the references are legit"? This is an English language project - if "we" can't read the refereces, then "we" can't judge them. MarkBul19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, if i paste here a list of the articles which don't have english references, you are going to delete it? (there are a few hundreds for sure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmao (talk • contribs) 03:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of thousands of foreign language references all over wikipedia, and they are still better than no references, but I agree it's not the best. Btw I can read the refs and based on them I think this Baron/writer is notable. I'd vote Keep. Article could be half-decent with some effort. János Kemény is the correct name in English, in Hungarian it would be Kemény János, so renaming is only needed at the (the writer) part. Hobartimus19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
János Kemény (writer) (without the "the"). Or with a disambiguation page or whatever way wikipedia already deals with the situation I'm sure it's pretty common so other examples should be available. Or his title (Baron) could be used somehow etc. Hobartimus04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but re-name and re-write - Re-name to what? I don't know. This appears to be a notable Hungarian writer, but, like with a lot of non-English names, there can be confusion as to order of names and proper usage of titles. --Oakshade06:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only information on an "ISPIM" I could find was a mention of the Finnish "International Society for Product Innovation Management" (ISPIM) whose president was Vilkko Virkkala (Finnish Trade Review, March 31, 1993, Page 25). This is not the ISPIM article now at this AfD. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of ISPIM to develop an attributable article and does not meet Wikipedia notability. A fork article, ISPIM First 25 Years, was just deleted at AfD. -- Jreferee(Talk)14:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are quite a few Google Hits (as well as Books, News, Scholar) for "International Society for Professional Innovation Management", but I can find little substantial coverage suitable for an article (one exception may be this, but I can't access it). Jakew18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someday we might have a specific guideline on what would make a trade group notable. Some of them unquestionably are (e.g. IEEE), most of them are not. This one, as far as I can determine from the article, isn't... the primary claim of notability in the article itself, "succeeded in developing a strong international network, leading to professional cooperation across nations and cultures" is so vague and nebulous as to be completely meaningless. If they are notable, the article does an extremely poor job of expressing that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - not a single, all the information in the article is already in the article about the album (not counting the quotation), and the article has very little potential for growth. Melsaran (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete/Merge keying is quite a prevolent term in england, certaintly where i live anyway and it does occur frequently. Probally not notable enough in its own right but should be merged with vandalism --Childzy ¤ Talk14:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hadn't heard of it until I found this article, but I live in the north of Scotland, and it's probably not so common here as in London, Birmingham or wherever. I'd support a merge and redirect, actually, given that it can be sourced.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h15:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, who hasn't heard of keying? Possibly it;s a cul;tural thing, as it seems to be the majority of times when ENglish slasng terms pop up here. Expand, add sources and (weak) keep. Artw15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with vandalism. It's an extremely common form of vandalism in the US. (Hasn't anybody heard that Carrie Underwood song about keying her ex's SUV?) Wl21916:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about band, one of several deprodded by anon w/o comment except to assert the right to do so. I see no indication of meeting WP:BAND. Google hits not helpful due to name draws many irrelevant. No charts or awards on Allmusic.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Their own web site doesn't offer much in the way of notability. Minor press release stuff and claims of a European tour - if not headlining, then they're non-notable. MarkBul16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the Warp Records page lists them on Wikipedia - that's how I came to this Afd discussion. For completeness, their entry should be removed from that page too, but seems like a waste of good work to me. Much better to keep both. :-) Brian Fenton19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Warp Records is notable, and they have 2 albums with them. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BAND does indeed list "two or more albums on [a notable label]" as a criteria for notability, but according to its own article, the band has only released one full-size album. It may become notable eventually, but WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. --Darkwind (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod (believe it or not). I don't know what this Mannathoor is because the text is nonsense to me, but there were only 78 G-hits so I don't think it's a place or a notable person. The bottom half looks like a class quiz or exam. I'm not sure what's going on here but it doesn't belong here. KrakatoaKatie14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I removed the speedy tag since I don't believe it's patent nonsense. You can read the text and see that it's supposedly a village in the Kerala district of India, and previously a part of Travancore. However, since I can't verify any of it (through casual googling of Mannathoor, Mannathur, or Mannathore), and don't see the relevance of the latter part of it, it's probably better off gone unless someone who knows better can rewrite and source it. - Bobet16:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE It takes a lot of work to wade through the confusion of this article just to figure out what the editor was TRYING to say, and then we can't independently verify any of it. it could even be a hoax-- we just don't know. But in any case there's no excuse for such unintelligible blathering to be anywhere other than the sandbox. I love this quotation about going out of the house without a bathrobe: [10] 'Nuff said. OfficeGirl18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
That's exactly what my prod read... :) I didn't want to put it up for speedy as I might possibly miss something. But you're probably right.1redrunTalk15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an article about an unremarquable rotating restaurant, and not a member of the exceptional notable ones. I did not post this as CSD since it might be controversial, but it is in my opinon a bit of spam created my a member of staff. ChrisDHDR13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There appear to be a variety of distinct issues here. First, it isn't clear that WP:FICTION is the most or only relevant guideline since it is an optional side for a game. Second, the presence of Korean sources make it likely that a large number of reliable sources do in fact exist. However, I strongly recommend that those wishing to save this article from future AfDs find people who can read Korean and gain their assistance in sourcing the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea would be a good place to start. If after a few months it becomes apparent that the claimed sources do not exist or that no one is going to bother adding them in, then it should be reAfDed. JoshuaZ21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrite; Protoss are 1 of 3 factions in one of the most notable computer/video games there is. Only "Protoss philosophy" is marked WP:OR; the rest just needs trimming and proper attribution. Eleland18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article is highly notable within video gaming, and although it badly needs a rewrite due to the overflow of plot details, deletion is a bit extreme. A rewrite is on my to-do list, along with it's companion races that will heavily condense the plot details and include development, design, reception and other real-world information that is required under WP:Fiction. Myself and another editor are slowly cleaning up StarCraft related articles, and we will get the rewrite done eventually, but don't expect it to happen overnight. You can still go ahead and delete it if you really want to: when the rewrite is complete we will make sure they fully complies with notability guidelines before it is introduced to the mainspace. -- Sabre20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability not an issue. I admit a little personal bias, but I think the game (and its races) are well known enough. I would suggest a rewrite adding a section on Progamers who play Protoss, possibly including play style(s). Alex Heinz01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cast my vote above, but to respond to the factual issues of breadth of source coverage and WP:NOTINHERITED - Starcraft has been reported on in such an extensive breadth of different journalistic sources, far outside the typical gaming magazines and books, and the three races make such a distinctive impact on game play, with well-reported-on professional players typically having one of the three races that they characteristically play, that notability and source potential have easily extended to cover the individual races as well as the game itself. Just to take the first example I tried googling, see specific mention of the Protoss in this article in the New York Times. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That NY times article gives a one line mention of protoss, which is far from the "significant coverage" required by WP:N. I dont see anyone giving significant coverage other than game guides Corpx04:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - WP:NOTINHERITED also tells us that the creation of sub-articles, while not implying an "inherited notability" per se, can be acceptable for practical reasons. As the whole game is constructed around three different races and also game reviews seem to look at them in turn, this would IMO be such a case and in any case we shouldn't delete just one of the three. --Tikiwont12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you right now that a simple Google will show that several gaming sites have reported on the Protoss and their presence in StarCraft. The Clawed One14:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see significant coverage there. The first two, as you say, don't really count, and the other three articles seem to be mentioning Protoss simply because they happen to be the playable faction in the demo they're previewing. Miremare18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a natural lifecycle that WP articles on seem to go through. If ther subject is popular enough, then the article may grow to the extent that it subdivides into separate pieces. At some point in the past, this clearly happened to Starcraft with the creation of Zerg, Protoss and Terran (StarCraft), etc. So far, so good. But, as is often quoted on AfD pages, notability is not inherited, so the daughter articles get AfD'd and presumably merged back into their parent articles, which become unwieldy and huge. I don't see how this process improves the articles or wikipedia as a whole. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is to remove content from the parent article rather than just splitting it. Don't split if it won't meet the inclusion criteria on its own, just delete stuff from the article. Jay3218323:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply What Korea has to do with this is it has a professional Starcraft league with players making six-figure (in U.S. dollar) salaries for playing Starcraft full time, in a government-funded Starcraft stadium attended by tens of thousands of Starcraft spectators and on two all-video-game TV stations with prime-time live broadcasts of Starcraft games; and it is rather parochial of us non-Korean-speaking Wikipedians to ignore the wealth of published Korean-language references for this AfD. Incidentally the pro players are also each indelibly associated with which of the three SC races they normally or always play as, so WP:NOTINHERITED is likely not to be an issue. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm noticing that a number of people are going on about sources with "coverage" required by WP:Fiction. However, following the rewrite, this is no longer the case - as long as real-world information is available, whether by significant coverage or by lots of little bits from reliable sources building up a comprehensive section, notability is acquired. Take a look at this quote from Deckiller on the WP:fiction talk page (first comment after the green box)
I prefer notability established by substantial real-world content. Heck, this requirement is actually more of a compromise than requiring multiple independent sources, because a lot of interviews and other material might not be independent. This version of the guideline would actually result in an even greater cutdown of fiction, because a lot of material published about fictional universes is somehow tied to the publisher and/or author, or is only mentioned in passing in various independent articles. That is why we wrote WP:FICT to say "real-world content" instead of "coverage in independent sources"; afterall, there would be no reason to have this page if it was just the same as WP:N. — Deckiller 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Whilst the article still fails notability on that basis, I just want to make sure you are all clear that lack of significant coverage in independant sources is not in conflict with WP:Fiction, although a lack of any real-world content from a reliable source is. In any case of this AfD, a complete rewrite following WP:Fiction or a deletion will both result in the removal of this current horrible in-universe version, so I won't lose any sleep if this does go. -- Sabre10:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a complete overhaul, but the starcraft universe is so massively popular that an article on one of it's key components is not cruft. That said, there is a lot of unnecessary detail in there and the article could do with some major trimming. JMalky15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the establishment of notability by the showing of multiple independent sources above.... And seriously, there are probably hundreds of others. Deleting Protoss is like deleting Klingons. Kyaa the Catlord15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SC has aspects of both a work of fiction and a game, the latter being the more important - it should not properly stand or fall on criteria for either alone. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is just as distinctive an aspect of the game as well though - aspects of the game itself unique to the protoss also belong in this article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my point. Protoss does not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. Protoss does not have the sources necessary to make an article on Wikipedia. Jay3218323:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Protoss is significant primarily not as a fictional race, but as a real element of StarCraft gameplay. The significance of Protoss as a work of fiction has no bearing on its significance as a significant, nonfictional element of a major competitive activity. taion05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons below:
From WP:NOTINHERITEDOften, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes [and] often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation. Combining all the "non notable" articles relating to starcraft (including Zerg that is also up for deletion by the same nominator) into one article would make it an extreamly long and cumbersome article.
You are both misquoting and quoting out of context; none of those are reasons to keep this article:
"The article should be kept if an obvious potential for notability is shown." OK, so where is this potential for notability then?
"Parts can be merged to a notable article to provide better context..." that's not a criteria for keeping a non-notable article, it's a suggestion of what should be done with a non-notable article.
"The article is transwikied to a suitable Wiki (such as Wikia or its Wikipedia Annex) if the above options are unavailable." likewise, this is what should be done with a non-notable article, not a reason to keep it. If anything, these are reasons to delete.
"The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable". Which apparently they are, as there is resistence to merging for "space" reasons. And the article can easily be transwiki'd by anyone, there doesn't need to be AfD for that to happen. Also, Google hits don't equal notability, neither do number of article edits. Miremare16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comment I'm sure you could come up with a regulation that debunks any reason for keeping this article. And vice versa for the opposing argument. What wikipedia really needs is an regulation which states don't try to win AfD arguments by quoting regulations! Can we please stick to discussing this article, it's merits and it's problems, and use common sense to decide on it's notability rather than quoting whatever vague, conflicting (and numerous) rules we can find. JMalky17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jmalky, the rules aren't conflicting, they're clear if not taken out of context or misinterpreted. And the reason these particular rules exist is so that they can be used to decide what deserves a place on Wikipedia and what doesn't. Your suggestion that we ignore them is puzzling. Your other suggestion that we could probably come up with a regulation to debunk any reason for keeping is entirely correct in this case! Miremare18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may also need to be stated that notability does not equal importance. We do not subjectively debate the notability of an article topic. That is why WP:N exists, so we can discuss article topics objectively. "Protoss" does not have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Therefore, "Protoss" = not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Jay3218318:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - His suggestion to ignore them is not puzzling, it is policy -> Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (I always seem to get in trouble when I quote that piece of policy). Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -> Protus obviously needs its own page, if for no other reason that combining all the starcraft pages into one would make a huge article as I have said above, and deleting content because we can't "fit it in the article" is just silly (thats why we make subpages). We should not be getting bogged down in the letter of the rules like we seem to be here, but rather, we should be listening to the spirit of them. (I am not saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with my next statement, but rather I am trying to set a precedent with similar articles) Here are a couple of articles that, according to the letter of the law, are not notable and therefore should be deleted. AceActiveXAdvocateAlpha Tau OmegaAmericium-242Analog signalAnagram (I have followed the absolute letter of the law here, with all articles requiring more than once reference from secondary sources, external links not counted as references). Anyway, perhaps I should clarify my position, I am not suggesting we keep the article in its current form, it desperately needs a rewrite.- Fosnez01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is not a free pass. Those other articles you mentioned all have evidence of sources and are just poorly written. Protoss has no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay3218303:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou still aren't quite seeing my point. Have another look at Ace, there is no mention of sources and no assertion of notability. Sure we have all seen Aces and think they are important, but according the policies that you have quoted, this article is not notable as per of wikipedia's policies. Now regarding sources, did you even check the one I linked above? Here are just a couple direct links for you [11][12][13][14] - Fosnez06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say those articles had sources, I said there is evidence that sources exist. With Protoss, it is incredibly unlikely that sources exist to establish notability. Even if there were no evidence that sources exist for the other articles, it would not mean that this article should be kept, it would mean those articles should be deleted. Jay3218318:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please refer to my above comment. While you can very much debate the notability of Protoss as a fictional race, its coverage as a faction in StarCraft as a playable faction, is more than enough to establish its notability independently. I'll repeat from my comment above, which was apparently disregarded. Using only the fiction notability standards here are insufficient, because Protoss is notable primarily not as the fictional race, but as the gameplay element. taion14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Comment instead of just insisting Protoss is notable at this AfD, why don't the people who are saying this find reliable sources that prove it, and add them to the article? There will be no argument to be had, if this is done. Miremare17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It depends whether we can come to a consensus on WP:FICTION being the appropriate criteria here. Certainly references to (from the WP article alone!) , say, Grrrr, Garimto, Reach, Nal_rA, Kingdom, Bisu, or ToSsGirL (granted she plays Terran now \= ) are totally irrelevant if we want to look at the notability of the Protoss as a fictional race alone. Almost all of the discussion here so far has been with respect to notability as an element of fiction, which is, in my view, entirely the wrong way to approach this. However, if consensus holds that this article should be judged entirely from the perspective of the notability of Protoss as a fictional race, then I have no business referencing competitive StarCraft gameplay, regardless of my opinions on why the Protoss (or the Zerg) have notability individually! taion05:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also fails the general notability requirement, WP:N. It does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent from the topic. WP:FICT just happens to be the only one of the specific notability categories this could fall into. Jay3218305:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N notes "independent of the subject" as referring to "works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". Note that coverage in the gaming media as a whole separate from Blizzard meets this criterion of being "independent of the subject". Would you argue that the Sicilian Defence fails notability criteria simply because it is only covered in the context of Chess? Yes, the article as written has rather anemic coverage of actual relevant material, and it needs significant work. That is neither here nor there with regard to the notability of the underlying topic, though. I'll simply note OSL and KeSPA and how game results always note which race the players use. taion07:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with Sicilian Defence if that it references multiple reliable sources, all of which are independent, because they're not affiliated with the creator of chess, whoever that might have been. I would also say that a mere mention of Protoss (or anyone else) as the faction used by someone to win a game is trivial, and contributes nothing as a source. Miremare14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOPELESS These sources exist. They're just not linked to in the article. I'm not sure if you're familiar with MYM or ToT (MYM specifically is one of the very highest level progaming outfits worldwide), but they'll on occasion provide detailed articles on aspects of strategy, such as the ZvP matchup (Mondragon plays ZvP at a level comparable to some Korean players). BoxeR's autobiography, for example, also contains detailed discussion on the subject (he initiallyed played toss, not terran). WGTour archives a number of articles relating to the various races and matchups specifically. If you want even more extensive, here's an hour-long interview with BoxeR where he does in fact discuss all the races. Here's another one with Nal_rA where there is discussion of the Protoss in particular. Furthermore, with regard to mentions, this is not just a case of single, isolated mentions. StarCraft progamers are identified specifically with the race they play, and this is a crucial part of what defines them (and competitive StarCraft in general). BoxeR's nickname is "Emperor Terran" rather than some generic StarCraft reference for a very good reason. The factions that are chosen are always referenced, because they are perhaps the most important attribute. taion15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the independent sources provide significant coverage . You need to meet all five parts of WP:N, you don't get to pick and choose. Reliability is definitely going to be a huge factor here, most of the sources will be self-published. Jay3218317:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is an article focusing entirely on the ZvP matchup not qualifying as "significant coverage" of the Protoss again? Mondragon's article satisfies all the relevant criteria anyway – it's published on behalf of ToT rather than Mondragon himself, and he's certainly an expert in the field, as he is in fact world-class at ZvP. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of argument you have establishing that KBS is somehow not a "reliable" third-party source as well. taion18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KBS would be a reliable source, but have they aired a show about the Protoss? I'm guessing not, so how significant was their coverage? Miremare19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KBS regularly interviews StarCraft progamers. These interviews include significant discussion and thus coverage of the relevant races. "Significant coverage" is not the same as "exclusive coverage". Additionally, SC games aired on TV are commentated, including significant discussion of relevant faction-related issues. taion19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how that might prove the notability of the person being interviewed, but I still fail to see how an a detail such as what faction the person prefers can provide notability sufficient for giving Protoss its own encyclopedia article. It's just a part of the game. There were probably other things mentioned during the interviews too. Miremare19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The interviews include discussion of faction choices, at times significant. Additionally, relevant commentary regarding the races certainly meets the required criteria for being "significant coverage". A number of things are discussed, yes, but the requirement for coverage to be "significant" is not that it must be "exclusive". And things like Mondragon's ZvP guide (and others, but mostly in Korean) also qualify quite easily. taion19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I may be getting a bit confused with these sources here: why does Mondragon's ZvP guide count as a reliable source? Is it something to do with KBS? Miremare20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's similar. It's the equivalent of, say, the Giants publishing an article by Barry Bonds on how to bat in baseball. taion20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I think I might have been unclear. I'm looking at 3 primary groups of references here.
There are a number of strategy articles published by various outfits dealing very specifically with matches involving the Protoss. Mondragon's ZvP guide published by ToT (a progaming group) falls into this category. There is more literature on this in Korean than in English, obviously. These are unrelated to KBS and are instead published by organizations directly related to the game itself, such as gaming teams like ToT or ladder organizations like WGTour.
StarCraft progamers are often interviewed on Korean media, such as the KBS interview with BoxeR I referenced earlier. Some of these interviews contain significant coverage of the actual StarCraft factions, for example in discussions of the individual's playstyle or favored strategies.
Televised StarCraft matches contain substantial amounts of commentary that substantially cover the factions involved.
The third is, I think, the most significant. There's no question of the reliability of the source here, and much of the commentary directly addresses the races and subtopics thereof. taion21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I don't see the first as being reliable sources, as they appear to be published by fans of the game, so are no more reliable than a fansite. The second is difficult - while KBS is reliable, the source is in Korean so it's impossible for me (or anyone else) to tell whether there's significant coverage of Protoss, and what that coverage is. The third is even more difficult... I don't know of any instances where TV commentary has been used as a source (especially one to prove notability), and of course the language difficulty remains. Miremare21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge This article has all the usual problems of fancruft - unreferenced, overly detailed summary of a work's plot, in-universe, etc. Delete this cruft and watch the Starcraft article to make sure it isn't recreated there. --Phirazo21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. The top article seems to be either a non-notable book or a hoax. While it's not a definitive test, a google search intersecting author & title gets nothing. A Google search of author alone get 3 hits for an Australian Catholic school student & one hit for the speedily deleted non-notable bio created in July by this article's author. The page's sole source gets a "The website address you entered could not be found." Obviously, the fate of the redirects ties in to the top. Moonriddengirl12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable sequel to non-notable book. No google hits for the title, raising the question of hoax. Appears to be part of an effort by User:Nede to create articles about anything having to do with the purported author, Marcus Khoudair (who's WP article was speedy deleted) and Daniel Montana, the film maker who may be adapting the film. Pairadox03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
procedural nomination Deleted via WP:PROD in Sept 2006; subsequently re-created and nominated for deletion via PROD in Aug 2007 (see this version) by User:Kariteh with the following reasoning: "Unofficial fangame which does not establish its notability." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was the article subject to an actual deletion vote/discussion? If not, then previous deletion via proposed or speedy deletion are not sufficient to make the article a speedy candidate - it must meet the criteria on its own. That said, the article lists no references, and the only external link is not working (a parked ___domain), and has an Alexa rank of almost 1 million (highest ever about 30.000), so delete as not notable (and possibly speedy delete as {{db-group}}). - Mike Rosoft21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN computer game. Article states: "it is rumored that there are only 100 copies in the world." Also, text is replete with weasel words, which is a sign that the editors creating the article cannot back up what they are typing. OfficeGirl23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original prod reasoning, and probable lack of reliable sources. Google gives mostly Wikipedia mirrors, forums, and other unreliable sources. Since this is non-web-based software (i.e., a PC game that would apparently run standalone), I don't think that qualifies for speedy deletion criterion A7; in any event, it's probably best to establish a true AfD outcome so that future reposts, if any, can be speedily deleted per G4. — TKD::Talk00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Match by match record of lineup and scorers for the Bradford Bulls in the current English rugby league season. Creator Kesboy79 (talk·contribs) is just back from a block for repeatedly contravening WP:V for other Bradford Bulls related edits. Wikipedia is not a news service or record of every sports game ever played. Parent article Bradford Bulls 2007 and similar are already rife with minute details and speculation. Deiztalk12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blanked out article and before that I would guess that it should have been merge/redirect to the main article.--JForget23:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
procedural nomination Considered at AFD in Aug 2006 (see this version), a sparse turnout led to a 'keep' decision. Article nominated for deletion via WP:PROD by User:The JPS in Aug 2007 (see this version) with the following reasoning: "Orphaned article. Only real sign of notability is an award that is not notable for someone to have created an article about it. Would need complete rewrite." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two awards, really, and an alleged mention in a magazine. This is kind of a tough one, in my opinion. Wikipedia: Notability (people) offers as a criterion, "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." I have combed through every google hit I got on "Cinque Northern" (not so hard, it being an unusual name) and came up with nothing more substantial than what I just added to the article, a reference for the other award. Notability rests on the unsourced magazine mention (I can't find independent verification) and the notability of the awards. The Aperture Award does not seem to have wide notability, based on my search for it. The Angelus Award, by contrast, is a category of awards notable enough that the awarding of it is worthy a mention in Variety. If the Film Magazine honor were confirmed, I'd call this a keep. Since it isn't, I'm momentarily undecided. It hinges on the Angelus Award, I think. And if it's a keep, it needs to be trimmed of quite a lot of unsourced material. --Moonriddengirl14:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Dean Wormer. Nothing has been added to further support the article in the last five days, so I think it's fair to assume that nothing is going to be. One of the awards seems significant, but it is only an "honorable mention" and the magazine claim is unsourced. I hope Cinque Northern gains notability at some point, because he surely does have a cool name. :) --Moonriddengirl12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any sources in EBSCOhost or ProQuest, and we'd need more information to determine which year this person was mentioned in Filmmaker Magazine in order to even consider it as a source. --Darkwind (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Keep and Improve I'm sorry, but this is not "Timeline of the LDS Universe". These articles could probably be merged into a larger article, but this, essentially, is a chronological arrangement of historical events in a real-life organization. Mandsford14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like leadership personnel changes - the title is confusing. Does every Cardinal get a mention on a Roman Catholic page? Two thousand years of Cardinals would be painful. I understand a list of every Mormon top poobah, but not every "elder" or coat-holder. Without an explicit definition of what belongs on the page it's an OR mess. MarkBul16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one. These articles don't warrant standing alone, but together they are a decent history of many main events in the religion. The people mentioned within appear to be all from the Quorum of the Twelve (the highest group within the church), however, if every single one was listed, the article would get really big. I believe there have been about 195 different individuals in the Quorum of the Twelve since 1830. Of course, some are more notable than others. Timeline could get really big, but I think as long as it was well-managed instead of getting full of cruft it would be fine. Useight17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The decade articles contain valuable information which should be retained. Selective merges, perhaps into relevant historical periods (i.e. LDS colonization of the west) would be my second choice. However, the century articles could be deleted. WBardwin22:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge articles. Content which for whatever reason doesn't easily fit into a timeline can be placed in a list in some other article, like some of the lists of bishops. John Carter22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge while keeping the data. I can see ONE timeline, but this is the LDS church, which formed in the 1820's. We're not looking at something like the history of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox or even Judiasm or Islam here, there just isn't that much history to fill that many timelines without getting down into details which would fail notability. Ealdgyth | Talk00:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge w/several articles — Some of the decades have almost nothing while others are very full. I suggest the following structure:
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.
I have searched Google many times over for any news about this album, its' supposed group, and its' supposed proudcer, Nood Music Entertainment. No sites, American, Brazilian, or otherwise, list this album or record label as real. Therefore, I am led to conclude that it is merely an elaborate hoax made by some person with too much time on their hands. WriterFromAfar75511:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Magazine with no assertion of notability. Prod was removed by author without explanation. Delete, unless sources are provided. J Milburn11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Third party verfication as to the existence and standing of the magazine has been provided. Allow further time for the stub to be expanded upon. 17:07, 3 September 2007
Do not delete J Milburn, prior to removing the prod I did provide my reason on the discussion page. Apologies if that was the wrong place to put it, although I believed I was following the instructions given in the prod notice. I suggested at the magazine's forum that others with more knowledge should expand the article and it looks like they have begun to do so. When it is a little more complete I will be happy to revise the article to ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards. I am not connected to the publication save that I comment on its web forum, and personally I judge that it is not an amateurish freesheet and that this is not a worthless exercise in self-promotion. Incidentally it has long ranked as the top Google response for the search term "revival" and you can of course browse the website to form an impression. Probably the question of its inclusion will be resolved when someone comes up with a circulation figure.100man 3 September 2007
Keep . I have added numerous new sources. Can the deletion notice now be removed? (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.34.230 (talk)
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.
procedural nomination Article was considered at AFD in Jan 2007 where the outcome was a clear consensus for 'keep' (see this version). Article was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD in Aug 2007 by User:Wmquinlan with the following reasoning (see this version): "This biography should be deleted. None of the information in this biography is verified or verifiable--It does not have the hallmarks of an accurate biography. All the information on Mr Tawfiq is self-referential--there is no documentation of it beyond his own claims repeated in articles traceable to his own site. For example, He claims to have received multiple degrees from several different faculties, to have been ordained to the priesthood of the R.C. Church, to have worked for many years in a variety of positions as a Religious Education teacher, yet he provides no dates, no degrees. The University of Manchester, from which he claims to have received a degree, came into existence in 2004--it would seem that Mr Tawfiq was not in Great Britain at that time as he lives in Egypt. I suggest that a source other than Mr Tawfiq's own website be used for information, that degrees and dates be named--that a verifiable chronological biography be submitted and that this one be deleted." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct except in a purely technical sense to say that "The Univ of Manchester came into existence in 2004 "The present University was formed in 2004 by the dissolution of the Victoria University of Manchester (which was commonly known as the University of Manchester)" from the WP article, a clear explanation. This shows the care taken in calling this a hoax or inaccurate. this is no reason to upset the previous keep. DGG (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was an article on Idris Tawfiq in the Irish Times, 8/11/06, which may serve to verify some of the claims in the article. I can't link it directly since I located it through a library database, but if you have acecss to EBSCOhost, it's accession number 9FY1222189507. --Darkwind (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This video game fails WP:N since it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources given are the manufacturer's website (not independent), YouTube (not reliable per WP:SPS), and a single review on Family Friendly Gaming, a (say) smaller special-interest website. To my understanding, this cannot be deemed significant coverage, compared with what other video games typically receive. The article itself does not go beyond a plot summary. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I meant to nominate this a month or two ago, and added it to my watchlist, but I forgot about it. I agree that this game fails notability guidelines. --Dreaded Walrustc11:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable football club, playing below step 7 (possibly folded?) and never having played at Step 6 or higher, with no cup runs etc. to give notability. Prodded, but prod removed by anon. Number5711:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any assertion of notability is neutralised by their admitted withdrawal from the 11th level of the system. Possible claims for retention of the article for historical reasons are also not valid, as they are not recorded as having won the League they were members of for so long. Ref(chew)(do)19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even when they were at their peak, the West Lancashire League top division is below level 10 of the system. No other substantial grounds for notability either. - fchd15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
article is recency, no nobility. it is just an anti-at&t rant, and even if it wasnt it doesnt deserve to be in an encyclopedia, none-the-less deserve its own article. Its also just a video, theres millions of videos on the internet. LightSpeed301:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agreeMerge with iPhone article. A viral video from some teenager should not have a dedicated Wikipedia entry. I vote for the article to be modified to remove references to a specific video and just focus on AT&T and their (then) billing procedures. A sentence like "many AT&T customers expressed their dissatisfaction on the Internet" would suffice. — (edited) mattrobs01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is really appropriate to merge this with the iPhone article because it isn't about the phone, it's really about the service. So the logical merge target would be t AT&T, but that is really not appropriate either. Dhaluza08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I too believe that this is not notable. It is also a one-time incident, and shouldn't be looked at as a precedence for how AT&T or Apple does business. People shouldn't be creating articles that is a blip in the world monitor, and that people will forget about it within a week. Groink00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The issue was quickly taken care of by AT&T. It is no longer an issue. We shouldn't be creating articles of past mistakes made by companies; although some believe mistakes are notable, they're not encyclopedic as adding mistakes to an encyclopedia is a permanent mark that the company doesn't deserve to have. Groink22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not forget this chick who, for some unknown reason, has made it it in a dedicated encyclopedia entry for a video on YouTube! Sign me up, why don't you? — mattrobs05:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was quickly addressed by AT&T makes it more notable. Things that lead to long term changes in public policy or perception are significant. 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Upon further reflection, I don't think this info is even noteworthy even for a permanent mention in the iPhone article. Per Groink above, this mistake just isn't that big of a deal, and all sorts of un-noteworthy things get a lot of views on YouTube. —Cleared as filed.16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She requested detailed printed out bills, made thousands of text messages, and got a suitable long bill printout. Then she created a video showing how long the bill was and got a week's worth of news coverage. Wikipedia is not a "news of the week" or "cool water cooler story" or "YouTube Review" site. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Edison02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS is for topics that are only receive news coverage for a "brief period of time" which is not defined, but usually means only one or two news cycles. Topics like this that get picked up from one news story, which triggers other independent news stories, and follow-up stories over a period of are more than just the "flash in a pan" that NOT#NEWS covers. In addition to the news coverage, there were also related articles in trade publications dealing with the issue from a broader perspective. And we have a long term change away from paper billing as a result which confers long-term significance. Also the statement that she requested the detailed billing is incorrect, detailed billing was the default option for AT&T when no preference was given, and this is what changed as a result Dhaluza10:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Or Merge to AT&T or iPhone. 123 This has had enough of an effect on people that AT&T went out of their way to announce that they were going to use summarized bills, and news outlets went out of their way to make significant articles about them switching. This is definitely notable to the iPhone and/or AT&T, however it hasn't been around long enough to really prove notability either way. If in a few months, it's still being referenced in jokes, or heaven forbid, seriously, it will definitely be notable, as it is now it's a gray area --lucid06:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main topic, and the related items, were the prime subject of multiple reliable source works by multiple authors over a period of time, and the story was covered outside the U.S. even though the iPhone is not available outside the U.S, so the notability argument in the nom is completely unfounded. The article is not an AT&T rant, it deals with a specific issue (paper billing), and one person's reaction to an obviously extreme example of it that became a catalyst for change. As far as the "it's just a video, there's millions of them on the Internet" that's not an argument at all--just because the vast majority don't merit an article, that does not mean this particular one does not--it has established notability based on reliable sources which is the WP standard. Also the article is not just about the video, it also addresses related topics. The nom, and the supporting comments fail to rise above the level of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also merge to iPhone or AT&T is not appropriate per my comment above. Dhaluza08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let the record state that Dhaluza was the initial author of the article. See here. Nothing implied, though. Also, with "one person's reaction to an obviously extreme example", no one cares about that one person. Why is she so important? Because it was the first YouTube video to talk about the issue? Keep the article, remove her. — mattrobs02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a WP:IDONTCARE argument, but to answer the question, she is important because multiple independent secondary sources say so, which is the WP standard for Notability. The internet video became a meme, which brought the issue to the attention of the mainstream media, and she was prominently featured in the extensive coverage, so there is no reason to "remove her". Dhaluza11:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while viral videos are always something of a gray topic, this one definitely passes all the notability criterion; it has sources that have: 1) Significant coverage: entire articles have been devoted to it in magazine and newspapers. 2) Reliability: these are major, in many cases national, newspapers (USA Today, Daily Mail). 3) Sources; all are secondary, as requested in WP:NN. 4) Independent; Despite being about a blog and a viral video, the article avoids falling into the trap of using these as sources. As a result, I see no reason why it should be deleted. This video is at least the rest of Category:YouTube videos, and much better sourced. Laïka10:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be honest when I found this article on the Main Page I thought "huh? How does this deserve an article?" But I found that the subject was mentioned in enough reliable secondary sources to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Time will tell how notable it really is ... maybe other phone companies around the world have taken notice of the 300-page phone bill and will modify their policies accordingly when the iPhone is released in other countries besides the US or when other phones with similar capabilities are released. Graham8712:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article appears to be well-sourced and contains some level of useful (and slightly humorous) information about a well known product. Arguments against the article appear to be based on the article's perceived historic notability. It seems to be a case of "It's not historically significant now, so let's delete the article and wait five years to see if it builds notability." Verifiability supersedes notability in Wikipedia inclusion, while the latter is dictated by the quantity of the former. There are enough secondary sources to warrant its verifiability and subsequent notability, even if it is just a "blip in the world monitor." —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪12:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced, plainly notable, and, given its length and depth, a merge makes absolutely no sense. Were this to develop the other way around, assuming it didn't, in the iPhone article, it would definitely be a candidate to be split into a new article over its length. MrZaiustalk19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all you people saying that it should be merged with the iPhone article, it does not fit in with it at all. The iPhone article is about the iPhone itself and its properties, while this article is about the subject of a viral video and the reaction to it. Also, like MANY others on this page have said, it is very well-sourced.CheckeredFlag20022:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into iPhone#Release or delete. A paragraph on this is more than sufficient. The rote repetition of this news throughout the enormous technology media does not justify the bloated, lumbering article under examination here. —ptk✰fgs00:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The problem has already been fixed. Although it may have captured the attention of the Internet for a few weeks, I do not think that it's quite worthy as its own article. It's not significant enough to allow it to have its own article. Merge with the iPhone article. Otherwise, it's well written and well referenced. - XX55XX02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the problem that was the initial catalyst was fixed does not diminish notability--Notability is not temporary, and there is no need for the level of interest to be maintained. The article documents a short period of history that is the unexpected confluence of many different things: backlash from the iPhone hype, the contrast between corporate practices at Apple Inc. and AT&T, the conservation ethic and viral video activism, etc. It's also a case study in the interplay of technology and society. Because it addresses many different topics, it is not a suitable merge candidate for any one of them. Per WP:MERGE, duplicate, overlapping, short or out of context pages are merged for the benefit of the reader. Pages should not be merged based on a novel concept of "worthiness" Dhaluza04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a fantastic article...with all kinds of links to blogs and stuff, but I wish it was little more about the BILL. Like, what does the bill think about all this publicity? Does the bill have any future plans in show business? Does the bill have a music album coming out soon? I'd really like more information about the BILL. I mean, the video has some GREAT shots of the bill, but it was a little blurry at times. There was a really great slow-motion shot of the bill at the end of the video that was almost dreamlike and it was like the bill was floating in mid-air, but then some woman came into the frame and ruined the video. I'd like a little more in-depth coverage of the bill. And can we get a GFDL-licensed picture of the bill without that woman in the frame? She's a little distracting. What kind of box did the bill come in? What weight was the paper? Was it alabaster or off-white? Was the font on the bill sans-serif? Did the bill contain any recycled paper? Can we find out which region the trees came from that were turned into the paper that the bill was printed on? What kind of ink are we talking about here? Where is the bill now? I think this article is great but I think we really need to focus on the topic at hand. Generic5204:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qué? Neither is the article. Never saw it before the AfD, but it's obvious that the article is now a well sourced article that is, for the most part, careful to cover third party criticisms rather than load it on itself. No more a soapbox than Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell or myriad other pages covering third party criticism of various topics. MrZaiustalk10:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to me that the event is notable, given the amount of media attention it received. The article is well-documented as well. It's a detailed enough situation to merit an article and could conceivably be of interest to the casual reader (I'm an example of that). Blade15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. weak for the fact, I do not live in the US and only discovered this page when it was nominated for a DYK. considering the companies concerned have not given her credit for the video, I would say fancruft just sums it all up as I feel these pages are just there to make her more famous. Willirennen23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me paraprase my comments above to assure you this is not fancruft as you assert--I was interested in this subject as a case study in technology and society. Also the company's denial is absurd on its face, but I can't say that in the article, because it would be OR. But do you really believe AT&T actually planned in advance to drop detailed billing as the defauly option one month after releasing the iPhone? Dhaluza02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the significant (read 'notable') media attention this situation garnered, and the extraordinarily well-sourced nature of the article, I can't believe it got nominated in the first place. On top of it all, it was an enjoyable read, which I consider to be of near equal importance (yes, my POV). -- HuntsterT • @ • C04:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article meets all the requirements for a Wikipedia article, whether or not someone feels it is relevant is ... irrelevant. It has sources, it's well written, end of story. 69.182.118.1010:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - notable blogger who is frequently brought on Radio to comment about Senate activity, interviews Senators, and moderated an important forum.--Mr Beale14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - no evidence of notability is currently in the article. If it can be added (in the form of media coverage or evidence that he is a frequent radio guest), I'll switch my vote. Sarcasticidealist22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Bob Geiger and I say go ahead and delete it. I didn't start this page to begin with and, while everything on it is true and totally provable -- you want MP3s of radio appearances?? - it's not worth the trouble to fight this. And, by the way, you have to be invited to write for the Huffington Post. The assertion that anyone can create a blog there is nonsense.
Delete nn blogger, with a nn blog at a site that let's anyone have a page, less notable than the average ebay seller with a few dozen feedback - at least you know the ebayer's stuff has been read by somebody. Carlossuarez4619:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Should have been nominated a lot sooner than Labor Day. There is no historical value in listing what television shows were telecast on Disney five years ago, and Summer programming for 2007 was an advertisement. Mandsford14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prod contested with the TP edit "Ive been cleaning up but this article still needs some sources". Indeed it does. Name-drop heavy, unverified bio of a minor English actor / DJ. Deiztalk17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor actor maybe but certainatly a massive part of the comedy series he was in. He is also a very talked about person in the North West and I would suggest this would justify having an artilcle. I am on the case searching for reliable sources to putthe article right. Video killed the radiostar09:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC) xxx[reply]
Delete. Minor actor, per nom. He's done pantomime in Salford and Manchester! At least he seems to be getting closer to the West End, but he's not there yet. --Calton | Talk14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's not an actor though - he's a stand-up and DJ! It's like saying they should delete the Toby Foster entry "because he's only a minor actor" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 14:31, September 4, 2007 (UTC)
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.
This is clearly advertising. It is a promotional article about a martial arts instructor.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboscreech (talk • contribs) 2007/09/02 20:39:34
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.
Delete. There are infinite such lists that could be created, but Wikipedia won't be a respectable and useful encyclopedia. CG17:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat As pointed out before, the list exists because the cats were thrown out with a CfD. Just pointing this out since we may be going into a cycle of "Cat bad, make List. No, List bad, make Cat. No..." where the material should just go. - J Greb03:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I was unaware of the previous AfD, and would have argued against its deletion then too. (Not that we need concern ourselves with that as a "precedent", since consensus can change, after all.) Calling this "listcruft", or "an indiscriminate collection of information" is wholly incorrect. This in no way compares to the number of spoons at Buckingham Palace, or the number of blonde models who wear perfume. In my experience in most XfD discussions involving media-related information (whether it involves comics, television, film, or whatever), the cry of "listcruft" is essentially IDONTLIKEIT. Such information is, of course, more than just allowed on Wikipedia, it's welcome. There are taskforces, and full-WikiProjects. And the topic "Superpowers" is not non-notable. It's useful to research. There are a myriad of books/articles/etc about such characters and their superhuman abilities. Anyone interested might wish to check out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/useful pages, and several other such pages at the WikiProject. Incidentally, the current concensus at CfD is that features of fictional characters should in many cases not be categories, but instead should be listified. One of the strengths of a list is to show interrelationships and comparisons between topics (per WP:CLS). - jc3708:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the line of reasoning "Every character can create illusions of one kind or another." was part of the reason that the category was deleted in favor of a list. Since a list can be more easily edited to remove "Character has used shadow puppets to distrat others" inclusions. Also, since it is an article, the premise can be spelled out and enforced with the lead section. - J Greb07:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (for now) as this is neither listcruft or indiscriminate (following jc37) and I also want to avoid the category/list yo-yoing described by J Greb (as these arose because the decision on the CfDs was to make them lists). However, this doesn't mean we eventually want to keep this and the others currently nominated (or the dozenish similar lists) but I don't want to have to vote on them singularly. What we really need to do is discuss the whole area (a discussion has started here) and reach a consensus on whether we want the lot and whether we want it as a list or a category or neither. I find myself feeling pretty neutral about the whole issue but it needs to be sorted out in a broader discussion rather than picking them off piecemeal with no broad consensus on whether these are good ideas or not (which will mean we will keep coming back to this every now and again). (Emperor12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Interest based lists with short info beyond anything a cat listing could achieve are basically useful for the reader. Keep or merge into something like "List of fictional characters by special ability". —AldeBaer 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is already List of comic book superpowers, such a list might compliment this (although, of course, another solution would be to merge all lists with that one but keep the examples trimmed down to a couple of key ones - as things currently stand) but wouldn't it be a big entry and end up being split into the lists again. I agree that as they stand they don't offer much beyond what a cat would do except these can be policed and rogue additions weeded out (which is why the CfDs for these things ended as a listify). However, as I said on the Comics Project, I notice Superspeed redirects to the relevant list and wonder if it would be possible to create an interesting and informative lead and have the list as examples? (Emperor14:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree (if that is what you propose) that it'd be a good idea to merge each list into an existing article on the respective superpower. Where such an article does not yet exist, the list article could be moved to the name of the superpower and be made into an article. Btw: These should really have been filed as a multiple article AfD. —AldeBaer 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is getting a little silly ;)
Anyway if you look at some of the entries Telekinesis I think what you'd find is that the editors of such solid entries would probably object quite strongly to jamming a big list in there (probably quite rightly). The bottom line is we can't just delete the lists and make them into cats (as we previously deleted the cats and made them into lists) so we need a better and longer lasting solution (which I think needs discussing in one place until we can work out a solution) and I'd favour one of 4 solutions:
Leave them be
Delete the lot and salt the earth on the lists and categories
Flesh out/rework/move the entries until they have a better lead and the list is more a list of examples (however, that is getting around to a point where we might as well go with option #3)
Just my thoughts. I think I'd probably favour #3 as it stands but I'd really want to kick this whole thing around and see what other people think. (Emperor14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete and this list was created by prior agreement, out of a category, by a bot. So how good can the raft of similar human-created articles be?Merkinsmum22:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. They claim the article covers "fictional characters," include lots of recent comicbook characters who can "create illusions," then leave out Mandrake the Magician and The Shadow, showing hopeless recentism. A list of "all fictional characters" with this ability would be immense. If the article were based on published articles, a broader view would be likely, including the historical development. Every fictional magician belongs in the list, for starters. The best approach might be to mention the most famous examples in the article on the fictional ability or superpower, and to include only those for whom substantial coverage can be found in reliable and independent sources. Edison02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a directory of fictional characters with <power> + lack of notability for this group. Replace with a category if notability for this power is found Corpx04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a single article, but please couldn't we have combined all of these in one AfD. Usually that is a bad idea, but in this case I think it actually would have been an advantage. BTW: if the nominator thinks something should be speedy deleted, he should tag it as such. AfD is NOT for speedy deletions, but for DISCUSSION about deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)06:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. In this debate, as opposed to the other two I looked at, there was a bit more weight on the delete side. Nonetheless, the arguments for deleting are poor. The criteria implied from the title alone may be vague, but the criteria in the article are certainly clear enough for now, and can always be improved via editing. Mangojuicetalk16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are infinite such lists that could be created, but Wikipedia won't be a respectable and useful encyclopedia. CG17:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat As pointed out before, the list exists because the cats were thrown out with a CfD. Just pointing this out since we may be going into a cycle of "Cat bad, make List. No, List bad, make Cat. No..." where the material should just go. - J Greb03:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I was unaware of the previous AfD, and would have argued against its deletion then too. (Not that we need concern ourselves with that as a "precedent", since consensus can change, after all.) Calling this "listcruft", or "an indiscriminate collection of information" is wholly incorrect. This in no way compares to the number of spoons at Buckingham Palace, or the number of blonde models who wear perfume. In my experience in most XfD discussions involving media-related information (whether it involves comics, television, film, or whatever), the cry of "listcruft" is essentially IDONTLIKEIT. Such information is, of course, more than just allowed on Wikipedia, it's welcome. There are taskforces, and full-WikiProjects. And the topic "Superpowers" is not non-notable. It's useful to research. There are a myriad of books/articles/etc about such characters and their superhuman abilities. Anyone interested might wish to check out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/useful pages, and several other such pages at the WikiProject. Incidentally, the current concensus at CfD is that features of fictional characters should in many cases not be categories, but instead should be listified. One of the strengths of a list is to show interrelationships and comparisons between topics (per WP:CLS). - jc3708:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt recreation of vaguely named list. Manipulate? Every character can manipulate fire one way or another. Wryspy06:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point to the AfD for a like named list? And IIRC the line of reasoning "Every character can manipulate fire one way or another." was part of the reason that the category was deleted in favor of a list. Since a list can be more easily edited to remove "Character has the 'Camping Merit Badge' so knows how to create fire with a stick" inclusions. Also, since it is an article, the premise can be spelled out and enforced with the lead section. - J Greb07:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (for now) as this is neither listcruft or indiscriminate (following jc37) and I also want to avoid the category/list yo-yoing described by J Greb (as these arose because the decision on the CfDs was to make them lists). However, this doesn't mean we eventually want to keep this and the others currently nominated (or the dozenish similar lists) but I don't want to have to vote on them singularly. What we really need to do is discuss the whole area (a discussion has started here) and reach a consensus on whether we want the lot and whether we want it as a list or a category or neither. I find myself feeling pretty neutral about the whole issue but it needs to be sorted out in a broader discussion rather than picking them off piecemeal with no broad consensus on whether these are good ideas or not (which will mean we will keep coming back to this every now and again). (Emperor12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Interest based lists with short info beyond anything a cat listing could achieve are basically useful for the reader. Keep or merge into something like "List of fictional characters by special ability". —AldeBaer 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is already List of comic book superpowers, such a list might compliment this (although, of course, another solution would be to merge all lists with that one but keep the examples trimmed down to a couple of key ones - as things currently stand) but wouldn't it be a big entry and end up being split into the lists again. I agree that as they stand they don't offer much beyond what a cat would do except these can be policed and rogue additions weeded out (which is why the CfDs for these things ended as a listify). However, as I said on the Comics Project, I notice Superspeed redirects to the relevant list and wonder if it would be possible to create an interesting and informative lead and have the list as examples? (Emperor14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree (if that is what you propose) that it'd be a good idea to merge each list into an existing article on the respective superpower. Where such an article does not yet exist, the list article could be moved to the name of the superpower and be made into an article. Btw: These should really have been filed as a multiple article AfD. —AldeBaer 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is getting a little silly ;)
Anyway if you look at some of the entries Telekinesis I think what you'd find is that the editors of such solid entries would probably object quite strongly to jamming a big list in there (probably quite rightly). The bottom line is we can't just delete the lists and make them into cats (as we previously deleted the cats and made them into lists) so we need a better and longer lasting solution (which I think needs discussing in one place until we can work out a solution) and I'd favour one of 4 solutions:
Leave them be
Delete the lot and salt the earth on the lists and categories
Flesh out/rework/move the entries until they have a better lead and the list is more a list of examples (however, that is getting around to a point where we might as well go with option #3)
Just my thoughts. I think I'd probably favour #3 as it stands but I'd really want to kick this whole thing around and see what other people think. (Emperor14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I like AldeBaer's idea of merging all these things together in some for similar to the list of comic book superpowers. I can't bring myself to vote "keep", nor "delete". Fire manipulation is fascinating to kids, some of whom grow up to be arsonists. The author has gone to a lot of trouble in creating a tabular arrangement of information, but it's not actually that useful, nor accurate. EVERYONE, and I mean everyone, knows that Johnny Storm's human torch powers were not "inherent", in that he acquired them after the 1962 Spaceflight Cosmic Ray Incident. Mandsford14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be worth just moving List of comic book superpowers to "List of superpowers in fiction" so that it is more generally useful? Granted nearly all the examples are from comics but there are superhero novels, TV and film not based on comics (like Wild Cards, for example). I do like the current way that the list of superpowers keeps the examples tight so they are helpful examples demonstrating what is being discussed instead of an attempt to be comprehensive (which is always going to be open to debate and incomplete). That way converting the lists to relevant redirects would mesh better. (Emperor14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per not a directory of fictional characters with <power> + lack of notability for this group. Replace with a category if notability for this power is found Corpx04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a single article, but please couldn't we have combined all of these in one AfD. Usually that is a bad idea, but in this case I think it actually would have been an advantage. Also, deleting with the argument that it can also be a category is useless. On many topics, we have both categories and lists. Categories are good for, well, categorizing, but are horrible for navigating articles. Lists are far superior, as they allow different sorting of the articles, context to be added, references to be added, etc.... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)06:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as per comments of User:Emperor and others above. I too wouldn't mind seeing such lists be added to a main article for each subject, including maybe the list of fictional telepaths in an article Telepathy (fiction), for example, but that is a separate point. Also, if additional information is added, such as the limits of a given character's psychic ability, that would be useful information to use in comparison to other characters. I also believe that several of the other fictional heroes not in comics, like Psi-Man and the Wild Cards, were included as well, but again that's a matter of developing the list, and it wouldn't be possible to develop them if they were deleted before that could be done. John Carter14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even taken at face value, contradictory and arbitrary criterias for inclusion in the list makes it useless as an encyclopedia article. Complete and utter rubbish as a list. No discernible reference on criterias for inclusion - fails WP:NOR. Non-encyclopedic mish-mash list of chars from wildly different and incompatible genres that reads like things made up in school one day. Most definitely fails criteria #5 of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations - Cross-categories like these are not usually considered sufficient basis to create an article. --Eqdoktor20:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Caveat As pointed out before, the list exists because the cats were thrown out with a CfD. Just pointing this out since we may be going into a cycle of "Cat bad, make List. No, List bad, make Cat. No..." where the material should just go. - J Greb03:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I was unaware of the previous AfD, and would have argued against its deletion then too. (Not that we need concern ourselves with that as a "precedent", since consensus can change, after all.) Calling this "listcruft", or "an indiscriminate collection of information" is wholly incorrect. This in no way compares to the number of spoons at Buckingham Palace, or the number of blonde models who wear perfume. In my experience in most XfD discussions involving media-related information (whether it involves comics, television, film, or whatever), the cry of "listcruft" is essentially IDONTLIKEIT. Such information is, of course, more than just allowed on Wikipedia, it's welcome. There are taskforces, and full-WikiProjects. And the topic "Superpowers" is not non-notable. It's useful to research. There are a myriad of books/articles/etc about such characters and their superhuman abilities. Anyone interested might wish to check out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/useful pages, and several other such pages at the WikiProject. Incidentally, the current concensus at CfD is that features of fictional characters should in many cases not be categories, but instead should be listified. One of the strengths of a list is to show interrelationships and comparisons between topics (per WP:CLS). This of course does not preclude there being a list and a category (also per WP:CLS). - jc3708:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My problem with this sort of list is the fairly arbitrary nature of the grouping. Yes, in comic books an individual superpower often links characters in the minds of the readers, as powers are fairly integral to the medium. But they remain only one single aspect of a character that's been pulled out. I'm made this type of analogy before, but what is the essential difference between a list like this and, say, a "List of fictional people who have been gardening enthusiasts"? It's still creating a link between a variety of fictional characters based on one modifier, one aspect, one characteristic. There's no overall comparison between the characters beyond this one aspect. I don't know if I would call it original research exactly (since there doesn't appear to be any particular meaning behind grouping them all) but I do believe it defines the word "indescriminate" -Markeer17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because tomorrow one can decide to no longer be a gardening enthusiast. Tomorrow, someone can put down a spoon and no longer be a member of "People who carried spoons". That's not true about having a superhuman ability. And as it's a superhuman ability, that means it's not a mundane ability that all the rest of us humans have like "walking". So no, this is in no way close to being "indiscriminate". - jc3704:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (for now) as this is neither listcruft or indiscriminate (following jc37) and I also want to avoid the category/list yo-yoing described by J Greb (as these arose because the decision on the CfDs was to make them lists). However, this doesn't mean we eventually want to keep this and the others currently nominated (or the dozenish similar lists) but I don't want to have to vote on them singularly. What we really need to do is discuss the whole area (a discussion has started here) and reach a consensus on whether we want the lot and whether we want it as a list or a category or neither. I find myself feeling pretty neutral about the whole issue but it needs to be sorted out in a broader discussion rather than picking them off piecemeal with no broad consensus on whether these are good ideas or not (which will mean we will keep coming back to this every now and again). (Emperor12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Interest based lists with short info beyond anything a cat listing could achieve are basically useful for the reader. Keep or merge into something like "List of fictional characters by special ability". —AldeBaer 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is already List of comic book superpowers, such a list might compliment this (although, of course, another solution would be to merge all lists with that one but keep the examples trimmed down to a couple of key ones - as things currently stand) but wouldn't it be a big entry and end up being split into the lists again. I agree that as they stand they don't offer much beyond what a cat would do except these can be policed and rogue additions weeded out (which is why the CfDs for these things ended as a listify). However, as I said on the Comics Project, I notice Superspeed redirects to the relevant list and wonder if it would be possible to create an interesting and informative lead and have the list as examples? (Emperor14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree (if that is what you propose) that it'd be a good idea to merge each list into an existing article on the respective superpower. Where such an article does not yet exist, the list article could be moved to the name of the superpower and be made into an article. Btw: These should really have been filed as a multiple article AfD. —AldeBaer 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is getting a little silly ;)
Anyway if you look at some of the entries Telekinesis I think what you'd find is that the editors of such solid entries would probably object quite strongly to jamming a big list in there (probably quite rightly). The bottom line is we can't just delete the lists and make them into cats (as we previously deleted the cats and made them into lists) so we need a better and longer lasting solution (which I think needs discussing in one place until we can work out a solution) and I'd favour one of 4 solutions:
Leave them be
Delete the lot and salt the earth on the lists and categories
Flesh out/rework/move the entries until they have a better lead and the list is more a list of examples (however, that is getting around to a point where we might as well go with option #3)
Just my thoughts. I think I'd probably favour #3 as it stands but I'd really want to kick this whole thing around and see what other people think. (Emperor14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete This type of list, created and edited by fans, is potentially unmanageable because the fans aren't all in agreement. Should one include Superman, Captain Marvel, Mon-El, all Kryptonians and other entities whose "superspeed" is only one of many "superpowers"? Is it "fair" to not include Superman on the list? Should we add Sonic and Speedy and the Roadrunner, who are not humans moving at superhuman speed? If one person takes some of the entries off, is not another person outraged? And if an addition, that you have not heard of, is made without comment, are you irritated? Faster speed is one of the basic superpower variations that appeals to all persons who have wished that they could move more quickly Mandsford14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a directory of fictional characters with <power> + lack of notability for this group. Replace with a category if notability for this power is found Corpx04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deleting with the argument that it can also be a category is useless. On many topics, we have both categories and lists. Categories are good for, well, categorizing, but are horrible for navigating articles. Lists are far superior, as they allow different sorting of the articles, context to be added, references to be added, etc.... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The list is much better than a category. "Superhuman speed" means a speed faster than real humans can move, therefore inclusion criteria could be made clear enough. Wryspy00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because although not quite as well-organized in the tables that the other articles of this nature are, it still concerns a notable topic and can be improved in a manner that is both convenient and helpful for many readers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Some like the idea of this list, some don't. Complaints about the inclusion criteria are important, but then again, they can be edited. Mangojuicetalk16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat As pointed out before, the list exists because the cats were thrown out with a CfD. It should be noted that the Anime cat is, at best, a recreation. Just pointing this out since we may be going into a cycle of "Cat bad, make List. No, List bad, make Cat. No..." where the material should just go. - J Greb03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I was unaware of the previous AfD, and would have argued against its deletion then too. (Not that we need concern ourselves with that as a "precedent", since consensus can change, after all.) Calling this "listcruft", or "an indiscriminate collection of information" is wholly incorrect. This in no way compares to the number of spoons at Buckingham Palace, or the number of blonde models who wear perfume. In my experience in most XfD discussions involving media-related information (whether it involves comics, television, film, or whatever), the cry of "listcruft" is essentially IDONTLIKEIT. Such information is, of course, more than just allowed on Wikipedia, it's welcome. There are taskforces, and full-WikiProjects. And the topic "Superpowers" is not non-notable. It's useful to research. There are a myriad of books/articles/etc about such characters and their superhuman abilities. Anyone interested might wish to check out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/useful pages, and several other such pages at the WikiProject. Incidentally, the current concensus at CfD is that features of fictional characters should in many cases not be categories, but instead should be listified. One of the strengths of a list is to show interrelationships and comparisons between topics (per WP:CLS). - jc3708:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion criterion is clear. A character either does or does not have telekinesis/psychokinesis. This list is better than a category. Wryspy07:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (for now) as this is neither listcruft or indiscriminate (following jc37) and I also want to avoid the category/list yo-yoing described by J Greb (as these arose because the decision on the CfDs was to make them lists). However, this doesn't mean we eventually want to keep this and the others currently nominated (or the dozenish similar lists) but I don't want to have to vote on them singularly. What we really need to do is discuss the whole area (a discussion has started here) and reach a consensus on whether we want the lot and whether we want it as a list or a category or neither. I find myself feeling pretty neutral about the whole issue but it needs to be sorted out in a broader discussion rather than picking them off piecemeal with no broad consensus on whether these are good ideas or not (which will mean we will keep coming back to this every now and again). (Emperor12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Interest based lists with short info beyond anything a cat listing could achieve are basically useful for the reader. Keep or merge into something like "List of fictional characters by special ability". —AldeBaer 13:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is already List of comic book superpowers, such a list might compliment this (although, of course, another solution would be to merge all lists with that one but keep the examples trimmed down to a couple of key ones - as things currently stand) but wouldn't it be a big entry and end up being split into the lists again. I agree that as they stand they don't offer much beyond what a cat would do except these can be policed and rogue additions weeded out (which is why the CfDs for these things ended as a listify). However, as I said on the Comics Project, I notice Superspeed redirects to the relevant list and wonder if it would be possible to create an interesting and informative lead and have the list as examples? (Emperor14:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree (if that is what you propose) that it'd be a good idea to merge each list into an existing article on the respective superpower. Where such an article does not yet exist, the list article could be moved to the name of the superpower and be made into an article. Btw: These should really have been filed as a multiple article AfD. —AldeBaer 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is getting a little silly ;)
Anyway if you look at some of the entries Telekinesis I think what you'd find is that the editors of such solid entries would probably object quite strongly to jamming a big list in there (probably quite rightly). The bottom line is we can't just delete the lists and make them into cats (as we previously deleted the cats and made them into lists) so we need a better and longer lasting solution (which I think needs discussing in one place until we can work out a solution) and I'd favour one of 4 solutions:
Leave them be
Delete the lot and salt the earth on the lists and categories
Flesh out/rework/move the entries until they have a better lead and the list is more a list of examples (however, that is getting around to a point where we might as well go with option #3)
Just my thoughts. I think I'd probably favour #3 as it stands but I'd really want to kick this whole thing around and see what other people think. (Emperor14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This is truly the indiscriminate list, but even if one were to add a few words about each of these blue-links, it would not make this much more interesting. As the number of entries on this list suggests, telekinesis is actually a fairly common "power"... more so in cartoons and comics, where strings are not required, and in TV and film where strings are used to move things all about. It's not that imaginative, when you get right down to it. Mandsford14:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete comletely sad and random list, one of dozens. Should be up for a block delete. Anyway these lists are sort of unsourced/ non-noteable aren't they. Merkinsmum22:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a directory of fictional characters with <power> + lack of notability for this group. Replace with a category Corpx04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deleting with the argument that it can also be a category is useless. On many topics, we have both categories and lists. Categories are good for, well, categorizing, but are horrible for navigating articles. Lists are far superior, as they allow different sorting of the articles, context to be added, references to be added, etc.... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seriously saddened that you have taken it upon yourself to recreate, all be it through sub cat, a category the was deleted as per a CfD consensus. - J Greb00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because concerns a notable topic that can be organized in a manner that is both convenient and helpful for many readers. Plus, obviously a lot of readers and editors do find these lists helpful, so I think a lot of the opposition to these articles are simple "I don't like" it arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete and utter rubbish as a list. No discernible reference on criterias for inclusion - fails WP:NOR. Non-encyclopedic mish-mash list of chars from wildly different and incompatible genres that reads like a list randomly made up in school one day. Most definitely fails criteria #5 of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations - Cross-categories like these are not usually considered sufficient basis to create an article.--Eqdoktor22:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any variant categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, due to lack of sourcing to support any facts that might be merged. Redirection done, as it is plausible. GRBerry02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article should be deleted because its reference to Nelly's Nazi sympathies is outrageous and untrue:
This article carries only 2 citations. Of the 2 citations, only www.ethniko.net refers to Nelly's Nazi sympathies. The www.ethniko.net website is plainly a Nazi propaganda website. Here's an example from the site: http://www.ethniko.net/volkgeist/greece-third-reich/ "Greece was part of the Third Reich between 1941 and 1944. The Germans raised the flag with the Swastika in the uppermost hill of the Acropolis on April 27, 1941, marking the start of four of the most glorious years in modern Greek history."
There are many other articles online about Nelly's, none of which allude to Nelly's Nazi sympathies. For example, below is the article from www.about.com . It is worth noting that many of the honors that Nelly's received were given by left-wing government officials in Greece in the 1980s and 1990s. The Wikipedia article's implications are simply untrue.
ABOUT.COM
http://photography.about.com/b/a/173706.htm?terms=nelly%27s
Elli Souyioultzoglou-Seraidari, 1899-1998 was a Greek born in Asia Minor, who studied photography in Germany. She returned from there to set up her home and studio in Athens, after her family had been forced to flee back to Greece, becoming one of the leading photographers in Greece, working under the name of Nelly's. International events again disrupted her life at the start of the Second World War, when she was working in New York for a few weeks that turned into a 27 year stay. Nelly's (also known as Nelly) enjoyed great success in America, with a cover for Life, a number of exhibitions and a busy portrait and commercial business, as well as serving as a great unofficial ambassador for her country. In 1965 she retired and returned to Greece, donating her archives and cameras to the Benaki Museum in Athens in 1985. Nelly was honoured by her country for her photography in the 1990's and there have been a number of exhibitions and publications of her work, both at home and internationally, including at the ICP in New York in 1997. She died at her home in Athens at the age of 99. The About Photography feature on Nelly's life and work gives more detail and links.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmalaspina (talk • contribs) 2007/08/31 21:29:26
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.
Note: The user who nominated this page didn't create a discussion page, so I'll do it myself - even though I don't think the page warrants a nomination, let alone deletion - in order to properly facilitate a debate on the issue. If the user in question reads this, hopefully they will specify their reasons for the nomination. NaLaochra (U|T) 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The Blizzards are one of the biggest Irish bands around at the moment, which in itself makes their lead singer and main songwriter notable. But if that's not enough to warrant an article, he's hosted a radio series on a national radio station, and he's played 15 times at senior level for Leinster, one of the top-ranked rugby teams in Europe. He is known by the vast majority of music fans in Ireland. The article could be tidied up a bit, but it is most definitely notable for the reasons listed above. NaLaochra (U|T) 11:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AFD after a contested prod. This non-notable phone article has zero references yet makes bold and weaselly claims. WP is not a product guide. References are likely to be the manufacturer's website and non-substantial reviews. Mikeblas03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article mainly describes the technical data of the phone; no independent references are given, no hint contained why this particular product is notable. --B. Wolterding11:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:N and for bordering on product advertising. Someone has created over 100 article, listing that many different models of Nokia phones, apparently presently or recently for sale. This article has no references to show the particular model is notable, or to show when it was introduced, how well it was accepted by consumers, what problems if any it had in getting to market or in gaining acceptance, or how well it sold. It does include information about the special features of each. It reads like a copy of text from a company website rather than an encyclopedia article, This tends to turn Wikipedia into a product catalog (though without prices). If spammy and unreferenced articles about every current Nokia product is appropriate because it has some kind of inherent notability, then it would be equally appropriate to create a separate article for every item in the 1904 Sears Roebuck Catalog, or any other list of the products sold by any other notable company in any era. I don't think we want to go there. Edison02:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nokia 3220 was the first entry-level phone that offered full access to the Internet. (You can read Wikipedia on this phone.) While these features were available on "business" phones, this was the first Nokia phone with a XHTML browser and and POP3/IMAPemail client that was marketed to consumers. This is the device that will make the IPv4 address space run out! -- Petri Krohn03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article doesn't cite any verifiable references for Nokia's marketing strategy. It doesn't even link to a definition for "entry-level phone", or explain why not everyone who buys a phone is a consumer. -- Mikeblas03:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why these are valid arguments for keeping the article. All these points might be worth mentioning in a general article on Nokia mobile phones (if they can be sourced), but that doesn't mean we should have an article on the particular phone model. Once this particular phone did make the IPv4 address space run out, and multiple sources have reported that, one can reconsider whether an article would be appropriate... --B. Wolterding07:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apparent promotional by a person connected with the company; the speedy deletion tag has been removed several times by the creator. Delete, unless notability is independently established. - Mike Rosoft10:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independant claim of notability, or references. Not blatant advertising, though (and I am unsure how the creator could categorically be the remover of the speedy tag, as the remover was an anon IP). Neilム10:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep - This is the destination for a redirect "Beatles Songs", which I'd guess is a common search topic. The list isn't entirely redundant, as it's tidier and more focused than the category page, and includes several red links. However, as lists go, it's kinda weak; this would make a better navigation aid if it were annotated. William Pietri10:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if sorted in a table, it's still redundant to the album pages and the category. If readers want to see songs listed by albums, they would look at the album pages. If they want to see songs listed alphabetically, they would click on the category. From The Beatles discography page, album pages, and categories, it is easy to track down any Beatles song one wants. Spellcast11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the 280 songs listed, 24 are red links. If the red link songs are worthy for an article, they can be created and listed in the category. If they're not notable, then is it really worth keeping the list so non-notable songs can be alphabeticised? Spellcast12:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to category or format into a detailed table As it is pretty useless - Categories serve this purpose. Unless somebody formats it so it is an encyclopeedic table which provides info on data of release, album, notes etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No better now than it was a year ago when it was created. This is, as it says, a list of Beatles songs (with some red-link additions from v andals) and it's chief claim to fame is that it's in alphabetical order. In this case, a Category really is better than the article. Lists of Beatles songs have been done many times, and nearly all of those lists are better than this one. Mandsford15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my world, this is an important part of human knowledge. Sure, the article could be improved, but for a person looking for a particular Beatles song, this article is far better than a category.--orlady18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional noteable information can be included Presently this list doesn't offer much more than Category:The Beatles songs. There are many such lists, most of which have been deleted. Unless additional, noteable information is included, the page isn't necessary. Tbo 157talk19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. I personally found it useful a few minutes ago, and arrived there by typing beatles songs into the search box. Admittedly for my purposes a redirect to Category:The Beatles songs would probably have been sufficient -- at least, if there were no songs missing. –Aponar Kestrel(talk)03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a sortable table by title, album, single y/n, chart position UK, chart position US, Beatles original or cover version etc. Kappa12:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for all involved Is the consensus to merge the lists into one sortable table (title, author(s), singer(s), chart position, and album)? Again, I'll help if so desired. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Major claim to notability is being Sec-Gen of a UN-affiliated international coordinating council. Role largely consists of attending conferences and issuing generic exhortations for member nations to do more to encourage youth organizations to do stuff. Name shows up in Google News Archive but only as spokesman, mainly press releases, no in-depth coverage. No other historical leadership of the World Assembly of Youth has an article. --Dhartung | Talk09:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the one hand, there are verifiable facts, and I hate to lose those. On the other hand, we don't have an article on his organization, and I can't find evidence of them doing anything anyhow. Plus, the article was created by one-shot contributor Dtc88, and those initials make it look a lot like a vanity bio. William Pietri10:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment May I have a single example of the "rambling WP:POV with no reference to the books"? I suppose you are not referring to the overlong summaries of the alternate earths as described in the manuals, are you? --Goochelaar13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I believe calling RPG books "books of gaming instructions" is somewhat offensive to gamers. I know it certainly offends the living daylights out of me. It makes me feel you're comparing them to The Annotated Rules of Quidditch or something. --Agamemnon212:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has the nom any idea what these books are, has he seen one, looked through one. These books are not gaming instuctions, no where in these source books is there any thing resembling, if this happens do this, and if that happens than do that. These are source books, with alternative timelines, technologies and worldview of a world of the mind that differs from ours because of that alternative timeline technology and history. Oh well, I don't think he cares.KTo28800:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Google reveals no reliable secondary sources. Their least tenuous claim to fame is that they hosted a club night that Portishead played at once. Fails WP:N 3tmx08:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well that they exist; the BBC listings are BBC bristol i.e. local and Venue magazine is a local magazine. Wouldn't say that necesssarily makes them notable 3tmx22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plus all the stuff on the talk page is just a brief sentence in the context of the secret portishead gig they put on - not coverage relating to them directly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3tmx (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No other notability than that they are competing in as-yet unaired TV show; one of 40 bands, none of the others of which, I believe, have their own separate article. Name makes it difficult to Google! Prod removed by original author. Oli Filth08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another in a long line of non-notable bands that think by entering a competition can become notable overnight. Do not meet (not even closely) WP:BAND. --WebHamster15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added them myself and I am not part of the band. To say that by entering a competition they "think" they can become notable overnight is simply false. --AStanhope19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why enter the competition? All bands entering these things want fame and fortune... and notability. Why should this band be different. Unless of course you have a source that demonstrates the converse?--WebHamster21:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apparently well recognized in Raleigh, North Carolina. Filmed for the show in Las Vegas. Article already exists. Why delete it?--AStanhope18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Not notable, marketese without any reliable published secondary sources to indicate notability. Prod removed without adding reliable published secondary sources. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-28t20:51z
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk08:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"Contains no pictures.Pictures help the reader understand what they are reading." User:Coolgirly88 7:40, August 30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgirly88 (talk • contribs) 10:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further information needed. I would only support this article if "Islaam" was recognised as a person under Egyptian law. Was there a birth certificate? Was there a death certificate? If not, then she was an appendage of Manar Maged and not deserving of an article. Perhaps the subject of the article should be Manar, and her battle for life? WWGB11:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is original research. No notability asserted. The invention's web site is Terry L Hewett Sr's "Ring Theory" (not linked to from the article), which does not supply any references or clear explanations. From what I understand of the vague description, it is an induction motor or AC motor design, but it is unclear what advantages it would offer. A quote from the inventor site: "The scientific society has reached a blockade in the road to advancement in technology. This is due to several things that i will highlight on this site in the future. But for now I would like to concentrate on the closest advancement mankind has to discovering the ring."Delete. - I see now that the article used to be a stub, only linked to from one article. I think we could do without the stub (integrate it into the single article linking to it). Han-Kwang (t) 13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. No comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 16:32, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Delete An article in science and technology about new and innovative rotary electricval machines should be referenced to multiple books or journal articles. Come back when you have such references. Wikipedia is not a place for first publication of someone's inventions and innovations. (Would that Nikola Tesla and Zénobe Gramme were still around to review the article). Edison03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I have done a rewrite, reformat, reference and catagorization... it should be suitable now (always needs improvement though) - Fosnez10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk08:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - WP:NOTINHERITED? WP:OUTCOMES does not state that if a band is notable (maybe barely so in this case) their albums are notable as well. 1redrunTalk
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk08:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand The band itself is notable, having gone on a tour. This makes its albums somewhat notable. However, the album article currently appears to be no more than a simple track listing. So, they should consider expanding the article such as writing a short production history or what not. Otherwise, the album should be merged into the article of the band per WP:MUSIC.--Alasdair08:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming the band is notable, and I make no judgement on that fact, WP:OUTCOMES indeed does not suggest anything about album notability. Also, there's no useful content in the article to justify it being separated. One could easily just add the track listing to Caspian (band). --Darkwind (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I wonder if this article contains a misspelling, as otherwise I can find no evidence that a person by this name ever played in the NFL. If the name is misspelled or I've missed something, I would welcome contributions from anyone with more information on this individual. JavaTenor08:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk08:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Among other things, the name Pletsch is German, not Irish. Nothing remotely similar found in search of Google Books or Google News Archive, yet NFL and predecessor-league players back to the 19th century are well documented. --Dhartung | Talk08:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep Now, a major problem with my judgement here is that I've never seen any of the films in which he's appeared, so I can't gage exactly how significant his roles are, but I could see him as (just barely) scraping by the notability requirements for entertainers set at WP:BIO. Calgary05:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great he's mentioned in reviews. However I can't find any WP:RS articles about him specifically, just the trivial mentions in reviews or listings of stuff he's appeared in. I'm not finding that he's been interviewed by print sources of consequence, just an IMDB entry. No award nominations, and only 2 film appearances. He's not notable yet, and this article seems unlikely to improve based on internet searches. Horrorshowj09:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No name, bit part actor. "Co-starring" is a bit of an optimistic representation of his role in a straight to video film. Non-notable. --WebHamster15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ah, indeed, the only time I know of that it was used in the anime was by one of the Big 5 in the Virtual Kingdom arc... --Luigifan11:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk07:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I see two options here: delete as not notable or verifiable, or merge per DGG. I pick delete because the article as constituted is unsourced and promotional junk and merging this is not helpful to our encyclopedic goals. Ppl should add a sourced mention to the parent article if they care to do so. -- Ynot?02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep They r indeed very Notable, they are active and they have a following, check on Google search results they appear noted in more then just a few web sites, and thus Notable to include them into a neutral encyclopedia, this deletion was posted to the Jewish portal so that's why u have such an unporportional support for deletion, this vote does not represent the wikipedia community on balance, and i ask the sysops to refrain from acting here just by majority rule.--יודל12:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can you create a zillion articles on Synagoges, but yet you jump on one article on a think tank. I see double standard blaring all over the place.Johnpacklambert04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the few synagogue articles I have created are notable. There are ‘’zillion’s’’ of synagogues in Greater London, (where I live), which are not notable and therefore no article exists on each of them. I do not spend all my time sifting through AFD’s and casting votes, but the ones with a Judaism connection and which are listed on the Jewish topic deletion board, I sometimes feel inclined to vote on. There are no double standards here, just paranoia! Chesdovi12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - at least provisionally. The organization is prominently mentioned in at least a few independent websites, with whole pages devoted to discussing them. However, the existing articles for both it and its parent are not overly impressive, and at this point they could easily be merged. I would retain the option of dividing the merged article later, should length and additional independent sources and content be added. John Carter14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. On its own, it may not meet notability criteria, and should not have its own article. If it meets notability, someone needs to give some decent secondary sources. The.helping.people.tick21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. Personally I wouldn't have expected that the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations would have an article, and I suspect that's why no one suggested this earlier.--P4k22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Probably the only time I don't vote to outright keep an MJ article. Jewish editors take note, hell must have frozen over! Contary to the AfD reasoning, the information in this article is valid, and notable, but I believe it would better fit as a subsection in the UMJC article for now until more detail and notability can be found to warrant an exclusive article apart from the UMJC article. inigmatus22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the organization operates independently of its parent organization. I highly suspect the delete votes, because they all seem to be by people highly invested in articles on Judaism. Messianic Judaism undercuts the lie that most Jewish conversion to Christianity is forced, and so main stream Jews want knowledge of it suppressed. If they had their way there would be no article on Messianic Judaism in wikipedia.Johnpacklambert04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Nowadays is any conversion to Christianity forced? I hope not – that would be a bad thing. The days of the Auto de fe are long gone, and we don’t have Jesus to thank for that. These days, the phoney impostors with their art of persuasion is what we have to watch out for. Chesdovi12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has held various forms and has work from various authors. They may be small, but they are real and simply a group of believers in God trying to spread a message of hope.IndependentConservative18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The list changed to a structured list, adding additional information, during the article. This invalidates the claims that a category could be an adequate replacement. The nom was also very wrong in the claim that this replicates a previously deleted list of people; people and organizations are different. The combination of both makes the nomination and the several "per nom" arguments have very little weight. GRBerry02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What other lists? Not every list is valuable - plenty are deleted every day. Just because there are "other lists" in general is not a reason to keep every list. The best lists are limited in scope, with a well defined definition that add insight on the topic. Is there value in comparing and contrasting these organization? Are some doing something the others don't approve of? Do they have a large amount of interaction with each other or a third party? Is it the subject of multiple non-trivial works? List of Hasidic dynasties fits all those criteria, and adds real insight into the topic. The problem with this list is that it is nothing more than a directory. Jon51314:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it more impotent then the Hasidic list, they are active and its important to know who and what and where they are, all your 3 criteria are more relevant to to these organizations then to the hasidic groups, hasidic groups u can have a template showing all a list is where a template cannot exist because the only think they have in common is the name missionaries but their approach and goals may be totally different so we need them in one centralised list.--יודל16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and how on Earth can you claim that you find this list about Christian missionaries to be "... more impotent then the Hasidic list" and that Christian missionaries' "approach and goals may be totally different so we need them in one centralised list" and demean Hasidic groups: "all your 3 criteria are more relevant to to these organizations then to the hasidic groups"? All very topsy-turvy coming from you. IZAK03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't demeaned or belittled any group, u r evidently so desperate to push your Anti-Messianistic Point Of View that u have thrown by now the kitchen cabinets at me, what next?!. All i said is that the Hasidic articles are not that different, that's why a nice graphic template should serve the purpose of a list as well, these messianistic groups arnt that organized and are totally different each from other, that's why a template isn't the proper venue to list their detailed differences. Only a separate page can list and explain the difference through tables and forms.--יודל11:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can this be called a useful list? The only thing which is useful is that they are in alphabetical order. It is a collection of external links which is discouraged on Wikipedia. They should be categorized. Chesdovi17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very useful because not all have the same goals, some go so far as to require to keep every Halacha some don't go so far, a category would be very general and not so useful. And it does have plenty of inside links.--יודל17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are Christian then they cannot "keep" any "Halacha" because by definition Christianity is a religion that replaces, opposes and disposes of Judaism, in spite of any distortion of facts and logic by avid missionaries out to "convert" unsuspecting Jews to a religion that Judaism rejects. IZAK02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV but if u look inside this list we see that there is a actually a group requiring from their people to keep Halachas it could be they are lying but until u don't correct the wording i would assume u r only arguing that You dont consider their Halacha practice as valid because they also believe in Jesus i fully agree on this view but its only a POV not a fact. Feel free to add this very common Jewish view inside the article with proper sourcing but dont deny what the article says--יודל03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone add dignity to the equivalant of Flat Earth believers? There are also people who believe that the moon is made out cheese and that mice eat it and it grows back, but it does not make it true or intelligent, just another fairy tale, or perhaps a fat lie. IZAK03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to add dignity to those articles by editing out the deletion is openly trying to silence those groups, if those groups exist, u cannot just act like a maniac and cover your eyes and scream delete delete, deal with it; Wiki is not one group of who silences the other group, feel free to edit out other people but don't silence them.--יודל11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Five of the items listed already have their own articles, which is probably enough to justify a list itself. The list could also be significantly improved by directly adding content regarding those entities which do not yet have separate articles. However, we do generally prefer having lists over categories, and with the five extant articles I think we can reasonably say that is sufficient basis for keeping the list. Adding content regarding the existing redlinks however would significantly improve this list. John Carter17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. Although I am the original creator of this page, I have long since left messianic judaism (I am an atheist/secular humanist). I haven't really kept up with the MJ project, but I think I can offer a NPOV. I do not believe this article violates any WP policies as I understand them, and do sense bias from Yeshivish. Whether he intends it or not, it is still perceived. However, this list needs some serious cleanup. There are way too many red links, and the whole page appears pretty blah. If someone were to really add some zing to it and create some articles on the organizations I think it should stay. I would also like to add that there are admins out there who are beginning to recognize that the non-Messianic Jewish community on Wikipedia are on the attack against the whole Messianic Judaism project/ articles, whether they intend it or not. This is absolutely inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia. We should all remember the importance of WP:NPOV! Should it come down to the nitty gritty of whether some articles stay or not this issue may come into play. -- Jamie Guinn02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think this list should be kept. However, two issues do need to be addressed. (1) The concern over references and sources is quite a valid one, and work needs to be done to the list on that front. (2) The concern of Jon513 is also valid, the list needs to be more than a simple directory. What some may not realize is that organizations which meet the definition of Messianic Jewish or Hebrew Christian have existed for quite a long time. Historical organizations such as Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel founded by David Baron and CA Schönberger founded circa 1894 [1] though active 100 years ago, no longer exist. Such organizations need to be included in the list along side contemporary ones. Short descriptions, and chronological data need to be included as well. With such modifications, this list could become quite valuable. Why? Though Messianic Judaism numerically small in terms of membership, it is extremely fractured in terms of beliefs and practices. The Messianic Synagogue 90-miles from my house likely believes and behaves quite differently from one in the next state. This, along with the different doctrinal frictions that exists between organizations may not be apparent to a reader unfamiliar with the topic, having even a small group of Wikipedia Articles on Messianic Judaism. However, this list may help the reader gain a feel for both the (regrettably) sectarian nature of the movement, and, if enough links are followed, why the divisions exist. Moreover, with historical groups included, the reader will begin to see Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Christianity's organizational history much more clearly than any other article format would permit. Otherwise, the reader may naively assume that Messianic Judaism / Hebrew-Christianity just sprang into existence with Martin (Moishe) Rosen and the Jews for Jesus Organization, it did not. —Wikijeff02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there is enough WP article content do justify the list, and articles for some of the others might quite possibly be justified as well. All it needed immediately is editing to remove the web links to the ones for which we have article. The links in those articles are enough. I just did that. From the comment above it seems the list can be expanded, though I never knew lists needed zing DGG (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanup is certainly needed, but that's not really a good reason for deletion. (Although if it hasn't been improved for months after tagging, then maybe revisit). --Bfigura(talk)03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple listcruft. Reading through all the reasons to keep, I was struck by the blatant POV. It's a directory and a useless list that belongs on a private web page, not Wikipedia. -- Chabuk[ T • C ]13:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and The Oz Books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.
Conditional Keep I've had my attention drawn to this AfD, presumably because I've tried to keep things NPOV in Messianic Judaism. It looks to me that this list, or rather table, has potential. However, most of the columns are missing entries and some have none at all. This limits the value of it at present. If the table were more fully completed, it would provide in a useful format information on the doctrinal differences of the various sects of Messianic Judaism. (start of added text) Enough progress has been made since I last looked for me to feel assured that this issue is being addressed. (end of added text --Peter cohen 10:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)) As an aside, I think the POV comments about "Flat Earth believers" and " just another fairy tale" do not help. As an atheist, I regard not only Messianic Judaism but mainstream Judaism and Christianity as untrue. But Wikipedia isn't about the truth of the subjects it considers; it's about having verifiable information about notable subjects. Therefore I have to shut up and put up with it giving information about those two religions, not to mention Islam and several others. I don't see why MJ can't be considered systematically in just the same way as larger religions and sects. --Peter cohen15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many redlinks, and unstated criterion for inclusion (if there is a criterion). Having potential is not sufficient reason for inclusion, especially when the article is more than nine months old. --Redaktor15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in agreement with what John Carter said. Point made by Jamie Guinn is also very relevant. I really don't understand the aversion to redlinks. They highlight areas that are missing in Wikipedia. So we're to say that if those areas aren't filled in fast enough to suit someone's taste, any mention of that lack should be removed altogether? This list just needs a little cleanup. Strongly against converting to a category like JFW and Corpx suggest...doing so would lose what information we do have here about the redlink MJ orgs, and then someone would suggest deleting the category for not having enough entries, besides! ⇔ ChristTrekker16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per several above. Does things the category cannot, including having redlinks in. I don't see this as breaching WP:NOTDIR. Johnbod18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The current list of Messianic Jewish organizations is notable, and an article about them is needed especially since not every organization may or may not merit enough notability to have its own independent Wikipedia article. For a religion of only 100,000+ (and only one or two dedicated Messianic wikipedia editors) it's not that difficult to see notability issues arising in these VFDs, but the article should be kept for reasons listed above by other editors. I think it's an unfair assumption that such organizations are listed just to pad Google rankings. Such an assumption is not provable, nor ethical in assuming good faith. The biggest reason to include a separate article listing, is to prevent the main Messianic Judaism article from being crowded with detail, and a separate section on Messianic organizations in the Messianic Judaism article is not conducive to making that article any shorter - therefore a separate article is created to address bloat from the main Messianic Judaism article by providing a page with which Messianic Jewish organizations can be listed, explained, and referenced. I do agree that the article needs further expansion to make its usefulness more apaprent, but that alone is not he reason to delete it when it was just created. To delete it would be to delete notable material, notable references, and force the information back onto the Messianic Judaism article which is already bloated. inigmatus23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is far too much "labelling" of people by their religion and/or ethnicity going on. Even apparently harmless examples like this have a corrosive effect on the project. We need "a page with which Messianic Jewish organizations can be listed, explained, and referenced."? Let's at least try and behave as if we've learnt lessons from what went before. PalestineRemembered07:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question:Keep Is anyone of those, who think, this could be a good article with some work, willing to do this work? If someone declares his wish to complete this article, he should be given a fair chance, but if nobody declares his ambitions, we should not wait for a wonder to happen. This article had ten months time to be finished and nothing happened. We already have to many "might be a good article if...".--Thw130912:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have allready fixed some stuff in the page, i am greatly interested to learn more about those organizations, and i will keep on fixing it further.--יודל13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since some of the groups have articles we ought to keep the list so people can easily find their way to various articles involved in this section. The very fact that some people have used the deletion discussion to attack and denounce Messianic Jews shows that they are a notable group. If we were to delete this article we would suppress knowledge and that is not the way of wikipedia. I am personally a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have fundamental doctrinal disagreements with Messianic Jews, but I think that there is nothing wrong with them being on a list, and for people to denounce them as equivalent to the Flat Earth Society is both uncalled for and cruel.Johnpacklambert04:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. All organisations without an article need to go. And if/when each article is deleted through AfD (as many of them no doubt will be) then their table rows will need to go too. The current references are useless and should be removed. Better references should be found, and added here as well as into the main article of each organisation. —gorgan_almighty13:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I don't think possessing a separate article is necessary for notability. Most lists on Wikipedia include people, groups, locations, whatever without their own Wikipedia articles. Lurker (said·done) 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lurker here. The main issue is whether the list itself is notable. If that is answered in the affirmative, then not every entry has to be notable. Instead the requirement is that it is reliably sourced.--Peter cohen22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I listen to Messianic Jewish ministry on the radio a lot. These organizations play an important role in the Christian faith although they are a small group when compared to other religious denominations. The list helps to be a good jumping point to other details about Messianic Jews. This is the kind of thing that should be in an encyclopedia.IndependentConservative18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This deletion proposal itself is non-NPOV. In addition, the initiators of it have a history of ignoring verifiable fact and notablility in favor of promoting an ideological crusade. Namikiw15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
It's crystal since it's not properly sourced. Besides, the subject in itself is controversial since there is a lot of devided opinion in the C&C-community about how the timeline of the Red Alert and Tiberian series hang together. --MrStalkertalk08:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete vaguely named list. Everyone can manipulate shadows. My hand goes up, my shadow's hand goes up. My hand goes down, my shadow's hand goes down. Wryspy07:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... seems to be something about anime. Too vague and, as Wryspy points out, most fictional characters would be considered capable of manipulating at least one shadow. alexis+kate=?08:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What is it with all these "list of fictional characters" articles? Why should they be on Wikipedia? What's the point of having a list about unrelated fictional characters? M@RIX13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zaturoro, Zukuzaza, and Anbesol have a better power. Unlike Wryspy, they can manipulate shadows IN A DARK ROOM. Plus, Anbesol can eliminate tooth pain on contact. Try that, shadowman! Mandsford15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If reliable and independent sources had been used as the basis for such an article, there might be more than the 3 instances listed. No indication that there is movement toward making this into an encyclopedic article about a genre or device in fiction instead of an incomplete list of characters from a particular subgenre. Edison03:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
This is a hoax. "Gilberto Quan Miguel" returns one google hit. The article used to claim that Miguel had released an album on Death Row Records; after I prodded it with the comment that "Gilberto Quan Miguel" and "Death Row" returned no results on Google, the article creator removed that. P4k06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Substantially the same page was deleted within the last month, as I recall, which why I recommend SALT. The cited film's entry in IMDB doesn't give this name anywhere, and seems to have an exhaustive cast list (50+ names). I agree with User:P4k. Accounting4Taste19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, with several good points on both sides of the discussion. Trimming of the article, to better avoid arguments under WP:NOT, seems to be a good suggestion.--Kubigula(talk)03:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think people are confusing "original research" and "primary sources". The movie itself is a primary source, and describing what you see is not original research. Original research would be, say, writing that you think the director got the idea for decapitation from some previous movie. Unless of course that fact was printed by someone else or in the DVD commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The traps play a giant part in the films, and are as notable as Jigsaw himself. It's a good addition to the series pages, and is not trivial at all. With a bit of clean-up, online interviews could give more references. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn23:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original research is "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories". All of the information here is easily verifiable. And considering the traps are very notable in the context of the series, they should be in an article. We have articles on "Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter" and other various articles focusing on 'objects' in various media. Its hardly a 'trivial list' page and goes into specific detail about the traps, and external information such as original ideas and interviews. I'd also like to thank tregoweth for taking the time and good faith to notify me that he/she was nominating this for deletion. (I'm being sarcastic: they didn't.)--CyberGhostface00:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very cool information for fans of the series, but this stuff is far from notable or encyclopedic--the reality is it's a bloated trivia fork. I would recommend moving this stuff to a Saw fan page or some such. I'd probably vote to get rid of most of those Saw character articles too.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He notified people who had previously worked on the article that it was up for deletion. Would you prefer them not to have a say in this discussion? Everyone he notified were all regulars and they had a right to know.--CyberGhostface00:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno..... wouldn't those editors who worked on putting together the trivia forks be predisposed to keeping them? That's tantamount to targeting a group up people with a certain point of view.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you want to see it that way. He notified four users, all who were major contributors to the article. If he had spammed every member of the WikiHorror project that would be another thing entirely. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here.--CyberGhostface01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people I messaged were those I believed to have a higher opinion of what should stay and what should be considered necessary for the Saw pages. I wasn't going to try to find people who didn't like the page, especially since it would seem most of them are anon vandals. While I was aware that some of the people would probably want the page to stay, I wasn't sure on others, but figured their opinion ought to be acknowledged. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Say for example you'd heard a lot about the Saw films and were interested in watching one, but you had a severe phobia that might crop up in the film (fire, needles, rats, etc). You could look at that film's article and find a link for more infromation on that particular trap, hence the need for the list of traps in the Saw series. Because of her vaso-vagal trypanophobia, my girlfriend had to go to hospital because of the needle pit scene in Saw II (severe panic attacks leading to a loss in blood-pressure and fainting). I'm not saying the article could save lives, but it could prevent similar situations. Also, those of us who have edited the page have worked really hard to keep the information relative and encyclopedic. With the upcoming release of Saw IV a section of the page has become a little speculatory in nature, therefore I propose the AfD is postponed until a week after the release of the film (November 2). That way the speculative information can be cleaned up and the article itself will be encyclopedic once more. Anyone agree :ViperBladeTalk!!01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I begin..... I think a couple of sentences in the Saw series article about how the films have been called disgusting and sadistic by critics would be sufficient to dissuade the squeamish from wanting to see these movies (or maybe that picture of Lynn with her head blown up would do the trick). Besides, we're not out to create public saftey notices; this is an encylopedia. And surely we all can admire how hard some of you worked on the article. That's why I suggest you move the content to a more suitable place, like to a Saw fan page or message board.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we're not out to create public safety notices, else this'd be called Warnipedia. My comment above was one of many examples as to why the page is potentially useful. Also, I disagree that the page fails WP:OR, as the films, trailers, and released promotional media themselves are sources. Would you agree to the postpone though? --ViperBladeTalk!!01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a substantial trimming. This is a big plot element, and there is already some out of universe information on the page. If the excessive plot summaries, and especially the messages to the subjects, were removed this would be on it's way to an encyclopedic list. I'm thinking List of James Bond gadgets with more background information. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Harry Potter now has 12 subcategories and its own Portal. How do you determine how much is too much? Is there some objective measure so that, say, 5 people would read the criteria, and come up with an article of the same length and depth? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a big plot element, shouldn't it go in the movies' articles? Elements of films (and fiction) should only have articles if they transcend their origins and become well-known outside of their original context -- like, say, lightsabers and phasers. (So I guess I agree that List of James Bond gadgets should go as well.) —tregoweth (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article holds too much information to be deleted, the time people have spent creating and adding to the page is unbelievable. The article may in fact be too lengthy, but this is no reason for it to be deleted. Personally, the people behind the article should be given time to make the article concise and to the point. Like someone has already said; it is ideal for those that are unaware of the content of the films, and have certain preferences and reasons for not watching certain scenes. If they read the article, and feel they would much rather not see the films due to a certain trap, it will have helped greatly. — MovieJunkieTalk!15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, the person that put this article up for deletion has probably (I have no idea of course) never contributed to the article, and has never had the need for the information. It is too easy these days to put an article up for deletion, just because you don't think it's relevant, resourceful or for the basic reason that you don't believe it should be a wikipedia article. Great consideration should be taken to those articles that are plentiful in information, and have taken great time to construct. (Before anyone questions it; I have never contributed to the article whilst being on wikipedia, though I have edited related articles.) — MovieJunkieTalk!15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, you're right; I haven't contributed to the article. But it doesn't matter how much work went into the article if the subject is non-encyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether people have worked hard on writing the information; the question is whether Wikipedia is the proper venue for this sort of writing. It is possible to put a lot of effort into something completely inappropriate.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think about the article how long they would be if the traps should standing there, if cause, maybe just make own article for the traps for each movie. --Rutherfordjigsaw20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not particularly notable, somewhat listcrufty, and not really all that necessary. What's next? List of allusions to Poe in Nabokov's Lolita? This kind of thing is probably better covered in the context of the main article. MookieZ04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Necessary and notable, because it concerns crucial elements of a major theater released film series with even more sequels en route, meaning notability and interest in this list will assuredly continue to grow over time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!04:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this was merely in-universe plot summary I'd see how this might be considered fair game for deletion. Yet, I can't find too much substance in the points it was nominated for. The editors brought in a good deal of cited real-world information from primary and secondary sources that demonstrate notability and don't qualify as original research. Shallon Michaels16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete -- no clear definition of what "School 2.0" truly includes, and it's just piggybacking off the "Web 2.0" term. (As an aside, does anyone know when the Web 2.0.1 patch is coming out? Web 2.0 has a few bugs I'd like to see fixed.) --Elkman(Elkspeak)00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep (but I'm the author). If you search on the web, you'll see it being used in my industry quite often now (vendors, analysts, articles), but regardless this is being used heavily. Sorry, I'm a newbie so I'm not sure how to "debate" my item being deleted. Also, didn't 'web 2.0' start as a neologism at one point? Mikepants, 9 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepants (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Originally considered a diploma mill and the object of some discussion on that score as well as notability, per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG. The institution fails Wikipedia notability standards due, in part, to a lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject [24]. A check of Google and the various other search mechanisms shows that the institution no longer exists as described in the article. Google shows 571 hits at the moment, a few of which reference Wikipedia articles, and most of which, so far, reference other sites that reference the institution in vague terms [25] In fact, another institution of the same name, with an entirely different curriculum, seems to have taken its place.. - Nascentatheist04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it was (or is) a diploma mill or fails to meet one editors arbitrary Google Hit criteria is an exceedingly poor basis for deletion. Ample reliable and verifiable sources, independent of the subject, have been provided to satisfy the [{Wikipedia:Notability]] standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Hardly a speedy keep; being defunct or being a diploma mill are not reasons for deletion, but a lack of anything substantial to say on the subject may be. Contra User:Alansohn, the main source is the university's website. The talk.origins post is primarily about Carl E. Baugh, and the citation to the Australian University Quality Agency is a 1-paragraph mention in a laundry list of similar institutions, and probably isn't even the same school (that one seems to have been founded in Melbourne). The pamphlet from the United States Council for Higher Education Accreditation does not mention Pacific International University at all. GNews archive search [26] doesn't find any additional non-trivial coverage on which to base this article. cab06:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Universities are generally considered notable, and that's not because of their Ghits. These kinds of articles are valuable sources of information, and I'm not convinced that there's a policy violation. — xDanielxT/C08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - accredited universities are generally considered notable yes, but that's not what we're dealing with here. KTC10:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I start a new unaccredited institution of higher learned headquartered in my back yard, then no, it probably shouldn't have an article. But in this case, the school being unaccredited is just a trivial detail (from our POV). It is a result of the mechanics, not the notability, of the school. — xDanielxT/C18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the fact that it isn't accredited is one of the reasons it should be kept. Looks like an interesting article on a Diploma mill, and as per Bfigura, might be objectionable, but this isn't any reason to delete it. Pursey11:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where are these "ample reliable and verifiable sources?" I couldn't find them, and I won't mind at all if someone else can and points them out and, at least in part, expose the flaws in my "abritrary Google Hit criteria." What I found were half a thousand hits on "Pacific International University," the majority of which, as far as I could tell from a survey, were not about the "institution," at all, or they were about some entirely different institution. Quite a few others were citations on lists of schools and they are, of course, useless as sources of information. The hit count provided some evidence that the institution no longer exists; and low and often-arbitrarily determined hit counts are often used as at least partial justification for deletion of an article. Hit count was not, by itself, a reason for the suggestion to delete. The argument for deletion, aside from the general lack of reliable, independent sources, rested mostly on the apparent disappearance of the institution, and not on the allegation that it was a diploma mill (good luck finding any evidence that I have advocated the deletion of a school for that reason - I think we all need to know about diploma mills and Wikipedia is as good a place as any to keep information on them). That it no longer exists seems to be a good argument for not having an article about it, as a component of a larger issue called information literacy. Non-existence of a previously, mostly-unknown diploma mill strikes me as a point for non-notability. Yes, there are lots of things in the human experience that no longer exist and remain notable (e.g., the Persian Empire), but Pacific International University isn't one of them. I would also add that having a couple of other articles on the site that link to an article subject to deletion does not make the subject of the deletion notable. Yes, I know all about Carl Baugh, having actually encountered him, but notability isn't generally inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED says, "Parent notability should be established independently."), not in the real world, anyway. Finally, I would add that, yes, universities are generally notable, even if it seems like they're springing up like 7-11s, these days, but this one wasn't really a university in the commonly-understood sense.
Having written all of that, I again state that I understand that the spirit of Wikipedia is community and consensus, so if the consensus is to "keep," I'm sure I'll sleep just fine. However, it was pretty obvious that I needed to clarify my reasons for the nomination. Thank you. - Nascentatheist14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep diploma mills are just as notable because they're just as much a part of the real world, just as any other dubiously ethical enterprise. And its just as important for an encyclopedia to have the articles. If there's enough information to write the article, it does not matter if it has had only a shadowy existence .DGG (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, and I will conduct a review of the Wikipedia standards for these kinds of situations before I make another nomination of this sort, as my understanding doesn't seem to be in line with that of the community. It's pretty clear to me that, in some areas, I have a pretty clear view of these kinds of issues but, in this sort of case, as it was with Kearny High School, my understanding could use some remedial reading and review. So, if we could withdraw the nomination, that will keep me from wasting any more of the community's time. Thank you. - Nascentatheist08:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge and redirect to Gerald Ford#Early life; the citations will certainly be useful there as some of the information about his family is unreferenced. Merge and redirect is pretty much standard practise for the relatives of the notable. cab06:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a merge and redirect. I tried redirecting (the pertinent facts look to be in Ford's article already) but it was reverted without coment. Otto471107:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original merger by otto4711 was done without any discussion or even discussion on the article's page or advance warning or even a comment why it should be merged. I merged it back because people sometime mistake the spelling and I thought it was just a mistaken good faith merge. If this fellow had died after Ford became President, he would have warranted obituaries in all national media. This is not a simple case of a "step father." This is a step father who for all intents raised Ford as a parent and rescued him from a bad situation. He is the reason that Ford stayed in Grand Rapids. Ford says he received his values from the man. All biographies of Ford discuss the man and his contributions. Ford himself had to make the conscientious decision to formally and legally call himself by the man's name. There are no other Presidents that have such a name change background. Only on Wikipedia could this be considered not notable. If anything, the article should be kept and expanded.Americasroof14:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for good measure there are 865 Google references for "Gerald Rudolff Ford". There's a lot of wikipedia articles out there that don't come close to that number. As long as Wikipedia finds video game characters and obscure bit part actors "notable" then you would have to think the defacto father of a President of the United States is notable. Americasroof14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The number of Google references is not a measure of notability; see WP:GHITS. The presence of other articles you dislike is not a measure of whether another should be kept; see what about X?. These are both considered "arguments to avoid" at AFD, as they have little bearing on the guideline in question, which is WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gerald Ford#Early life; but only if the facts in the article can be referenced. At this time, the two references in the article appear to be broken. I tried to find archived copies of the sites, but unfortunately the The Wayback Machine Internet Archive is also not working for me at this time. I suggest that other and perhaps better refs be found to support the info about President Ford's stepfather. Notability does not spread automatically to ancestors or stepparents who are otherwise not notable. Edison06:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Name is possibly a plausible misspelling of the President, anyway. Individual has not independent claim to notability per our guidelines, and even being the stepfather and namesake of a President isn't important enough to rate an article. Some of the living relatives of a President have become notable through their own activities during a presidency, but the elder Ford was deceased long before his stepson entered the White House. --Dhartung | Talk09:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Order - If the nominator says this should be merged and mistakenly put a delete on it. Then this debate should be closed and a merge template should be applied to the article (which should have been done earlier). Americasroof16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you attempted originally was a unilateral merge without following the proper wiki process of placing the merge template on the two articles so that consensus could be reached on whether articles on two entirely different people could be arrived at in an orderly fashion. When that was reverted in a good faith believe that it was merely an honest oversight, you applied the delete template. Earlier in this discussion you said that you were comfortable with a merge and that's what you intended originally saying "I'm fine with a merge and redirect" The merge process takes longer but is less antagonistic and is usually discussed by people who actually have an interest in the affected articles. The delete process takes less time and is not seen by all those with an interest in both article (and is usually decided by folks who focus on the delete logs). I think when you're dealing with a merge of information into a "Featured Article" about a President of the United States, it would be more appropriate to follow the go slow consensus approach. Americasroof18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POINT OF ORDER QUESTION REMAINS: My point of order question remains. My question about whether this is even a valid debate remains. The nominator made no attempt whatsoever to express any concerns about notability of somebody who defacto is the father of a President of the United States. There were no edit summaries and no discussion. No effort was ever made to say there were problems with the article before dropping the deletion tag. No efforts were made to reach out to anybody who had edited the article. Policy says that a deletion is only as a last resort. Could this article exist if expanded to include information about how he affected his son's choices? That information is no doubt in Ford's autobiography. Again I want to repeat he was more than a simple stepfather. There are no other Presidents in the history of the United States who changed their names to that of their stepfather. That itself should seem inherently notable. I still have questions about whether this should be on the delete logs. If this is a merge then there is a different process for a merge. Americasroof19:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and then redirect to Gerald Ford. The only source provided is not primarily about the subject; it's a genealogy of his famous stepson. Some presidential relatives are notable, but notability is not inherited automatically. The fact that Gerald Rudolff Ford was the president's stepfather, rather than father, is not a significant issue in my recommendation. Note that Wikipedia doesn't have articles about the fathers of Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan either. --Metropolitan9020:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record the WP:BIO says that a person is notable if they meet just one of its list which includes:
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
Perhaps some would. Even so, I think the historical record is more than adequately covered by a redirect to a section on the president's article which covers this info. Unschool00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"CommentIt is a stretch to say that WP:BIO is satisfied because Gerald Rudolff Ford's "specific field" was raising future presidents. Still, he deserves mention in the President Ford article, because if he had been a jerk instead of a good stepfather, the future President might have retained his birth name, and the U.S. might have found itself replaced President Nixon with a King in 1974. Edison03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't this the kind of information one would look up in an encyclopedia? It is IMHO. It's a short stub-sized article about the father of a famous person. While I know you can't use the "but what about _those_ articles over there?" argument as a defense, but surely this article is more likely to be in an encyclopedia than the hundreds over in Category:Harry Potter or Category:Dragonlance? — MrDolomite • Talk04:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is in the encyclopedia -- in the Gerald Ford article, where it belongs. Do you know of any other encyclopedias that routinely have articles for the (step-)fathers of Presidents? --Dhartung | Talk08:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Clinton's stepfather Roger Clinton, Sr. has a wikipedia biography (which is more of stub than Ford). There's category waiting to happen out there for Parents of Presidents Merging the article would obliterate that option for Ford. The fact that there are no articles for Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagen's fathers is unfortunate. Americasroof23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I created the category of Parents of Presidents of the United States, There are currently 34 parent biographies on wikipedia and 3 of stepparents. Yes some are stubs - some even more than the Ford article. According to the policy of deletion this is supposed to be a discussion and not a vote. The point of this is to make the articles better. I have made a good faith effort to improve the notability of the article and would add additional info to the Rudolff article if it is maintained. Americasroof00:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The immediate family of heads of state have generally been considered notable, and for good reason, because there are abundant sources. and why are there sources?--because people thing they are notable and write about them. We just record that. When multiple other articles (in this case 34 of them) exist on other people in a group, and there is an attempt to delete one of them, the existence of the other articles is generally relevant in showing the consensus of the many WPedians who wrote them that it was notable. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is appropriate when there's only a few scattered dubious articles--because that is not a precedent. DGG (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only problem I have with that is that he was deceased before his son's primary notability began. There are usually petty scandals and minor social notes regarding a politician's relatives at those times. I have also argued for the notability of Gustav Schwarzenegger due to the intense media interest in his military police service under Nazi Germany. In this case automatic notability neither exists per WP:BIO and only marginally through WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk10:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS somehow doesn't address the keep arguments here is bizarre, since it is by and large the cornerstone of the keepers' arguments. How many Harry Potter-themed articles have been deleted despite the notability of Harry Potter, because the specific subject of the article wasn't notable? How many actors' articles or reality TV series participants' articles or song articles have been deleted despite the existence of hundreds of not thousands of other articles on actors or reality TV people or songs? Otto471112:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep But I'd like to see more book citations. If they come from his son's bios, that would be fine. Before anyone raises a slippery slope argument, I'd like to say that in general we can probably find more information on a president's father (or any other immediate relative) than on his great-grandfather, great-great-great-grand uncle twice removed, etc. I'd be amenable to a redirect only if care is taken to make sure it's not a confusing redirect (as a plain redirect to the top of his son's page would certainly be). Robert Happelberg16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Even lacking much knowledge of the situation, what the article's creator was trying to do is rather transparent. This material belongs in the main article. Unschool04:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is, instead of discussing whether the material should be included in the main article, he decided to split it off into a different one right after discussion was started. — Alex04:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable topic. I don't see the bias, but that's irrelevant anyway. This is such a big topic that subarticles should be encouraged. Everyking05:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally part of the article on the Ukrainian Election, 2007 but was removed in an act of censorship immediately prior to the current protection notice.
The original article was removed from the Elections article immediately prior to the protection notice without discussion or merit.
There is justification for the retention of this article as a separate article to the other articles.
The issue has been researched and all comments published are done so with citations and references included.
It is a factual account of recent events.
It stands alone and separate from the article on the Ukrainian Political Crisis and then election itself, although it has a symbiotic relationship similar to the article on the election.
Whilst the article associated with the election is related to the legality of the election and the events pertaining the Constitutional Court challenge as separate ancillary issues.
As a minimum the Election article should be amended to include a lead-in paragraph and a link to the Constitutional Challenge article and the comments associated with the Political Crisis article edited to a also include a single introduction paragraph and link to the main article
* likewise a single introduction paragraph should be inserted with a link to the main article on the Constitutional Court challenge on the Election page.
The initiator of the deletion motion has consistently sort to remove this information from publication. It is akin to those wishing to remove items on other contentious issues.
It is factual and a record of recent history.
If users feel the contents are inaccurate or lacking balance then they are welcomed to make a positive contributions to the editing of the article provided it is not seen to be an act of vandalism as recently occurred on August 31 by Richard.
The initiator of the deletion motion has not made any comments on the discussion pages as to what aspects he considers the article to be offensive or lacking encyclopedia merit. Again all items are a matter of fact.
To remove this item would bring Wikidpedia into disrepute.
I propose to add further information to the contents of this article as the matter is still under consideration by Ukraine's Constitutional Court as and when issues relevant to the content become known
Keep, The article should remain. I have checked all the references and have verified that the content is factual and correct. It differs from the political crisis article in that it is focused on the legal issues as opposed to the politics best kept seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SloneLaw (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over a small segment of the article (PACE quote), the quote from PACE was copied in a biased manner, as an example. When one user tried to make the article slightly more neutral, User:SloneLaw reverted him, claiming that there's no such text in the resolution. (diff) — Alex Khristov00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This entire article is merely a miscellaneous collection of OR that exists elsewhere, and attempts to cover a topic that cannot be contained within a single article. It is of no use to anyone; no one would ever come here to learn anything. Unschool03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is really approaching indiscriminate collection of information, to try to document everything that happened in politics across a span of 10 years. Corpx04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, well done to Unschool for creating it though. I'm joking, I'm sure it was an attempt to improve 2000s. All of the articles in the "See also" section of 2000s should probably be deleted as well. Apart from the reasons stated, we can't really have retrospective articles about a decade that hasn't finished. One of them has already been deleted. Crazysuit04:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Because this product is non-notable, few references are available. AS such, the feature list and grand claims in this article are referenced only by the manufacturer's website. Reads like an advertisement, as a result. Mikeblas03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Run a Google search on Nokia 3510 and you will find several independent reviews of this phone After a minute of searching I found [27], [28], and [29]. For an analogy, sales of individual mobile phone products are as significant to a company like Nokia, as sales of individual car models are to an auto company. Sjakkalle(Check!)09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Importance to the company does not mean notability for Wikipedia. If it adds relevant information to the Nokia article, maybe a merger to Nokia 3xxx series might be appropriate. On the other hand, the most basic data is already contained in List of Nokia products, and I'm not sure whether a more detailed description of technical features really adds value here. --B. Wolterding17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my view, product reviews at product review websites are no more evidence of notability any more than listings in business directory websites. Jakew15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This phone might not be much notable outside Europe, but as an entry-level phone, it was quite in several european countries. I agree in its present version the article is quite poor and in need of an expert. If no consensus to kepp is reached, then I'd propose a merge with Nokia 3xxx series or a redirect. Berserker7917:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This phone is notable and it is in fact the first Nokia phone to have GPRS web browsing as a feature. The article is informative and lists a reference. Since it is a stub it needs to be expanded, not deleted. —TigerK 6905:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I have already merged several articles and models into this article: Nokia 3510i, Nokia 3560 redirect here. The Nokia 3510 was first Nokia phone to bring GPRS internet services to the mass market. (This does not include a real (X)HTML browser, but WAP 1.2 and the possibility to connect a PC to the Internet.) GPRS again means "mobile broadband". -- Petri Krohn04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Safia Aoude is unquestionably notable (see expanded article) and reliable sources have been provided. How has the AfD nominator, FisherQueen, determined that this creator is of the masculine gender?Phase422:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only two out of the six references are home pages/blogs, the remainder being reliable sources. Are we talking about the same article?Phase417:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I looked at each site, and it appears that four of them come directly from Aoude, and therefore are not independent sources. A fifth is a dead link, so I don't know what's on it, but geocities does not often host anything that would count as a reliable source, since anyone can print anything there. Which of them do you think I am interpreting incorrectly? I tried to be fair to the sources, and I did find one of them that seemed to be independent of Aoude. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I dont think any of them are reliable. They all look like amateur sites with no sort of editorial review Corpx22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your honesty, Corpx, you have confirmed yourself to be a natural "deletionist" (as alleged on your talk page). No doubt the closing AfD Administrator will draw the appropriate conclusion!Phase422:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD discussion so far seems to have lost sight of the clear "notability" of Safia Aoude. She hosted the very popular Pan Am 103/Lockerbie crash website in the years leading up to the creation of Wikipedia ([30]). On 1 September 2007, Aoude returned to the subject by creating the Pan Am 103 news/blogspot ([31]). An archive of the now defunct Pan Am 103/Lockerbie crash website is hosted by the independent plane-truth website ([32]). The article makes reference to Aoude's Lockerbie Trial website ([33]), extracts personal information from Aoude's web site ([34]) and uses the Critique of Safia Aoude by two independent journalists for much of the remainder ([35]). The Safia Aoude article, as updated and amended, now fulfils Wikipedia's notability guidelines.Phase409:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to repeat information that's already here. This is still one independent source, four web sites that come directly from Aoude, and one dead link. Are there any other sources, specifically, magazine articles, news articles, or articles on significant news web sites? -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this latest edit for starters: "After a 5-year absence, Safia Aoude re-emerged on the internet with a Pan Am 103 news blog. Her return on 1 September2007 was hailed by Professor Robert Black as "a most welcome development". Welcome back, Safia And, contrary to FisherQueen's incorrect assertion, the "plane-truth website", hosted by author Carl A. Davies, is completely independent of Safia Aoude.Phase412:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like one man's web site, with no editorial review, and the comment on it certainly reads as if he's simply reprinting some of Aoude's work. It isn't an article about Aoude at all. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disingenuous, FisherQueen: the "plane-truth website" is independent of Safia Aoude and, as the site explains, provides server space for the voluminous Pan Am 103/Lockerbie crash website archive. Strangely, you do not mention Professor Black's "Welcome back, Safia" link: please explain this reticence.Phase415:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion of this AfD debate now requires the deletionists to admit their errors, to eat humble pie and to do the decent thing and change their untenable position.Phase421:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence or assertion of notability. Web notability guidelines would seem to apply here, since the only thing the person has done which might be notable is have a blog. No evidence blog meets those guidelines. The debate on sources above is almost irrelevant; none of the sources provide any argument for keep. Simply citing a source doesn't constitute notability. Creator appears to be canvasing to get people to argue in favor of keep. Evidence. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a battleground. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Delete and Salt. This is clearly a hoax, but the speedy delete tags have been deleted. No idea how it's propogated this long. A Google search even shows that apparently some people have pulled off of this article as "notable alumni". The article asserts that "Brian Lamagna" led USC to three straight Rose Bowls from 1970-1973. USC's QB for the 1973 Rose Bowl was Mike Rae. USC didn't play in the 1970-1971 Rose Bowls. USC's QB before that was Jimmy Jones and afterwards was Pat Haden. Also per Pro Football Reference, no one named Brian Lamagna ever played in the NFL. Smashville03:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - perhaps even speedy I don't see a claim to notability. They aren't multiple independent third party sources. Jon51312:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They may be messianic sites, this does still make them reliable and third party to show that he is prominent among them and a leading figure in their ranks. I think WP:Notability does not mean if you know him or not, this subject is Notable for thousands of people just make a Google search on his name its spread out along tens of result pages, which don't identify themselves as Messianic.--יודל20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet being a synagogue that was started in 2005 makes something notable enough for an article? I think Chesdovi's real goal is to make sure wikipedia has article content heavy with what he feels are "real" Jews, and ignoring the "fake" Jews.Johnpacklambert04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak Delete'changed, see below. he is not notable as an academic, having no significant publications or academic positions. As a religious leader it might depend on the notability of the organizations. Being head of a really major synagogue or church might well be considered notable. DGG (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a major work of his published by a university's website, please look in the outside links section for this--יודל20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Google Search tells me of tens of pages of results where his name is prominently mentioned as a huge figure in his circles, so He is Notable by all means. He is a leader in a lot of messianic groups and institutions. Look at what links here and see how many wikipedia articles note and link to this name, I would urge all not to be influenced by this number of overwhelming delete votes since it was raised on the Jewish Wiki-Project it has arisen the voice of a few POV, but this does not mirror any real neutral users who are simply not alerted to this delete attempt. --יודל14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do u mean by private websites? those websites arnt at all the subjects private property, they may like the subject greatly and this tells u that he is notable amongst them, No claim in this article is based on sites that will lie openly they are university, business and all kinds of interest sites.--יודל20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MPerel. I haven't done any searching to verify notability, but the article does need third-party references. If all you need is someone's autobiography (it's from his website), then I'll just go assure my own place on Wikipedia by writing something on my website. (Did you know I invented bread and am the first person to visit Mars?) What is said may be true, but an objective source is needed. If this is addressed, then I'd vote weak keep as I'm unsure that being president of a (relatively small) organization meets WP:NOTE. From the article, he doesn't appear particularly notable as a musician, academic, or clergy—maybe meriting a footnote in the article for the group he is associated with in those respects. ⇔ ChristTrekker17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am addressing your concerns and already have linked to outside sources, please help me out in this task of considering which more claims u need sources on, also please consider that his Notability factor is not only on being a rabbi pastor or musician his main prominence is that he is a leading figure in the messianic movement, and if this is true as i have started adding sources that they do consider him their leader, then he is notable--יודל21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. See WP:GHITS. I know plenty of subjects with thousands or hundreds of thousands of results that would make horrible articles on Wikipedia --lucid21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed Google wont correct a badly written article, but it sure shows u how notable a subject is. And this subject has hundreds of Google results so it is the perfect example of somebody who is noteble. Last time i checked this was explicitly written in that link u provided.--יודל21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you, by chance, read the link? It clearly says a large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Again, several hundred isn't notable at all, I can think of things with several THOUSAND that do not meet our notability policies. I highly recommend you read WP:BIO, and read WP:GHITS (again) --lucid00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be so kind and ask u for only one link where an article has hundreds of google results and it is still not Notable, Please do provide your example and let all see what to do here.--יודל00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted in the article, the subject has had music published in at least four music collections, and has been a speaker at at least one academic conference at Fuller Seminary. The fact that he is also a minister and regular contributor to the online Kesher Journal at www.kesherjournal.com, which seems to be one of the movements primary publications, does I believe serve as sufficient basis for the claim of notability. John Carter00:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge (changed vote to allow content merged with UMJC). Hell must have really frozen over today. The content could be notable, but if notable, again like other article it would be more appropriately merged with UMJC, and certainly with not as much content as this stand alone article. I suggest contributors to MJ articles visit the Wikiproject Messianic Judaism page to get started in posting ideas for articles for MJ editor review so these AfDs by other editors don't discourage sincere editors from future contributions. inigmatus00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep or Merge. I have to agree with Inigmatus. Dauermann could be notable enough to mention in the main article on the UMJC. When you compare him to such leaders in the movement, like Boaz Michael (who not only writes but puts out tons of published works and is gaining quite a bit of notarity), who don't even have articles on Wiki I could understand why Dauermann may not warrant a separate article just yet. Jamie Guinn00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Because he is a leader in the modern Messianic movement, especially given his published and public speaking status, I think he's notable. Those who are quick to cast a Delete NN reference should understand that unlike mainstream Christianity or mainstream Judaism the Messianic movement is a comparatively small religious movement. It's relative size should be taken into account before hastily coming to a decision. Indeed, forethought ahead of haste should be preferred when dealing with entries for most minority religion articles contained in Wikipedia. However, I do understand that the article is a bit sparse. If it cannot be expanded, it should be merged into another article so that the information contained is not lost from Wikipedia. —Wikijeff00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (changed !vote) There is a problem with articles where the sources that exist are not likely to be the usual sort of mainstream 3rd party RSs we rely on for notability. this affects all sorts of subjects--video games, small revolutionary movements, obscure academics outside the western tradition, and leaders in small religious groups. I think we need to make allowances, and consider notability shown if there is some reasonable evidence that the person is important within their field, however their field does things. before the modern era, I do not think the sources for this article really meet the usual standard, but they do give the impression that he is influential and important in his field. Certainly we should keep the basic policies, but how e interpret them can be adjusted by judgment to fit circumstances, especially in order to ensure balanced coverage. DGG (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are people who have advocated deletion who are Yeshivah grads. This seems to me to just be an attempt to supress knowedge that Jews voluntarily converted to Christianity. It seems the attempts at edditing are more motivated by religious biases than proper editorial considerations.Johnpacklambert04:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from the articles talk page--יודל 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC))KEEP This man is one of perhaps the two most influential men in the Messianic Jewish movement. He has his hands in everything, and is as the forefront of all the watershed changes going on. He travels all over the country to speak and his name is all over the web.GracieRuth14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - per strong precedent, cover lists are not notable. Individual notable covers should be noted in the article for the song and/or the cover artist's discography. Otto471102:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - the bundled AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American International School Hong Kong had a decent consensus to delete this article. Most people who voted "Keep" (of whom I was one) specifically mentioned California School as being worthy of deletion. This article doesn't even contain any assertion of notability --- it's just a description of the services they offer, the international standards to which those services are alleged to conform, and the neighbourhoods in which their branches can be found. cab04:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Speedy A7 if possible). No coverage in reliable sources; based on their official website, they appear to be a one-room operation running out of a building on Nathan Road and another room in Yuen Long; haven't even got a proper campus. [36]cab04:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - doesn't even make sense. I know that first "uncertainty" was just solving for limits that otherwise go to zero by factoring out the x, and that was just homework for my classes in high school. The fact that the word "uncertainty" is right above a clear-cut answer is quite ironic. This is, at best, a term to be included with the article on mathematical limits. Zchris87v05:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no preference regarding redirect) per nom, and also because the article is fundamentally misleading. It identifies two general types of problems (0/0, ∞/∞), and then explains solutions which really only apply to narrow subsets of those problem types. For example, is a 0/0 problem which is solved using a method that is completely unrelated to what the article describes. Also, problems involving ∞/∞ limits are, to the best of my knowledge, not identified as a notable class of problems in the way 0/0 limit problems are. The article organizes information in a way that I think is unuseful and misleading. — xDanielxT/C08:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:BOLD enough to remove someone else's work without discussion, I guess. It's not like the content is blatantly wrong; just strangely written, strangely titled, and mostly redundant with the existing articles. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think also these redirects ought to be deleted. "Uncertainties of the limits" is an impossible search term; what is it supposed to mean? In the cases of interest there is nothing uncertain about the limits. It may be meaningful to compare infinitesimals, but Indeterminate form does not tell you how to do this, so the current redirect is not optimal. A possible target is Infinitesimal; however, as a search term "Comparison of infinitesimal values" is quite unlikely. --Lambiam17:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "OR" in this article---it's just stuff taught in all high schools. Nor is there any difficulty verifying it: it's taught in all high schools. It should be deleted simply because it's a silly name for an article on a topic about which a reasonable and reasonably named article already exists. Michael Hardy01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
L'Hôpital's rule is one specific way of dealing with (some) indeterminate forms, but the rule is not used in the articles under discussion. --Lambiam06:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was attempting to be humorous, since this AfD is a pretty obvious one (in content and by consensus). The material in this page falls under some other article, if anywhere, and L'Hôpital's Rule was the one that popped to mind. --Cheeser113:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is so irrelevant - I just mentioned the one that popped to mind. I was not making an effort to be precise, only to assert that the content belonged in a preexisting article, if anywhere. I already said this once, if it wasn't clear from my initial post, it should have been by now. Please don't pursue this matter further - it's irrelevant, and if all else fails, I retract my statement entirely (although not my "vote"). --Cheeser122:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is unreferenced and appears to be original research, possibly supported by this blog post. Searches for "Digital entity" and "Digital body" in Academic Search Premier and Google did not yield any material related to the article's topic. AxelBoldt01:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural nomination after a readdition of a Prod tag. Prod reasoning was: "This page is heavily changed, edited, and vandalised by IP addresses and certain users. Remember to add symbols" MichaelGreiner01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but suggest WP:RFPP if the tagger believes there is enough IP vandalism to do so, but this should not be deleted because of vandalism or even just edits.Delete. I was only opposing deletion before because of the prod tag reasoning, while this information is basically, as Crazysuit put it, a "catalog" of a toy line. I do not understand the meaning of "procedural nomination". The prod tag wasn't removed, and deletion wasn't contested. If a prod tag remains for 5 days, it can be deleted after that without an AfD, right? J-stanTalkContribs02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant that here, the prod tag was replaced by you with an AfD tag. But I understand why you did that, because of all the prods it had seen. And thank you for clearing up the meaning of "Procedural nominations". I still do not believe that vandalism is a good enough reason for deletion. J-stanTalkContribs20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Indiscriminate information, Wikipedia isn't an online catalog of every single animal available in a toy range. If the individual animals were notable (which they obviously aren't), then a list would be acceptable, but this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Crazysuit02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 to delete. Merging may be done as an editorial action, but valid concerns are raised, so I'll leave it up to ordinary editing. Mangojuicetalk17:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a lot of the coverage seems biased, there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy me that it's notable, particularly to the evangelical right [37][38][39][40] for example. I'd weakly support a merge to Walid Shoebat, but feel that would make his article horribly lopsided (with a long section on one of his books and nothing on the others) — iridescent(talk to me!)21:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge People can always add information on his other books - that's not a problem. And this entry can be edited down if necessary when moved. The book certainly has blog hype that are independent of the author, if not exactly unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkinBoston (talk • contribs) 21:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Merge Although I apreciate that skews off his article a bit, I feel that the book has some notability to it, but not enough to have an entire article. However, the content should go somewhere, with sources, and therefore we will just have to allow others knowledgable/interested in the subject to add the relevant information to balance out the article again. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)21:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete. Found a fair few sources on google ([41][42][43]) but nothing outside of local Dallas-based stuff, really. Possibly approaching borderline on WP:MUSIC's first criteria because of these, but nothing to really say keep with. Fails the rest of the criteria. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
