Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 26

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< January 25 January 27 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. No sources proving notability have been provided. Carabinieri (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icecream (software)

edit
Icecream (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cannot find any sources to assert its notability. A search on Google Books mentions it in passing; ther rest refer to stuff the product, ice cream. Google search gives me no sources either where Icecream is the primary subject of the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as patent nonsense by User:JForget just as AfD opened, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(brownie)

edit
(brownie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncited, apparently documents a type of gymnastics thing I have never heard of anywhere. Unencyclopedic style. J.delanoygabsadds 00:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Insufficient independent reliable sources that directly address the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choirs of Note

edit
Choirs of Note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is unreferenced, and has remained unreferenced despite active discussion on the talk page. A speedy tag was removed because A7 does not cover competitions. Mdsummermsw left these comments:

Please see WP:NOTABLE: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".... A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ... I think this article is a goner. Maybe someone can save it, but I can't find anything to do the job.

Matchups (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is an on going event held by a well known choral director, Dr. Dale Warland. More press will be coming soon, but the notability of this event is solid. Chimzar (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC) I changed the !vote from do not delete to keep, in order to avoid possible confusion for bots and people. (Matchups)[reply]
    • Perhaps the solution is to move this to user space (to avoid losing the work that has been done on it) until there is adequate coverage to justify including it in the body of the encyclopedia. Matchups (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found another source that talks about the Choirs of Note. The Woodbury Bulletin's aticle gives even more info than the one from the Brainerd Dispatch. I know there are other papers that have run similar article and I will find them. Chimzar (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — That anyone finds the article "interesting" is a moot point. Wikipedia's concept of notability has nothing to do with whether or not it is interesting. Those of us working on Dale Warland Singers managed to save that one by researching and improving the article with notability guidelines in mind. The original Dale Warland article was deleted for copyright violation, but I created a new version that asserts notability via the Singers (I'm still a bit wishy-washy on that one). This article, however, has resisted my attempts to find significant coverage in reliable sources or any other reason to vote "keep". The topic might reach "notable" status in the future. In my opinion, though, it is not there at the moment. I am repeating myself with my earlier suggestion to copy the article to a user sandbox and build on it if/when reliable sources become available. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News coverage appears to be significant enough, if just barely at the moment (one assumes it will improve past boarderline once it actually happens) Hobit (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chanology

edit
Project Chanology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Project Chanology has received attention from various news channels, but right now it would be a "recentism" to keep it. The project has hacked Scientology websites, causing minor problems to the church internationally, but there aren't any real long-term consequences to all this yet. There's also a COI thing here, as the article has been edited several times by users that are obviously involved with 4chan and the Project. Wikipedia is not the place to bring propaganda, this should be merged with Scientology and the internet.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: Afd is not the correct forum for a merge proposal. The notability of the topic of this article is proven beyond all reasonable doubt by its non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources not limited to Wired, National Post, PC World. CNET News, Baltimore City Paper, FOX News and Edmonton Sun. WP:RECENT is an essay; WP:V is policy. This ridiculous nomination should be swiftly withdrawn and the discussion moved to the article's talkpage. Skomorokh confer 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: ..or weak keep, per most of the above. Markusbradley (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is very nicely written and well sourced. And as per all of the above Calicore (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. One of Wikipedia's strengths is its ability to collate and summarize reporting on current events. This is not a weakness. The suggestions of WP:RECENTISM, if implemented, would greatly harm this project. --FOo (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The fact that it is still ongoing and developing alone is enough to nominate to keep. Given the preponderance of media coverage and the well written detail covered by the article a merge would be a disservice to Wikipedia but a nomination for deletion is really hard to take in good faith. --AlexCatlin (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep+Protect: This has had major media coverage around the world (and getting on KNBC and Sky News all in the same day is truly big). ViperSnake151 04:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep news worthy event, well referenced. —Pengo 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia news covered it and it's still unfolding. The Anonymous YouTube alone is logging astronomical hits. --Piepie (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep+Protect This is notable not only as a current event, but a glimpse into how modern information warfare might be waged. This alone makes it relevant. Sreyan (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Project Chanology is a notable current event receiving considerable media attention. While current events themselves may be frowned upon in Wikipedia, it concentrates more on its conflict with Scientology. Since the YouTube video declaring war has garnered over one million views in five days, I believe at the very least Project Chanology will be (at least in the future) considered a historic event. Though it is still developing, it is not being written from the perspective of a current event so much as it is being written based on its purpose, which is to combat Scientology. Detractors above have asked "Should every DDOS attack have its own article?" To which I reply, has every DDOS attack received international media coverage? I'd also like to note that the DDOS attacks are only a small part of Project Chanology, which can be easily seen by anybody that researches it. HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Recentism that does not, at present, deserve a separate article in an encyclopedia. It is sufficiently well covered at WikiNews, a more appropriate venue for such. Promoting this at this early stage does not reflect well on the project. The article can be rebuilt at any time if this turns out to be more than a flash-in-the-pan. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Hail Xenu. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep My reasons are given on Talk:Project Chanology. Scetoaux (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My reasons given there were archived. I am electing to copy+paste my pitch here. I couldn't do that last night, since I was editing on my iPod Touch:
      • I am convinced that this is a perfect example of the power that Internet groups can have. While not in complete agreement, Anonymous has declared war against the CoS. Anybody with knowledge of Anonymous still has no true idea of their capabilities, since very few people can truly appreciate or understand just how big this group is. It is quite possible that Anon may actually exceed the total worldwide membership of the CoS. Something else that arises from one's understanding of Anon is just how difficult it is to stop a group of this size. This isn't a bunch of script kiddies on a single website, but a collective from a larger group of sites. This event is far from its conclusion. Scetoaux (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To reiterate the point I made at Talk:Scientology notability has been proven, Wikipedia has always had articles that comment on current events and this particular event could end up being very important in the history of Scientology. --Mcr hxc (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even my parents knew about this event. --Phiren (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just the referencing alone is impressive, particularly considering that this article is only 2 days old. It appears well-written; it's fairly neutral, completely verified, and (amazingly) notable. Placing the content in any related articles would either make those articles too long (Scientology) or take up a disproportionately large portion of a more focused topic (Scientology and the Internet) given the large amount of pertinent and verifiable information on the subject. However, a small mention should probably be made in the latter article with a link to this main one, though that's just an extra picky thing. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very significant internet event--Cs california (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Protect Very well-referenced article documenting a current event that has received significant media coverage. Few YouTube videos pass 1 million views. Anonymous' declaration of war is (by far) the #1 most viewed and discussed video this week on Youtube. WP:CENSOR WP:BUILD WP:IGNORE WP:POINT WP:GAME Some scientologist admins are trying to push a pro-scientology POV by deleting articles critical of Scientology, no matter how well verified they are. Deletion of this article would be POV-pushing since many topics with fewer reliable sources/notability have their own articles. Because of the volatility of this article, it should not be merged yet. Jwray (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off I think it would be hard to prove the second and third point in the origional comment, those beeing the Coi and propaganda. The only reason editors are bringing up for deletion that I can see from this discussion is because it is a recent event, that in itself dosn't denote deletion. I origionaly wanted this to be deleted, however in the past few days it has become a well writen article. If someone wants it to be deleted, I think they really should reference the article itself, and not knee jerk a decision because of past policy.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to those saying "Protect": The article is already semi-protected. There is no need for a full protect. Cirt (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anonymous Keep this article, i'm sure scientology wants this article to be closed but free speech is a must! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.89.177 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — 77.248.89.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This event has already been seen in several notable news sources, and the article is very well-written.--Piemanmoo (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article warrants at mention, it has had significant media coverage, and the youtube anonymous message has has 1 million + views. It looks liek it will be a significant internet event. It is not a matter of number of votes for keep/delete or merge. Scientology vs internet is about the actions of scientology on the internet, censorship and the like, not an event like this. the article stands on it's own for that reason, it it fails/stalls/degrades into obscurity then it can be merged into scientology vs the internet. Fredcar (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While abstaining from specifics, it should be mentioned that this "effort" has led to the disclosure of thousands of pages of previously unreleased internal Scientology documents. While the effects of the DDoS attacks are likely to be fleeting, the online furor and the leaked documents are much more likely to have a lasting impact. deranged bulbasaur 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This event has already been reported on in the news and looks like it will continue to be reported on. It is also part of Internet history as Wikinews was the first to break the news and also the first time an Internet war of this scope has spilled over into real life and involved an organization on the scale of Scientology. Also, this is one of the first few examples of an emerging trend of hacktivism, which adds to the historical value of keeping this entry. Finally, the group behind this event has been around for a while even before their "war with Scientology" and I expect that they will continue being active in one form or another, regardless of the results with Scientology. Kainee (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Anonymous already seems bored and has lost. I see this as a low threat. Deleting it would only be suppressing freedom of speech. Memphisartguy (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Memphisartguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin: I have been watching the comments as they come in - though the warning header at the top of this AfD discussion is appropriate, I have only noticed two Single-purpose accounts so far, and have tagged them as such. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the comments here, both keeps/deletes, what have you, are from established editors. I will continue to monitor new comments. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, Skomorokh confer 13:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. :) -- CurlyJ (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering it's only TWELVE DAYS OLD, how on earth can you possibly justify judging the significance of this topic to be a "short burst of news reports"?! Arguing that something should be deleted after a short period for being a topic that is only notable over a short period seems positively contradictio in terminis. Skomorokh confer 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet, wp:notability is clear that speculation as to future coverage does not confer notability, so yes, it is just a short burst. Essentially, I believe the hurdle for topics in the wiki whose very concepts covered are less than a few months old is very high. In nearly all cases, waiting to see if the idea sticks is the right course of action, as it is in this one. If this idea fizzles, and in 5 years, all that happened was that some people organized on the internet and DDoSed some Scientology websites for a few weeks, it would merit a mention in an article, but not an article itself. Because we don't know if that will happen or not, for now, there shouldn't be an article. gnfnrf (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, It would seem with the amount of coverage this is getting in online media, as well as national news coverage, it would be a notable event and something worth keeping. Murray-Mint-UK (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multinational media reports, well referenced article Raerth (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well reported around the world in the media. The project is ongoing and clearly having a major impact around the net and on Scientology. Also, since the article is so new, it seems premature to try and delete it (Scientology attack maybe?) and it seems likely that the article will expand and continue to improve as events unfold. Mojo-chan (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at best (substantially trimmingly) Merge or Redirect to Scientology and the Internet. Seriously, what makes this particular DDoSing and protest campaign so remarkable? We don't cover every DDoS incident, covering protests is pretty rare (Saffron Revolution this ain't). This is basically a news article; sure, you can puff it up to tremendous proportions by adding media mentions, but nothing changes the fact that this is basically a news story puffed up with, pardon the expression, newsbitcruft. There's little encyclopedic material here that we'd care about in distant future. Don't take me wrong, this should covered in WM projects, it's just that Wikipedia isn't the place. Wikinews stories on this incident are enough in my opinion (and very informative, fascinating, and very much needed in my opion); making encyclopaedia articles so soon is problematic for many reasons. Mentions of this in appropriate articles is enough. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it may very well be true that this does not turn into anything more than a brief news story, but isn't it somewhat premature to make that judgment after less than a fortnight? Skomorokh confer 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Premature is exactly why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, we take a longer view and are in no hurry. Better to wait a month or two and see if this becomes anything rather than become the observer that influences the occurrence, which I hope is not the point of the article. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be an argument against the article's creation, not in favour of it's deletion. It's not a case of deciding whether or not to wait and see - someone has already created the article and it has been augmented with sources that clearly meet the notability threshold. I think any negative observer effect is a rather small risk given that the article is so heavily watched, and on the positive side, the legions of people coming to Wikipedia from news reports about this will be well informed on an important topic, surely the point of this encyclopedia. Skomorokh confer 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duly admitted. However, "news articles" on relatively minor incidents like this have to be revisited later on, in one form or another, and evaluated in broader historical context. It's probably going to be a growing headache. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea to nominate newsy articles whose subject has not appeared in sources for a few months, but I think this could go either way; an insignificant and ultimately empty threat from bored kids or one of the first large scale crowdsourced co-ordinated campaigns of cyberware. Let's wait til Summer before writing it off. Skomorokh confer 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies in advance for sarcasm, but is there a new rule I was not informed of? Something along the lines of "All news article AfDs have to assume there will be buzzword-inducing notability in the future"? =) Nothing against you, I just see this a lot. By all means, we should review this article again in summer (or failing that next January), with less buzzwords. And in two years, absolutely no buzzwords. And in three years, the whoever says a buzzword will be Arbcom'd AfD. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would let the process run its course, because of the controversiality, to prevent renomination and to provide evidence for a review of any unilateral deletion. The last time something this controversial was speedy kept, it was unilaterally deleted a week later and upheld on review. See: Eugene Martin Ingram Jwray (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Part of the nature of Wikipedia is that it can be fast paced and perhaps even ephemeral, moving with the tides of current events. If this does happen to be a fad, then it can be revised as a section of another article later. However, the current nature of the document shall be important in creating that section at a later date, if this occurs. On that grounds, it should be kept until this event has run its course, and the decision be made at that date. --Mylon (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is evidently notable - scientology.org is still down. Please don't like Scientologists get away with this. Imagine Reason (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Heavily sourced. Recentism isn't a reason to delete, and most importantly notability does not degrade over time. There are 20~ odd sources today; there will be 20~ sources five years from now. Might be a footnote, but so what? We don't delete historical footnotes, or we'd be AFDing lots of articles on dead nobility from the 1500s. Lawrence § t/e 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Mainstream media coverage, excellent sourcing, and a notable event in the continuing controversy surrounding a notable organization. --Kajerm (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is too soon to unilaterally remove content from this encyclopedia. Information is information. I do not agree that it should be merged with a Scientology page since it is not a Scientology page. I do feel it should be given more time for proofreading and editing.--AveryG (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, Very Strong Keep This issue is now gaining massive momentum and those partaking are not necessarily just a 'bunch of kids'. The term 'hacking' is extremely tenuous too as no Scientology websites have been 'hacked'. This is a grass-roots pan-individual/interest movement and it will become, in time, of critical social and cultural significance. Definitely keep.Ohsojib (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — Ohsojib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Coffeepusher (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)..[reply]
  • Keep This is an issue about freedom of speech - why should a religious group have material removed from you-tube also Wikipedia should not hide behind content policies and protocols to uphold an act of censorship. I 've seen this happen recently with the Narre Warren party story Bebe Jumeau (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, as appropriate. Something being recent isn't a good reason to bury the truth. -Aknorals (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep article clearly meets standards for wikification and notability Apelike (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This has received enough coverage in news outlets around the world to be noteworthy, however it should be both improved and protected Гedʃtǁcɭ 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article well-written, well-sourced, and about a notable subject. CounterFX (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is well-sourced and written well enough to be on wikipedia. It is a big event that's getting alot of news coverage, and in my opinion is the first major example of an online "guerilla war".. in which random internet users join forces and make a direct attack on an established and powerful organization. It may be a recent news story, but I've often seen important current events on the main wikipedia, and this fits the bill. This could be end up being very notable, and enough people are interested already that it deserves an article. I don't think it should be merged, as it is unique and would not fit into other CoS articles. And it certainly should not be deleted... wikipedia should be able to record controversial subjects. - Bigdan201 (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + semi-protect this is an important article regarding the current battle between the group and Scientology. There is no bias in the article, there is no 'hate speech' in is, nothing. No reason for deletion. Deku Scrubby (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — Deku Scrubby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Coffeepusher (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)..[reply]
  • Keep. Merely because an article is new or on an emerging topic does not mean that it is not encyclopedic. When this all pans out, the anonymous campaign is likely to be a big deal, even if it doesn't go any further than it already has (yes, I know wiki isn't a crystl ball). I am an inclusionist, and I see potential in this. The article needs to be monitored very heavily for NPOV and references have to be scrutinised, but otherwise it is a good article that is being worked on hard by the anonymous guys to get it to FA. Oppose merge as it doesn't fit in with the Scientology and the internet article. That article describes how the CoS has interacted with the internet, this describes the actions of an internet group against the CoS. IMHO, these are two very different topics. dr.alf (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Well written, international news coverage given, notable Nick123 (t/c) 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasoning is that while it is certainly a sensationalist story in the news at the moment, I think it's pretty temporary. WP:NOTE states that "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.". In a few months' or a year's time why will it be notable that some organization's web site got attacked? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seabrook, Andrea (January 27, 2008). "Hackers Target Scientology Web Sites: Their problem isn't with the religion, they say, but their insistence on controlling information". All Things Considered. NPR. Retrieved 2008-01-28. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Cirt (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Worth a listen. Nothing new. Much more about DDoS attacks in general with the CofS as a jumping-off point. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the program is called "Hackers Target Scientology Web Sites: Their problem isn't with the religion, they say, but their insistence on controlling information." ... Cirt (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Things Considered on National Public Radio is a major radio broadcast program. It is quite interesting that they chose to produce a piece on this issue. Cirt (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge w/ Scientology and the Internet. Numerous mentions in the mainstream media. -- stewacide (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Numerous real life protests have occured and many moreare planned. Videos can be found all over YouTube and there are schedules for more raids on the Project Chanology page 99.233.162.203 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — 99.233.162.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Coffeepusher (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)] (UTC)..[reply]
  • VERY STRONG KEEP wikipedia is a place that you can look up things from meanings of words to events throughout history, and like it or not anonymous/project chanology are making history by trying to defend something they believe to be true, which in my understanding is the right to free information which should never be censored, why should the information on the wiki page be taken down? is it because someone disagrees with the views of the people that put it up in the first place? because if it is then you better get ready to delete just about every single page of information you have on wikipedia. People are always going to disagree about absoulutly everything, and wikipedia, amoung other sites, are a place where people can view others views and belifs. If you don't like something on television you change the channel, if you don't like something in the paper, you turn the page. If you believe in something others disagree with disscuss it, don't destroy it. 194.164.81.213 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)stikkz213194.164.81.213 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — 194.164.81.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Whenever i check this site, i use it to find information pertaining to what i am looking for, or at least to ge ta general view of an issue before devling deeper into it. This is an information site. To deny people access to information is wrong in all of it's forms. This, so far, has been a regularly updated informational tool allowing people to follow this 'war' on scientology. Because a few people do not like the fact that there is a 'war' going on doesn't mean that it should be deleted. This is critical to the worldview of people. We should keep it. Sarge-Pepper (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)
  • Strong Keep I navigated here because of the news coverage on NPR. I found an interesting, well-written article on an online event. It allowed me to follow the ongoing media coverage and form my own opinion on the issue; it served every purpose wikipedia is supposed to. I also find an AfD initiated by someone with an intimate connection to one side of the issue. There is an overwhelming consensus on this page that the article should be kept, and many have argued it better than I feel I could. Why is this AfD still live? Schottenjaeger (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Information is free. The article doesn't recruit/ call out members to 'attack' $cientology, but instead gives the facts of the events. --189.4.189.87 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mentions in mainstream press make it decently notable, and it's a tad too long to simply merge. Even if it started in Scientology and the internet, there's a chance it would have to be spun out eventually. That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to concentrate and trim the article a bit, though more of that will probably have to happen after internet ADD sets in. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroxchange

edit
AfDs for this article:
Aeroxchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. No assertion of notability. Not even clear what the company does from the article or where it is even based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 January 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Graham

edit
Paul K. Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am the person identified in this article. I do not fit Wikipedia's level of notoriety for biographies and, although the information here is neutral and correct, it is not really appropriate in this forum. Paul K. Graham (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, no independent sources that discuss the subject or his notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dodsworth

edit
Simon Dodsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Local farmer with weak claims of notability. Sources are all primary, and while they're a nice piece of genealogy, they don't show notability. (Gsearch comes up empty, but that's not surprising for a 16th century person.) Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. While the subject seems to be well-documented for a person of his era, the article does not establish any particular claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suppose the main claim to notability was participation in the battle, but barring other information, that's not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have also failed in GBooks, and in ODNB. subject to correction from the ed., I think the primary sources given represent the whole of the information available, and the subject has been discussed in no secondary sources at all. Reprinted parish registers are like census rolls--they do not show the notability of everyone in the parish.
    (I have notified the creator of the article about this AfD, which seems to have been accidentally forgotten) . DGG (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What, exactly, is the massive objection to primary sources here? The references given are excellent and beyond reproach. They are published or available to those who wish to look at them. This is nit-picking at its best. And lets face it, if he were an absolute nobody how did he make it into anything? There are no lists of those who fought at the Battle of Pinkie and it is always a bonus to find someone, especially on the English side, however modest their part in the battle. Given that in 1900 only 15% of the population owned their own home or land in Great Britain he is a good example of one of the non-aristocracy, non-landed gentry. In addition the story demonstrates how even yeoman were still liable to be called up for military service. You know, we have countless articles on Wikipedia that are entirely without merit, and more to the point, far more without one single reference of any description. What a pity you folks have descended on this inoffensive and mildly interesting article of someone whose sons and grandsons were also of some note. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The issue is notability. WP:BIO says that "notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Has this person been the subject of published secondary source material? If so, we'd love it if you could add references.
As to "we have countless articles on Wikipedia that are entirely without merit", you might want to take a second to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have, rather reluctantly, come to the conclusion that the default position of any !vote should be a vote to 'Keep' on the grounds that 'Delete' votes can be taken as a form of warfare against other editors and generally cause more problems than they solve. Having said that, this sort of article does have its own quiet notability: yes, it's rather uninteresting to the casual reader, but to an academic interested in the fields touched upon it would be a godsend. We should tolerate and encourage quirky and minority articles. Law in Star Trek, by the way, is my nomination for the most futile article on Wikipedia: the Dodsworth article actually has some academic validity. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unremarkable 16th century farmer whose only claim to fame is that his name happened to have survived in some records. If he were a contemporary figure this would have been an A7 speedy for lack of assertion of notability; merely because someone lived long ago does not mean that there needs to be a Wikipedia article about them depite their complete lack of notability. --MCB (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "If he were a contemporary figure": yes, but notability standards vary not only by discipline but by time period. Were Wikipedia overwhelmed with painstaking sixteenth-century biographical articles I suppose it would be one thing. But take a look at category:16th century births, or category:1510s births, and note how small the coverage is. A hundred and eight people born in the 1510s--maybe half of them from England. When the available historical sources are as scarce as they are for the 16th century, anybody with this multiplicity of carefully sifted mentions attains defacto notability--in fact, one of the notable things about Dodsworth to a historian is that he isn't notable. He isn't Thomas Gresham, he's just a man in a certain walk of life who fought in a battle. Keep and nurture this sort of work.--Wageless (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winecad

edit
Winecad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable software. The only source is it's own webpage. I did a google search and it revealed nothing except for that main page. (that and some irrelevant pages about other items) Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Delete Undeath (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Regret

edit
Damn Regret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article originally stated that this song would be the third single from Don't You Fake It by The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus. When that proved false, the article was changed to say "a possible future single." That was four months ago; I see no indication that this song is or is likely to be notable. Maxamegalon2000 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Voted for Kodos

edit
I Voted for Kodos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nearly all sources found of band are nothing more than lyrics, guitar tabs, or forums. A couple albums, but unable to find any sources on them either. Jmlk17 21:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Bundling related articles here:[reply]

Close Enough For Ska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My New Obsession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not Penis Cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If You Can't Make It Big.....Just Give Up! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I believe Hrafn is correct that this is exactly the type of article contemplated by WP:N#TEMP.--Kubigula (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Life (politician)

edit
Pro-Life (politician) (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

May not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. TableMannersC·U·T 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arden "Aardvark" Anderson

edit

Seems to be a hoax. No sources given, no Google results and a partial duplicate of James Butler (boxer). Guest9999 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as G7 - only author blanked the page. --Oxymoron83 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DNA (Josh Edwards)

edit
DNA (Josh Edwards) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to pass notability threshold, as HTWA doesn't appear to be a notable wrestling circuit. Google search for "Josh Edwards" HTWA returns zero hits. Marasmusine (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. First of all, sorry if i mess up in this discussion, im pretty much a noob. I am Josh Edwards and i created the page. I can give you the emails of several people who can verify everything i said on the page. My accomplishments are not on any website, which is why i spend an hour of my life learning how to write a Wiki page so i could post my accomplishments. I assure you that just because my life isnt necessarily documented on the world wide web, it doesnt mean my life doesnt exist at all. Joshuathefallenangel (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh, no one's denying your existence; it's your notability that's in question here. That your accomplishments are not documented, and that you yourself are the author of the article, indicate that perhaps you don't pass the notability threshold required for the article. It's also not a great a sign that the wrestling circuit itself doesn't even have an article. Maxamegalon2000 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the core policy of verifiability, Josh's word just doesn't cut it. Even if it did notability criteria still wouldn't be met. RMHED (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything in a search engine regarding the wrestler and thus doubt the notability of him. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability or verifiability whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, i guess the decisions pretty much made so all i gotta say is that i made the article in the first place BECAUSE there was no other site documenting my HTWA run. If there was an official web site or something like that then i wouldnt have had to put up the Wiki page. im not technologically savvy enough to run my own site which is why i did this. that page IS, or at least was going to be, the "reliable source" for anyone else who wanted to learn more. I thought that was the whole point of wikipedia. and by the way, the HTWA page was the next thing i was going to do, but i suppose that would have been shot down too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, possibly pointy nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Templar in Scotland

edit

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. No one need article about extinct order in one country. With this direction there can be "Knights Templar in Ireland", or "Order of St. Stanislaus in Sweden". Yopie 01:39, 25 January 2008 (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.

The result was Delete. Nothing here to warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article. BLACKKITE 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Lake

edit
Ronnie Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation that an overzealous editor gave her own article after rumors began which have since proven false that she was going to replace Jorja Fox on the show. Fails WP:FICTION with no secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Since I'm apparently the "overzealous editor" referred to above, I suppose I should comment. My recollection is that this material, devoted only to describing the character, was inappropriately in the article on the actress. If it was to be in wikipedia at all, it belonged in an article on the character, rather than one one the actress.
I have no firm opinion on whether the article should remain. However, I'd like to point out that if projections are correct, the Lake character will become a recurring character on par with the Sara Sidle character, now that Sidle's character is no longer part of the show. If that's the case, and the article is deleted, then if someone puts the article back, a few months of work will be lost and need to be re-created. I acknowledge the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy, and that the projections (oh, heck let's call them what they are: "rumors") themselves do not confer sufficient notability, in and of themselves, to justify an article. But if the decision is to delete this article, I would suggest that any editor who strongly believes that it should be kept squirrel away a copy of the article in its present state, so the work doesn't need to be re-done in the event the character turns into a major character as expected. -- TJRC (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote anything reliable that would suggest this is the case? I had a {{fact}} prod on the article for months with no response that someone later removed. I've not been able to find anything reliable which would suggest that the character is going to become a major character and, as it is, the article wouldn't pass WP:FICTION anyway because she hasn't had coverage in secondary sources. Redfarmer (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Per Rumor, "A rumor or rumour (see spelling differences), is 'an unverified account or explanation of events circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event, or issue in public concern'" -- TJRC (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, as you've admitted it's a rumor, it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL. Also, the potential of losing work is not an argument for keep per WP:LOSE. Redfarmer (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's consistent with what I've said. You: "as you've admitted it's a rumor, it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL." Me: "I acknowledge the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy, and that the projections (oh, heck let's call them what they are: "rumors") themselves do not confer sufficient notability, in and of themselves, to justify an article." You: "Also, the potential of losing work is not an argument for keep per WP:LOSE." Me: "I would suggest that any editor who strongly believes that it should be kept squirrel away a copy of the article in its present state, so the work doesn't need to be re-done in the event the character turns into a major character as expected." Are you somehow construing that I'm presenting an argument to keep? Although I have a week opinion toward keep (hence the week keep), I don't really care much: "I have no firm opinion on whether the article should remain." -- TJRC (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to quote what you said a few paragraphs up. I'm only trying to understand, if you don't care one way or the other, and if you acknowledge it violates multiple notability requirements, why you are still expressing a weak keep... Per WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, this isn't a democratic vote; we decide by consensus based on policy arguments. Redfarmer (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I needed to quote just to juxtapose your own and my comments to point out their similarity, because I wasn't sure why you were arguing with a position that's pretty close to yours. You seem to be confusing my near-apathy with advocacy (you're using phrases like "you admit"), which it very definitely is not.
To address your points: I believe, but not strongly, that the appearance of the character so far is sufficient notability to justify the article. That alone would be a sufficient basis for my week keep. In addition, the suggestion (whose veracity is admittedly uncertain) that the character will appear more, does not lessen that.
I think you misunderstand my comment about lost work. I have not suggested that losing work is a reason to keep an article. I have suggested that losing work is a reason for anyone who strongly believes the article should remain to keep a copy of it, so that if it turns out to be an appropriate article later, they can re-add the lost material.
All that being said, were it not for the writers' strike we'd probably already know what the character's status is. My general sense is, what's the hurry to delete now?
So, all that is the basis for my week keep. You may not agree with it, and I don't expect you to. I'm not making an argument, I'm just explaining to you my basis, since you asked. I'd rather the article stayed around. But I don't really care that much. But you asked. -- TJRC (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I should note, per the commenter above's concern that she may still become a major character, she has not appeared in an episode since Jorja Fox left the show, thus making the number of episodes she has appeared in five. Redfarmer (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - with reference to the previous work being lost if this is deleted and a new article is needed - very little that is on Wikipedia is ever permanently deleted. It would be very easy to restore anything here if needed should the decision be to delete at this time with no prejudice to recreation if the character does indeed prove to become a regular feature of the show. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Reason: wrong term or term with wrong definition. However, this can be recreated with the accurate meaning of "overacceleration". Note: Special thanks to Abel Cavaşi for introducing me a new term. @pple complain 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overacceleration

edit
Overacceleration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is little more than a dictionary definition but, more importantly, I believe the definition it gives is wrong. It defines "overacceleration" as the rate of change of acceleration, i.e. the third derivative d3x/dt3 of position with respect to time. I cannot find any instance of the word being used in this sense; its normal use is to mean either acceleration exceeding some preset limit, so that, for instance, overacceleration sensors are used in vehicles to trigger airbags in a crash, or simply too much acceleration in discussions of, say, driving technique. Even correcting the definition, I don't think there is material for an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The usual engineering term is "jerk", I have never heard of overacceleration in that sense. Neither google define:, Chambers 20th, nor McGraw Hill Dictionary of Physics and Mathematics recognise it. Burn the witch. I should add that it is used as technical term in rotating machinery, to describe an excessive acceleration. Incidentally the users other contribs don't inpsire much confidence in his authority. Greg Locock (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Greg. The article appears both incorrect and possibly unecessary even if corrected. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the term! Thank you for your observation. So, the article must be delete or corrected. --Abel Cavași (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zin-carla

edit
Zin-carla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns only non-reliable fansites and the like and unrelated hits which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Mackintosh

edit
Duncan Mackintosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A junior army officer who seems to have no special notability other than being the father and grandfather of notable people, which does not make him notable. Note that he was not in charge of the operation to suppress rebellion in Ireland, as the article implies, but was merely one of the more junior officers involved. Prod deleted without explanation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ports of entry of Hong Kong

edit
List of ports of entry of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not a notable subject. It is a collection of customs/immigration control sites in a tiny little territory. Yeah, you land in an airport and you show your passport. BFD. SchmuckyTheCat (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.

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick J. Stephens

edit
Frederick J. Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Potentially non notable historian, apparently according to the article a world leader in a very specific field. Prod was removed by the author following a brief discussion on the talk page. I am leaning towards delete, but bring it here so that a wider audience can comment.J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography in the article. SchmuckyTheCat (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.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan Thomas

edit
Vaughan Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Yet another player that fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy keep. Major TV shows are never deleted by consensus, per userpage WP:POINT Secret account 20:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters (TV series)

edit
Sisters (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Off the air for 10+ years, no sticking power like Cheers or Seinfeld. No out of universe context. In short, who cares. The guest stars are about the only interesting thing Kumqat1406 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge & Redirect to Wiktionary. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wiktionary

edit
Simple English Wiktionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reason why this version of wikipedia meets WP:WEB Delete-- Secret account 19:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Nomination is highly inappropriate and reeks of WP:POINTy issues going on, as does editor's other nomination above. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future of air transport in the United Kingdom

edit
Future of air transport in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

among a multitude of other issues, how does this not violate WP:Crystal Kumqat1406 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, per below. Non-admin closure. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaw Win Htut

edit
Zaw Win Htut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as non-notabe last month. The article looks sort of like an advertisement, and does not containany third-party reliable sources. Because of this, I feel the subject in question is not-notable.

Article now has some references which now prove she is notable. I withdraw my nomination with immediate effect. D.M.N. (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Instead of saying you'll withdraw your nom, why not take the given references and add them yourself? It'll take the same amount of effort. SchmuckyTheCat (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.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EastSide United FC

edit
EastSide United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged first for speedy deletion via criterion A7, but denied because the article makes an uncited claim to notability. It was then prodded, but no-one seconded or disputed the PROD. I'm personally a bit uncomfortable deleting this, as it does claim to be a football club with ~2,000 members. Ergo, this is strictly a procedural nom. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAMTECH

edit
SAMTECH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deleted twice already, notability issues. I am putting it here now, no opinion given. Tone 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep Non Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Simpson (clarinetist)

edit
Mark Simpson (clarinetist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I put in a PROD for this last week, but after a little more thought I'm on the fence. The only part of the article that possibly qualifies him under WP:MUSIC is the BBC Young Musician of the Year Award; the other competitions fail #4 for composers because they're specifically young composer competitions (and as far as I can tell the commission is a consequence of one such competition), and the radio broadcast is too short for musicians and ensembles #12. The BBC award needs to be major to satisfy Musicians and ensembles #9, but researching the website and the article didn't really give me a definitive sense of its reputation as a major, reputable classical competition. Really what it comes down to is whether this BBC competition is major or not, and truth be told, I'm stumped. Procedural nom to get some more input. SingCal (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the criteria are questionable, however to clarify, the BBC Young Musician of the Year is a major award and bi-annually attracts much media attention. In most cases it is the start of very fruitful careers for winners (or even runners up) eg. Emma Johnson (clarinettist), Nicola Benedetti, Freddy Kempf et al. It is not an entry level competition, and as far I am aware it is the most advanced competition in the UK for its age range. The final is televised where the finalists perform a concerto with a top orchestra. Thus I must disagree with the deletion on the following three grounds:
-Musicians and ensembles #9 is satisfied
-There has been considerable media attention placed on the winning of the BBC award - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/05/25/bmmus25.xml&sSheet=/arts/2006/05/25/ixartright.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/05_may/20/musician.shtml and http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1822308,00.html for starters.
-The page will only have to recreated in the next year or so. B.S. 05 18:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:58, February 1, 2008

Melody Love

edit
Melody Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as non-notable a month ago. Having looked over the article, I believe the article is not-notable enough to satisfy inclusion into Wikipedia. No reliable sources are also in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. @pple complain 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Prasad

edit
Calvin Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article states that this person is notable based on his chess achievements. However:

  • His ELO rating is really weak: 1843 while he would need at least 2600 to be notable (based on consensus developed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess).
  • He is "the first male chess player to earn a Candidate Master title for Fiji", but this title of "Candidate Master" is not notable neither. Here I cannot do without a bit of technical explanations: in the world of chess, the title "Fide Master" is ahead of "Candidate Master", "International Master" is ahead of "Fide Master", "Grandmaster" is ahead of "International Master", and only "Grandmaster" could be seen as nearly notable. (also based on consensus developed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess, see also Candidate Master or Category:Chess titles).

Thus this person is just a chessplayer who lives in Fidji. SyG (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not just a chess player who lives in Fiji, but but the 2005 Fiji Champion. As an amateur, he has played at the highest levels of chess in Fiji: the Fijian Chess Championship and the Chess Olympiads (the chess equivalent to the Olympic Games). It is true that Fiji is not a strong nation in chess playing (the World Chess Federation, FIDE, lists only 9 Fijians with international ratings [6]), but to exclude a small nation's top performers in international competition would be systemic bias. Prasad has also named "Male Athlete of the Year" in 2006. This is not a chess specific award, this is among all male Fiji athletes. The consensus described as developed at WP:CHESS doesn't exist. I am an active member of that project and I oppose deleting this article. My personal view is Olympiad participation or victory in a national chess championship is sufficient for an article, if sources can be found that satisfy WP:V. Quale (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quale. He's the top of his game in his home even if he is not ranked high internationally. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Comment Based on the FIDE ratings (see the list for Fiji here), he is currently the 5th player of his country, not the top one. As Quale righly underlines, the article states that he was National Champion in 2005. Unfortunately this statement is unreferenced, so for the moment I have to ignore it. SyG (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a reference from the official Fiji chess federation website now. Voorlandt (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by analogy with regular Summer/Winter Olympics competitors being automatically notable. And he was Male Athlete of the Year (say what?). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think from a basis of common sense this shows the absurdity of considering high level sports in all countries to be of equal notability. International activities have international standards. DGG (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An article about the player in the Fiji Times and two notable (albeit local) awards. WP:N doesn't require the individual be notable internationally. I would love to see a diff on the WP:CHESS consensus of a 2600 rating requirement to be notable. If that is true, only about 130 FIDE chess players (in the history of the Elo rating system) are notable. Seems rather narrow doesn't it? Justin chat 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article in the Fiji Times listed in the references seems to be about another player (James Lenoa) who received the award "2006 Sportsman". So it does not seem to be an article about Calvin Prasad, as there is only one line about him: "Chess rep [sic] Calvin Prasad was voted National Make [sic] Athlete of the Year". Also, I do not know the difference between the local titles of "2006 Sportsman" and "2006 National Male Athlete" but given the article it seems the former one would be more important. SyG (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quale, Voorlandt (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. National chess champion and national award winner is sufficient for notability. I understand DGG's concern over that winning the championship in a minor country is a lesser achievement than winning the Russian one, but then again being president/prime minister/legislator/governor/king/etc. of a small nation is considered to be an equal claim to notability as being Georg Bush/Gordon Brown/John McCain/Charlie Crist/Queen Elizabeth. The arguments of Quale are stronger and I agree with them more. I do have one concern about the article: The title of Candidate Master tends to require a rating over 2200, and 1843 is WAY below that, indeed players of 1800 level in the FIDE system are approaching the level where I can set up a reasonable fight. The FIDE rating card listed in the article makes no mention of the CM title. Is the fijichess website mistaken on this one? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balance (puzzle)

edit
Balance (puzzle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not seem to meet notability criteria in its current form. JASpencer (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, weakly. The current article is not very good, but it seems to describe a fairly well known type of math puzzle, where the object is to arrange a set of digits so that they are equal on either side of a divide. The article seems to make out a case for notability, in that this sort of puzzle is apparently used in a puzzle competition about which we have an article. There ought to be something out there to improve this, and there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw If that's the case then I'd be prepared to withdraw. JASpencer (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sorry, evidently notable. Article needs work, but not deletion. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Wahid

edit
Habib Wahid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, also seems a little spammy. Talk page is full of people who are under the impression that what they write there will be read by the subject. Possible conflict of interest? J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Residence Halls Association

edit
University of Michigan Residence Halls Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to satisfy WP:N, specifically WP:ORG because it has no secondary sources and "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". No independent sources were found on Google or the article itself. Noetic Sage 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am afraid that your search was flawed since many of the RHA results actually refer to different organisations; Reproductive Health Associates and others. Of the three sources you have specified, two discuss smoking bans and the other, the Association joining in with a student voting initiative. None address the association as such nor describe anything notable that the association has achieved. TerriersFan (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on the web search, the the three links certainly indicate notability. RHA passed the smoking ban. So the article is about what RHA did and how it goes from there. The other one is about MSA and RHA doing a voting drive. You really can't expect to find anything about a government organization other than what it does, who runs it, etc. Certainly non-trival secondary sources. And these were the first few I found searching google for "Daily News" RHA (Daily News is apparently the main/only school paper.) Hobit (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - School newspapers do not qualify as secondary sources, nor are they reliable. The High Beam source you included is simply a transcription of one of the school newspaper articles. As I noted in my nomination, if you do a simple search on Google you find nothing independent of the school itself.—Noetic Sage 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Maxim(talk) 02:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Parlett

edit
Blake Parlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm setting this up for User:DMighton, as he requested here.

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "Non-notable hockey bio. Non-Professional junior hockey player, undrafted." Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstormers-Revolution rivalry

edit
AfDs for this article:
Barnstormers-Revolution rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination of article previously at DRV, so I am neutral. Concern exists whether the article meets notability requirements because it lacks multiple independent sources. Concerns also exist regarding the scope of the reference that has been included. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete also considered speedy for recreation of previously deleted content from Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals by same author, an obvious SPA who only created these virtually-identical pages. JERRY talk contribs 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp - The Council of American Muslim Professionals

edit
Camp - The Council of American Muslim Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article talks about plenty of internal aspects but does not establish the notability. JASpencer (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Greek Footballer of the Year. --Angelo (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Superleague Best Greek Player

edit
Greek Superleague Best Greek Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Already exists as Greek Footballer of the Year Darth21 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt C. Louie

edit
Brandt C. Louie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Businessman who seems succesful but not notable. JASpencer (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus.

Vera Brosgol

edit
Vera Brosgol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Storyboarder and artist. Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Another article from the walled garden of "Notable" Alumni at Sheridan College. BLACKKITE 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Does contributing stories to Flight count as playing "a major role"?
(2) For Return to Sender, do The Webcomics Examiner, Sequential Tart and Fleen count as periodicals? People don't usually think of websites as such, but the problem is that there aren't really any print publications covering webcomics to begin with. --DocumentN (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn as Keep. Notability now asserted. Good job, folks. BLACKKITE 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Carruthers

edit
Sandy Carruthers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cartoonist who "worked on" a notable comic. Another from the rapidly expanding list of "Notable" alumni at Sheridan College. BLACKKITE 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a tough one. Although I don't buy BlackKite's suggestion that the comic book is "on the borders or notability" (if it spawned a successful feature film franchise, it's sufficiently notable), there is nothing in this article that suggests Carruthers helped originate the Men in Black concept, or that the artwork contributed to its success in a significant way. The sources for the Men in Black article both suggest that it was the brainchild of writer Lowell Cunningham. Carruthers was presumably hired to illustrate it. Absent a source that Carruthers collaborated in a more significant way with Cunningham in the creation of the concept, or that Carruthers' artwork on the comic either received critical attention in and of itself, or helped sell the movie rights, then I have to say delete. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added references, a sampling of some of the media coverage Carruthers has received. There is enough to pass WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you Paul Erik. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Keep per addition of references, notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Christie (graphic designer)

edit
Scott Christie (graphic designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't see any reason why this person passes WP:BIO. Another from the "Notable" alumni list at Sheridan College. BLACKKITE 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. @pple complain 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Denovan

edit
Robb Denovan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Has worked on some notable media, but notable himself? Doesn't appear so. Another Sheridan College "Notable" alumni. BLACKKITE 16:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • He received media attention in being one of the animators of the film Ryan, which won an Academy Award in 2005. There are two references for articles that are focused on Denovan. (I just now added one of them.) Also, he is often at least mentioned in articles that focus on the film, so he seems to be one of the key players in the film's development, even if he was not the director or producer. Keep. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ryan got made by director Chris Landreth harnessing the talents of a lot of Sheridan College students. In fact, Sheridan College got an "in association with" credit on the film, which I believe is a first for an NFB co-produced short. To be sure, Denovan is listed in the official credits of the film as an animator.[8] But does that qualify as a significant contribution according to WP:BIO? It is not the same as Denovan directing the film; he was part of an animation team (his name appears first because it's alpha order). Are we then saying it's an exeception because it's an Oscar winner and so it confers more notability to everyone down the line? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I think that's a good argument--that for something really notable, it does confer some notability as an exception to not inherited--which after all is only an essay. DGG (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 01:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Risker (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedram Goshtasbpour

edit
Pedram Goshtasbpour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Animator. Works for Sony. Tempted to A7 this, but it may as well join the remaining AfDs for "Notable" Sheridan College alumni. BLACKKITE 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn.. I missed the Train48 reference. Could do with a cleanup though. BLACKKITE 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kenneth Martin

edit
Andrew Kenneth Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possibly notable, but not a huge amount to support this. Another Sheridan College "Notable" alumni. BLACKKITE 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he was a director as well as actor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). ChetblongT C 03:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Milne

edit
Alex Milne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Has worked on some notable projects (though unsourced claim). Doesn't appear to be notable himself. Another from Sheridan College's list of "Notable" alumni. BLACKKITE 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). ChetblongT C 03:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Shaidle

edit
Kathy Shaidle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another one of Sheridan College's "Notable" alumni. May not meet WP:BIO.BLACKKITE 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Published author and journalist. (Also, at the time of my vote, no actual explanation given for deletion, save for WP:SARCASM) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being published does not necessarily equal notability. Reason for deletion is, of course, possible failure to meet WP:BIO - I have clarified. Sarcasm is unfortunately easy to slip into when dealing with huge swathes of COI; of course some actually notable people will be involved here, and of course if that is the case, one would hope they'd be kept. BLACKKITE 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Shawn that the nomination is lacking. However, I disagree with him that being published = notability. If that were the case, I would have created an article on my mom long ago. In this case, WP:BIO suggests that receiving "significant critical attention" or "significant recognized awards or honours" confers notability. Shaidle was a finalist for the Governor General's Awards, which is a very significant literary award in this country (I have no idea if the Church Press awards are recognized or are notable). It would be a slam dunk if she had won the award, but being a finalist is nothing to sneeze at. Therefore, I am inclined to lean towards keep. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - until the nominator adopts a non-cryptic nomination: avoid cryptic language. Tarinth (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • D12000 added a reference, and I added a few as well. There are several write-ups about Shaidle and her books in major Canadian newspapers. There's enough for WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can not tell from the links how extensive the reference to her is--some of them seem from their title to be group articles--please provide some information on whether the coverage is significant.DGG (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Giggles and God-stuff" article is 142 words and talks only about her and her blog. The "Poet relates sacred images" article discusses only her book Lobotomy Magnificat. The "Five poets in search of a prize" article is (not surprisingly) 1/5 about Shaidle and her book. Hope that helps, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. That was an easy decision to make. Tyrenius (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wright

edit
Andrew Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another one from Sheridan College's "Notable" alumni list, though this one is possibly borderline for WP:BIO. Not sure if these awards are enough. BLACKKITE 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(jarbarf) (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quotes from them are included in the article, which is sufficient. DGG (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Gilbert

edit
Wayne Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Another Sheridan College AfD. BLACKKITE 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, meets WP:BIO. GreenJoe 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I couldn't find any sources for his two shorts at Annecy. That would clinch it, for me. For those who don't know, Annecy is an extremely prestigious animation fest and just getting selected would more than satisfy the exhibition criteria of WP:BIO, as far as I'm concerned. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was often quoted in the media about the education of animators during his time as a prof at Sheridan College. He was most prominently featured for his work on a program that involved liaising with a college in Ireland to help a big animation studio develop talent there. I have added references to a number of Canadian newspapers and one magazine. Keep. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they all seem to be articles dealing with a number of people. How significant is their coverage of him in particular?DGG (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Maclean's article is a 777-word feature about the school, and he is one of only two professors quoted, the other being the dean of arts. The 1989-08-08 Toronto Star article is 254-word article about the collaboration with a studio and a college in Dublin, and he is described as the program's co-ordinator. The Globe and Mail and Canadian Press articles mention his position at the college, but those articles are primarily examples (and there are others I found) of him being quoted as an expert or "observer" about a particular development in the animation industry or education. In the former, 4 out of 18 paragraphs are focused on what he has to say; in the latter, it's 2 out of 16 paragraphs. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

<1--

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Coredesat 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bonifacio

edit
Charles Bonifacio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Animator. That appears to be it, unless I'm missing something. Currently misses WP:BIO by a mile. BLACKKITE 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, meets WP:BIO. GreenJoe 17:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would you care to expand your reasoning, GreenJoe? I see nothing notable about this animator, though he has certainly worked on notable projects. henrik•talk 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "worked on" is not sufficient. The one reference given includes only the sentence in an article on Clive Smith (who is certainly notable, that "[a]s the resident artist at Nelvana, he recruited and nurtured a host of young animators, mainly from Sheridan College in the mid-'70s. Among them were Chuck Gammage, Charles Bonifacio, Robin Budd and Frank Nissen, all of whom went on to careers as directors and animators for Disney and other companies." that is not a significant mention. DGG (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being director of animation on two Care Bears movies was enough to get him mentioned in the Canadian Journal of Film Studies and in the New York Times. He was also quoted in an article about Sheridan College in The Globe and Mail while he was working at the college. (I have now added the references.) These multiple mentions, I would say, is enough—just barely—to pass WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. One of the criteria listed at WP:BIO#Creative professionals is:

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Although DGG is also correct to question the depth of coverage provided by the sources (thus the "weak" portion of my "weak keep"), I would agree with Paul Erik that an animation director does play a "major role" in the production of animated films. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reference to notability in 2nd party reviews Logastellus (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

-->

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

The result was Keep. A two-time nominated Gemini Award animation director and writer, as well as co-director and co-writer of a notable children TV series clearly fits WP:BIO#Creative professionals criteria. @pple complain 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John van Bruggen

edit
John van Bruggen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another dubiously notable person from the animated media. I don't think WP:BIO is met here. BLACKKITE 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). ChetblongT C 03:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Boroff

edit
Karen Boroff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a puff piece and although she's the Dean of the school it is not clear that she meets WP:PROF. JASpencer (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:57, February 1, 2008

Warm Showers

edit
Warm Showers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod (removed around 30 minutes before time was up) - this still does not appear to meet WP:WEB, the original concern, and borders on WP:SPAM. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed {{prod}} (whereby an editor thinks an article should be deleted but it doesn't quite fall under the speedy deletion criteria but it's too insignificant to make it to articles for deletion. The article does not assert sufficient notability for a website per our notability criteria for a website. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is only 12:30 here in Québec city sir. Can you help me put the article as a nomination for inclusion instead of trying to delete it ? Regards, Roger Gravel (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I work on UTC I'm afraid! Oh, and as for inclusion, you need to make it meet WP:WEB. It reads like an advert and asserts no notability. You've had quite a few days to sort this out - removing the prod without addressing the concern will lead to the inevitable conclusion of an WP:AFD I'm afraid. Nothing personal, that's how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. 0 hits in Google News [14], first several pages of gsearch give lots of hits for this group, but none are showing notability (many are forum posts by Roger Gravel). Absolutely no prejudice against recreation if the notability issues are addressed. --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NOTE or WP:WEB as no reliable sources are cited and there's no claim of any notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a quick search of Google seems to suggest that this organization is well-known enough that it could become a good article. If it does end up getting deleted, I don't think anyone should object to a re-create of the article that includes better sourcing. Tarinth (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is currently in no kind of state to merit keeping. There's barely an assertion of notability (just about enough to preclude speedy, but not enough for here) and no sources. Several editors, including myself have dropped the originator notes about what needs to be done to improve it, but he seems reluctant to read the policies. We all know that Wikipedia is a bemusing place for newbies, but they must at least show willing, not just the completely understandable irritation. NB I completely agree with Tarinth's comment, just above and I'd be happy to recreate the article from deletion to userspace of any editor who requests the opportunity to work it up. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely does not meat WP:WEB if and when notability can be established this article should be rewritten. --/\sSb\/TALK/\-- 07:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:57, February 1, 2008

Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 5

edit
AfDs for this article:
Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:FUTURE; Cycle 4 didn't even start. fschoenm (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fedora colinux

edit
Fedora colinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This has been speedy tagged a couple of times. Bringing this to AfD for community consensus as I know nothing of the subject matter. Procedural nom, abstaining. Keeper | 76 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Merge was considered, but the incident is already mentioned in adequate depth at Paul Washer. JERRY talk contribs 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Evangelism Conference

edit
Youth Evangelism Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Evangelism spam for a NN kids' religious conference that apparently happened 6 years ago. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (performed by Woody). J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOLZ

edit
MOLZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Presumed attack page since it is not an acronym as stated--Boson (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy delete per above -- Cenarium (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:56, February 1, 2008

Carman Ibanez

edit
Carman Ibanez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Without WP:V sources, it does indeed read more like an advert than an encyclopedia article. No awards, no independent stories on it. Pigman☿ 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathtutor

edit
Mathtutor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like an advert for a "Math tutoring system", which has no independent reliable sources. It also lacks on indication that this "math tutoring system" is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedic article. Its current state reads like a pamphlet, and I do not think it can be much more. The original other removed a {{prod}} that I added. (1 == 2)Until 15:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability, reads like an advert Doc Strange (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the major UK developments in this area. It is NOT an advert. I am sorry if I made it sound like one. I have never understoos what "assertion of notablility" means - do you want me to put in the word "notabl"? (I have no probs doing that)
Johnbibby (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a read of our notability guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:56, February 1, 2008

The Mystery of Alex and the Greatest Dream

edit
The Mystery of Alex and the Greatest Dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non-notable treasure hunt book. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, see WP:SYN. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Neural Monitoring

edit
Remote Neural Monitoring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The stated sources do not support the claims of RNM. RNM is a fantasy of people who do not understand the technology needed to make it possible. I might be okay with a rewrite of the article, describing RNM as a fear of some people, but even then it might not be sufficiently notable. In its current state, the article serves to support the fantastic claims of those who believe in it. Amit (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete - The information is correct. More sources could be provided and the public is right to ackowledge the existence of technologies that are declassified and can be purchased by the public. If not ackowledged by the public that anyone can purchase the hardware to create these electromagnetic enviroments, the government would be blamed when they actually may not be using the technology on a person. The public need be aware of criminals misusing technology and report it to an authority on electromagnetic weapons.
http://www.surveillanceissues.com/
http://www.democraticfundamentalism.org/2005/psychotronics/technology/technology.htm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.200.113 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:55, February 1, 2008

Twynosi

edit
Twynosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability - Milk's Favorite Cookie 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 New Switchfoot Album

edit
2008 New Switchfoot Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL while there are rumours to that indicate that a new album may be in the works. This is speculation without a title, release date or track listing --T-rex 15:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot can change in almost a year. All dates are only tentative. It's only in the early stages of planning. It should be deleted until more information has been confirmed. Timmeh! 15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; to be recreated when something is actually known about the album. Keeper | 76 15:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, little information is currently known and will probably change. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete per nom, Why does Weezer's sixth album have an article? It's all "speculation" as well... there is no track listing, only a producer named, and a few rumored songs. And when information changes, it can easily be edited on the article. I also said in the article discussion, that it will be moved/merged when the title is known. And to answer T-rex, it has already been confirmed they will be making a new record this Spring. I can give you interviews and other related articles confirming this fact. Dont delete. Joberooni (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, look at the Weezer article. They're new album has no official title yet, and is going under the name "Album Six." Why is it so wrong to have an article about the new Switchfoot record, that has been confirmed by the band themselves, and has some interesting, pertinent information already on it? again, please don't delete. Joberooni (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until anything is confirmed about this album (say, its name and track listing). Too soon for an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, read my responses... thanks.
  • Delete. At present, this is just speculation. That a band is working on releasing a new album should come as a surprise to nobody, and neither should the expectation that the release will come about 2 years after their previous one. Comparisons to any other band's as-yet-untitled album are largely irrelevant, since the existence of other articles has no bearing on the existence of any one particular article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable upcoming album. It appears to be quite confirmed and not speculation. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources in fact say nothing beyond the fact that it will be released on their independent label (which seems unsurprising, since that's the label they're on) and that it might be "more acoustic AND more electronic" (which sounds as though it's still in the formative stages). Nothing of any conrete nature - bar the label information, which could just as easily be located on the band's article - is confirmed at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • and so the article is now deemed uneducational? Not so. It is the beginning a of a record, in the early developmental stages, that sometimes provide the most intrigue and excitement, and will be very interesting in the future when people look back on the record. Joberooni (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Uneducational" doesn't enter into it. "Encyclopedic" or "Unencyclopedic" is what we're talking about here. If the early developmental stages of this or any other record turn out to be significant later on in the piece, there's nothing to prevent the information being included in the article then. At present, all we know is that the band is working on a new album (not overly surprising, since they're an active band) which will be released on the label they're currently on (again, not surprising). Nothing else meaningful or encyclopedic is present, and that which is, probably is neither meaningful nor encyclopedic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Last time I checked, "encyclopedic" means quite frankly that it is intended to educate and make known things to the people. So what's the point of deleting an article if it's going to end up being put up again? And the article features some song possibilities and titles, and links to outside sources that confirm them, and is actually very encyclopedic. Not everybody knows this, and having an article that pulls together all the loose pieces is a great way for casual readers to stay updated and informed on the article. Wikipedia has options to edit things for a reason... and that is because things change. So once more is known, the article will become more and more educational. And as per wikipedia policy, you can merge/move articles... you dont necessarily have to delete articles. So why delete this one? Joberooni (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • To me, "encyclopedic" means "describing something which should be in an encyclopedia". Given that this article is currently speculation at best, I still fail to see why it should be in an encyclopedia. If the article will be put back up again, then hopefully when it is there'll be some cited and verifiable information about release dates, tracklists and so on. Currently, there's none of this (the proposed song titles are cited to a discussion board, which isn't a reliable source). At present, it's not a case of more needing to be known, it's a case of nothing being known, although obviously that's going to change as things develop. In relation to merging or moving this article, I'm aware that both can be done, but I don't see how that helps. We'd still be dealing with a collection of speculation about a future album, regardless of where it was merged or moved to. I'm advocating deletion because the content itself is a problem. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The point of deleting it is that right now it is not notable. What may or may not happen in the future, can be taken care of in the future. --T-rex 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that's the case, why not just leave it? It can easily be merged later, and someone wont have to re-write all this information... just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That doesn't make sense. As T-rex and I have both pointed out, the problem is that it doesn't pass the relevant criteria at the moment. Therefore, it shouldn't be here. Is there a reason why something which doesn't pass the criteria should be here? Failing that, does this article in fact pass the criteria in a way we haven't thought of? If the answer to either question is "yes", and you can back that up with an argument, then the article could easily be left here. At the moment, the answer to both questions seems to be "no". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:54, February 1, 2008

Melissa Leigh

edit
Melissa Leigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Actress who is of borderline notability. Speedy was declined a while ago, no doubt due to the vague mentions of appearances, but the article has sat with a notability tag since July. J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge/redirect to appropriate target. Action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 23:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynkhab

edit
Lynkhab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable deity from the Dungeons & Dragons universe. Hell, she's barely even notable within the universe itself- she only appears in a few obscure books. Delete. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • More of a background character, if I remember correctly. Very important in Malcanthet's recent history though, so tangentially important, but not a major player in the actual story line. BOZ (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Birdbrain (band). JERRY talk contribs 02:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Ammo

edit
Joey Ammo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lead singer of Birdbrain. Although the band is notable, I am not convinced that this person is. Had a small solo career, but I am not seeing anything that suggests that he achieved any success with it. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:54, February 1, 2008

Justin McLachlan

edit
Justin McLachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In my haste to organize Category:People from West Virginia into subcategories, I may have rushed to speedy this artilce. After some discussion, it was decided that some discussion was needed. Basically, McLachlan's claim to notability is his work for a small-market news paper (where he won an award from the West Virginia Press Association) and for a website that may or may not pass WP:WEB. Combined, the user still flunks the guidelines at WP:BIO. As User:Rossami said at the DRV, "the article does appear to be more of a resume than evidence of a person who meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria. The page is remarkably well-sourced but the achievements are not particularly different than the accomplishments of any other aggressive young reporter." y'amer'can (wtf?) 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete both. JERRY talk contribs 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atthis (Obernewtyn character)

edit
Atthis (Obernewtyn character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable fictional character I found while clearing my watchlist. Tagged as having notability issues since August, prod was removed by author without comment. The author's only other contributions is Kella (Obernewtyn Chronicles), which I am bundling with this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rascal Films

edit
Rascal Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, lack of reliable sources found. They exist, they want to make a movie, but that isn't enough to be notable. What few I have found talked about how the ONE movie they are trying to produce "is coming out in 2006", new info says 2008, so it may never come and wouldn't matter anyway if that is the only movie that they have in the works. Appears to be a struggling company trying to produce a single film. Only has imdb entries and their own website as sources. Other links to them only mention in passing. Can't see how this passes wp:corp based on this info, or can be considered notable in any way. Pharmboy (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:54, February 1, 2008

Surfspot

edit
Surfspot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, (neologism perhaps). Seems like original research —Moondyne 13:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Perry

edit
Rebecca Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Satifys WP:MUSIC but has had 2 db-bio tags placed on it, rmed the tags and placed under afd for comment RT | Talk 12:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what I am doing but I intend to provide links to appropriate areas of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieMusicMaid (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources to show that she does in fact meet WP:MUSIC or any other standards of notability. Even if it stands, the informal tone and POV-ness is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this nomination contains too much cryptic language and acronyms to decipher: avoid cryptic language, and the only thing that's apparent from the nomination is that even the nominator thinks it probably qualifies (and this isn't the place for general "comment") Tarinth (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've done some clean-up on the article, but it could certainly do with some citations. The original nomination makes no sense: if she satisfies WP:MUSIC, then why nominate the article for deletion? Leaving that aside, I think there is a useful debate to be had about notability. It seems to me that she qualifies under criteria for musicians #10, having done music for highly notable TV shows. However, arguably only doing incidental music for these makes for a weak claim. She may also qualify under criteria for composers #4 for her runner-up position for an advertising award. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Sufficient reliable sources backed-up. @pple complain 16:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander (Dynamite Entertainment)

edit
Highlander (Dynamite Entertainment) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This reads like an advert and despite the reviews the notability does not seem clear. JASpencer (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'd say it easily receives notability based on other comic articles. It states its sources and we're even adding more as part of the Highlander wikiproject. It lived and survived a previous AfD and has only gotten better and more solid since then so I'm really not sure why this AfD was started. Hooper (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of a well known franchise, and no less notable than most other comic books. References are a bit weak, though (citing a forum is a big no-no), and I don't think it needs four covers in the infobox. PC78 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just noticed that. Forum ref fixed with actual third party source. Hooper (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). ChetblongT C 06:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Hoo Tan

edit
Ho Hoo Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This album is all in Chinese and the notability is unclear. JASpencer (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phani

edit
Phani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod was removed with the comment "This page should not be deleted. I have included relafvent information that warrants a wikipedia entry. The origin of Phani is ambiguous and often argued by cultural communities about its creation." Sources cited are questionable. There may be a valid article in this, I am not sure, I struggle to see what it is actually about, but at the very least, it needs new sources and a cleanup.J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology. utcursch | talk 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of tropical Meteorology

edit
Indian Institute of tropical Meteorology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like an advert RT | Talk 11:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:53, February 1, 2008

Mike Posey

edit
Mike Posey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable professional wretling referee. D.M.N. (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-Gyp

edit
Hyper-Gyp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, original research, few hits Rapido (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. As participants say, this is a borderline/ close call. Benefit of doubt goes to keep per WP:Deletion. JERRY talk contribs 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Watson

edit
Lori Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although she's got a couple of awards she does not appear to have got enough notability. JASpencer (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - difficult to call, as she is apparently signed. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westside Christian College

edit
Westside Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. No assertion of notability has been made, nor have any sources been provided that could support any claim of notability. A PROD tag removed with the comment "remove prod - can't be reinstated per WP:PROD - use AfD if you think it should be deleted". Note the school is already mentioned in the Goodna, Queensland article. Mattinbgn\talk 09:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Would you care to point out which of those links are reliable independent sources? On the first page of links I see their own page, a independent schools site with no actual content on the school, a MySpace page and a entry on a register of playgrounds. The second page is much the same. Typing the school name into Google and counting the hits has no bearing on the usefulness of the links found. Worse, the rescue attempts on schools often lead to articles that are indiscriminate collections of information with content added from any source that can be found from a google search with little attempt to prepare an actual encyclopaedic article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:N. I've gone through the first 10 pages of Google results in User:TerriersFan's search and don't see any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". All that's there are a handful of websites published by the school and organisations closely related to it and a few dozen trivial mentions on other websites (eg, its won some routine grants, its students take part in competitions and it's cited as a satistifed customer on a payroll software company's website - big deal). Nothing at all comes up on Google news either. [18] --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have consistent held in the most recent past months that every high school is notable -- on the basis that all or almost all of them prove to have sources for notability when sufficiently investigated. consensus can change, and over the past year this is what it seems to have changed to. DGG (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - and agree with Matt. Also independent high schools have different sourcing situations to state or denominational private ones, as the sources are almost always self-published and information is very tightly controlled as no obligation for disclosure exists. (I should know, I went to two of them.) As such, probably WP:CORP is one way in which to see the organisation. The problem in saying "such schools are notable" is that the only way they can meet WP:N is in ways which risk BLP - i.e. a school of this nature may be notable because criminal offences took place there that made media impact. Orderinchaos 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without actual reliable sources (discussing its actual real-world impact or notice), this is just a directory listing. And no, high schools are NOT automatically exempt from standard notability requirements. --Calton | Talk 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and re-direct to Goodna, Queensland - Most schools of this type are notable, but for this one, after a detailed search, I have had trouble finding any significant encyclopedic material. There is enough material available however, for a better mention of the school in the local area article, so a re-direct and merge are appropriate, outright deletion is not (and rarely is for schools). Re-directs are cheap and if material can be found (offline perhaps?) to meet WP:N, the article can be recreated very easily. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or merge and redirect per Camaron. The school is not notable, but basic information in line with policy may be added to another article. However I have trouble seeing what exactly, as most of the information is primary-sourced. Orderinchaos 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Per Camaron. Twenty Years 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the argument is that such a high percentage is notable that is is better to keep a few non-notable schools in than to discuss them one by one, and probably make at least the same proportion of errors in both directions after much ado about them. It's interesting looking at the variability here--this argument has been accepted in every high school nomination for the last 6 or 7 weeks. Yes consensus can change, but it should be more stable than month by month reversals, unless the reason we are here is re-argue the same things at AfD to watch the fluctuations. 01:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not so. There has been little if any rejection to the portions of proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL that relate to high schools, in its latest incarnation, which has been cited in AFD's for the past couple of months with no real controversy. The main contention with WP:SCHOOL passing community consensus as a guideline has been to the bits about grammar schools and other primary schools. WP:SCHOOL is de-facto in effect, even if not de jure, as can be easily verified by reviewing WP:OUTCOMES or looking over the AfD closures in delsort category schools-related discussions. And anybody can cite any policy, guideline, essay, or even their own radical new ideas as their justification for their !vote, so all this debate about the status of WP:SCHOOL is a bit (pardon the pun) academic. JERRY talk contribs 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one said it couldn't be cited, just that the original comment "Also, doesn't WP:SCHOOLS state that most high schools will be notable and so AfD is generally a bad call?" is using a guideline that has not got demonstrated community consensus. WP:OUTCOMES clearly states "the fact that a precedent exists should not be interpreted as prima facie evidence that a particular topic is entitled to an article" and with schools that most are not kept but closed as no consensus which is an entirely different thing. Wikipedia:Notability (schools) will not get consensus while it includes this clause - "High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available." which attempts to squeeze in the concept of "inherent notability" in the back door. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure by nominator).  Tivedshambo (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant House

edit
The Elephant House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a single work of art with little claim for notability, and an external link to the artist's website. Possibly self-promotion.  Tivedshambo (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - some citations have now been added which indicate a sufficient level of notability. The article is still orphaned, and I will tag it as such. Tivedshambo (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:52, February 1, 2008

2947 12 (Vancouver) Service Battalion Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps

edit
2947 12 (Vancouver) Service Battalion Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sub-unit of a national organization. See WP:ORG for appropriate guideline. No third-party sources give this subject significant coverage to establish its notability. Previous similar AfDs are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/52 City of Calgary Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RCSCC Victory (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/189 PORT AUGUSTA, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RCSCC Captain Vancouver. Sancho 07:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article does not state that the unit has had any significant achievements - the only achievement listed is that it was "named one of the best Army Cadet Corps in Pacific Region in 1983", which doesn't sound terribly important in the scheme of things. All the other achievements appear to have been earned by individual members of the unit, and none of them look all that ɶimportant either (and even if one of them was to earn the highest possible award notability would not be inherited from that individual. Wikipedia is not a Cadet website, so you will need to modify the article so that it meets the policy Wikipedia:Notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMMEDIATE DELETION the commanding officer of this unit has requested that this artile be removed from wikipedia ASAP. Please, we request that this page be deleted as soon as possible.
    • Comment. The Wikipedia community does not generally follow these types of requests for deletion from the subjects of articles (if an article was created about me, I couldn't just ask for it to be deleted). However, I'm pretty sure that this subject doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so I think it will be deleted when this discussion is closed by another administrator in a few days anyway. Sancho 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. For more information, see AfD talk page. JERRY talk contribs 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerec

edit
Jerec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable antagonist who appears in a single game. No assertion of real-world significance and no substantiating secondary sources. Had redirected to that game's article, but User:Dark Kyle objects; bringing here for broader consensus --EEMIV (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just flush this plot summary, pretty please. The page can be recreated later, as a proper article with appropriate secondary sources (which are needed to verify the necessary real-world content that is currently non-existent). User:Dorftrottel 11:35, January 29, 2008
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT since it has no real-world context or analysis and notability is not established per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use the external links as inline citations. Character from one of the most notable fictional universes in human history with real-world interest. As the Five Pillars note that Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, we can keep but work to improve such information. The article is also organized well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those external links are both in-universe. The character does not inherit notability from being part of Star Wars. Where is the evidence of real-world (e.g. out-of-universe) interest in this character? --EEMIV (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a search on a real world search engine and there seems to be interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you look at the actual results? Wikipedia is the first one. The in-universe fan wiki Wookieepedia is next. The sw.com in-universe entry is also in the first 10. The one video game review makes passing reference. Insufficient. --EEMIV (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • They're a start at least. Take this article. Here it is as created a year ago. Notice no sources of any kind. Here it is earlier today (yes, unchanged from July). So, I did a quick search and now look at the article: Local Medical Committee. I found citations for the history and various websites. Of course some of those histories on article for local medical committees. Would you claim them to be primary sources than or in-universe and unreliable? All those links showing the existence of lmcs in the external links section are official websites, but do they not show that if these exist in numerous communities they are obviously notable. No remember, here we have a real-world institution that has been around for decades in multiple communities and its article had zero sources from 2006 until tonight. What if someone claimed "hoax" or "non-notable, article has no sources" and the article was deleted? We need to do what I just did with that article and sift through the results and work with what we can and continue encouraging our readers to help adding sources rather than just outright deleting the articles. I am usually not opposed to merge and redirect's without deleting so that when/if sources are found than the old version of the article is readily available to be sourced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. What some other article does or doesn't have doesn't matter. Editors haven't provided reliable sources for this article in over 2.5 years; the article does not meet Wikipedia's policies for verifiability, nor the guidelines for writing about fiction. It should be deleted. If you also think [[Local Medical Committee] fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements, then nominate that for deletion, too. --EEMIV (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You've missed the point. Local Medical Committees, like Jerec, concerns a notable topic, but it had no references and now does and now has had its notability asserted all in the course of just an hour or so of my efforts in a single night. I am merely encouraging you to help us improve these articles like I did with the LMC article as well rather than to outright want it eradicated. I think Local Medical Committee meets our standards and have found academic sources to prove this, but had I not done so, one could use the same arguments I see in many of these Star Wars discussions about no sources to be found when a little work did find some sources. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, good work -- but Jerec, not the medical article, is up for deletion and still lacks sources. I consider myself enough of a Star Wars fan to be confident that this topic doesn't meet the notability and verifiability requirements, hence the AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks, and anyway, I still think you can use the various reviews to serve as secondary sources: [19], [20], [21], etc. This article suggests that a variety of sources exist. Anyway, as I've said before, I am generally not opposed to merges and redirects without deleting so that an old version of the article remains should even better sources be found and the article can than easily be improved accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep! The Wikipedia needs more articles and I don't see the reason why this article should be deleted. It exists for years. And also other Star Wars characters are created and accepted on Wikipedia. D@rk talk 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say we keep. RC-0722 communicator/kills 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no primary sources to verfify the content, no secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The article is comprised of plot summary with an in universe persective, which means it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. This is perfect example of fancruft that is better suited to the Annex.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:52, February 1, 2008

Brit Pack

edit
Brit Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism that has been used in a couple of articles but there are no articles about the term. Prod removed by author without comment. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep no point in prolonging this one; if it isn't already snowing, the clouds are on the horizon. BLACKKITE 19:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Harris

edit
Cyril Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Non notable. No links. Delete Undeath (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I always support and frequently contribute to improving an article, an AfD should be a last resort after the nominator has exhausted all avenues to research and improve an article on a notable topic so that it can be kept. The "I don't see references or links so it's non-notable" is the very definition of WP:OSTRICH. --Oakshade (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Harris

edit
Brad Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable stuntman plus other various roles within the movie-making industry. No major awards. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. CSD declined but no reason given although there is no assertion of notability. WebHamster 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as I am puzzled by one person considering deletion of an actor with a lengthy film resume who was a major star of 1960's European cinema that was also well known on American drive-in/exploitation cinema and movies released to American television. The article seems to be of the right length (e.e much, much shorter than Wikiepdia's entry on 'The Dukes of Hazzard') to explain his identity and some of his films.Foofbun (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:N and WP:BIO see what the criteria is for inclusion of a living person into Wikipedia. You will find that a "lengthy resume" of less than stellar roles/functions is not a particularly persuasive argument. Throw in a few Oscars, Emmys, Razzberries etc and you may be in with a chance. Likewise a collection of "non-trivial and substantial" articles in 3rd party publications that are deemed by WP to be reliable sources would be another way of achieving it. Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia, it isn't a user written replacement for IMDb or Variety classifieds. --WebHamster 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks WebHamster; to quote your guidelines 'Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:'

1)With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.

2)Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3)Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

With the first and third I believe Mr Harris fits these things (and as a result would have number two) due to his surviving and being prolific in a variety of European genres, for example one of the few to do leading roles in sword and sandal, then Eurospy, then spaghetti westerns and Eurohorror whilst many actors only succeed or are reknown in one.

Wikipedia often correctly points out many articles have only an American basis, yet the European cinema of the 60's had worldwide popularity. He also had a recurring role in an American soap that Wikipedia has quite a lengthy piece on, so therefore I cannot see how you personally feel that he doesn't comply with the given criteria.

With regards to the point about having significant works (which I presume means "books") about him as a person, the 'cult' following would usually recognise him and write things on their own web sites available on the internet that I would not choose to quote for the article. We have to admit that many things like Wikipedia and other online sources of information can not be taken less seriously merely because you cannot hold a bound copy in your hand.

I am also amazed at the rapid response to the article as I must have wrote it only hours before you posted your remarks. Thank you.Foofbun (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All you now have to do is demonstrate that is the case with verifiable and reliable sources and then demonstrate it to those involved in this AfD. Please don't think of this as being a personal issue. I don't have a strong feeling either way. If you can demonstrate that Mr Harris meets the criteria then I will be delighted and WP will have one more article. If you can't then there won't be an article and people can get their info from IMDb either way is okay by me. Having said that though currently the article doesn't demonstrate any of the needed criteria. Please also remember this is about him in particular, not about the films he's been in. The references must relate directly and specifically to him, not just a few lines in an article about something else he was involved in. As for the speed, well that comes under the heading of new page patrolling. --WebHamster 07:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you WebHamster, and I agree, nothing personal here, I appreciate your thoughts and courtesy. I guess we'll have to disagree on our views on him meeting those three criteria, I'm rather worried that many 60's films and genres are heading towards oblivion. Here in Oz we see all sorts of documentaries on the 50's that seem to imply that it only concerned James Dean, Monty Clift, and Marilyn Monroe! I've a friend trying to get a book on director Michael Curtiz published with major publishers telling him that Mr Curtiz is too obscure! I think your Wikipedia gives a suitable amount of information at a glance with a chance to go to External links or the book references for more detail for the interested party. Thanks againFoofbun (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:51, February 1, 2008

Rachel loren

edit
Rachel loren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Was deleted once. Corvus cornixtalk 07:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - PeaceNT (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hasay

edit
Jordan Hasay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high school runner. Corvus cornixtalk 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Maybe a COI too based on the name of the articles creater. The whole article reads like a resume since it's noting more than a list of her perosnal accomplishments. TJ Spyke 07:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough to meet our standards as an athlete need to have competed in a major international competition. Punkmorten (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - assuming those times are accurate she would be one of the top high school runners in the country. Plus the sports illustrated article (linked at the bottom) is rather significant coverage. --T-rex 15:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The times are correct and national class. She was a national high school champion as a freshman and a three-time national under-20 (Junior) champion as a freshman and sophomore. As a sophomore she was second in the world in the under-20 World Junior Championships (a very major international competition as mentioned in Punkmorten's entry above).She qualified for the same meet the year prior by winning the US Junior Championships but was denied entry because international rules specifiy a 'too-young' age of 15. At 17 she is still an active and improving athlete with the prospects of many more national championships and international competitions/championships in the future. --Fizbin (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The notice of potential deletion was removed from the Hasay article over two days ago, so many interested parties may have no idea this discussion is taking place--Fizbin (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. @pple complain 16:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2-Phenyl-hexane

edit
2-Phenyl-hexane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy, contested prod. Is there anything noteworthy about this molecule? Jfire (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked that question over at Wikiproject Chemistry. Hopefully they weigh in with answers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't blank, it has the chemical structure and molar mass. There's no information about its use however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "other than the infobox". The infobox is the only content of the article. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem here is that the molecule have different names, 2-Phenyl-hexane (aka (1-Methyl-pentyl)-benzene). While researching for the term in Google, it seems that the molecule has more use as a Side chain rather than a standalone molecule. I won't vote for deletion since I won't speedy something just because I don't know what the hell it is.--Lenticel (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepbeing well known enough to be used as an example in a textbook seems a rather clear evidence of notability . DGG (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in nomenclature terms, this is the baisc unit for naming several important detergents and plastifiers. The hydrocarbon itself is not particularly interesting, but this is an article which people might look for and create so it is probably best to do it properly. Physchim62 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles on all low MW organic compounds seem perfectly encyclopedic to me. The current skeleton allows for future expansion should an expert happen by. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SciFinder Scholar shows that there are 87 published articles that deal with this molecule. I couldn't find any "uses" after a quick look (I certainly didn't look at every reference, many of which are in inaccessible journals), but this compound seems clearly notable as a test case in the development of catalysts for the alkylation of aromatic compounds using alkenes, and it was also part of early studies of the rearrangements involved in the Friedel-Crafts alkylation using haloalkanes. --Itub (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Maxim(talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coniston Flames

edit
Coniston Flames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A page about a small minor hockey organization does not meet notability standards. – Canada Nurmsook! (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy kept. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television Without Pity

edit
Television Without Pity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is nothing more than an advertisement for their message board. MMead7 (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep WP:BLP concern can be addressed by editing the article. Article on notable subject can not be deleted unless by office action. JERRY talk contribs 06:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lloyd (porn star)

edit
Thomas Lloyd (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Having consulted with Thomas Lloyd about this article over the last couple months, I am requesting on his behalf that it be deleted. He tells me that half of what is written on the page is true and half is not. In particular there is an insulting slur included that apparently is hearsay spread by someone who wishes to do Thomas' reputation harm. This can be considered 'unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons'. Thomas was unaware of the entry before I brought it to his attention. I've known him over the net for several years as a friend. I offered to write him a proper biography here with actual facts, verified and approved by him. He thought about it for a few weeks. We discussed it today. He saw no point in repairing the misinformation. So I offered to have the entire entry taken down. He enthusiastically approved my proposal. Essentially, he has no interest in public attention these days. He still has his old website up from 2000, which contains as much information as he currently wishes to share. His entry at IMDB.com also remains and I am attempting to provide it with some level of completeness. Please contact me directly about the situation if you like. As for Thomas getting involved, I am can ask him to provide verification of his wishes. Otherwise he is not interested in discussing the matter. :-Derek Derekcurrie (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Forgotten Football Teams

edit

The result was Speedy delete - category G1: patent nonsense. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Football Teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This information is contained in other well-established articles. Fbdave (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dove

edit
Daniel Dove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was originally listed for CSD. I think that there is enough information here that I was not comfortable arbitrarily deleting it. There are plenty of resources for this guy and I found a sufficient number of Ghits, however I haven't found any information on him that asserts notability. Trusilver 04:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Mademoiselle

edit
Coco Mademoiselle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sources can't be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS Russavia (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are all high-profile products by major brand names, each of which have not insignificant seperate claims to fame. It should not be hard to form good articles about each, should someone actually take the time to do non-Google research (newspaper archives should be a good start). The nominator, however, does not appear to have done any of these, and has just whacked a bunch of perfume articles on AfD. Rebecca (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as this, this, this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little verifiable, non-advertising, non point of view information from reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that notability is inherited, I say notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted. --Russavia (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High profile consumer products are likely to get independent coverage. The products are subjects of legitimate curiosity: what's in them, what do they smell like. I do know there are various families of perfumes, like chypre and florals, under which these could be categorized. The fact that nobody has yet bothered to find any doesn't mean that it can't be done, and there is no deadline. There ought to be some kind of collectors or hobbyists who have written about these perfumes somewhere; the fact that I don't know where to look doesn't mean that no one knows. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to acronym laden nomination, I am unable to appreciate the reason why it should be removed (see also: avoid cryptic language) Tarinth (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heiress (fragrance)

edit
Heiress (fragrance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources can be found which would afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V and WP:N Russavia (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are all high-profile products by major brand names, each of which have not insignificant seperate claims to fame. It should not be hard to form good articles about each, should someone actually take the time to do non-Google research (newspaper archives should be a good start). The nominator, however, does not appear to have done any of these, and has just whacked a bunch of perfume articles on AfD. Rebecca (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as this, this, this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little verifiable, non-advertising, non point of view information from reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that notability is inherited, I say notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted. --Russavia (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High profile consumer products are likely to get independent coverage. The products are subjects of legitimate curiosity: what's in them, what do they smell like. I do know there are various families of perfumes, like chypre and florals, under which these could be categorized. The fact that nobody has yet bothered to find any doesn't mean that it can't be done, and there is no deadline. There ought to be some kind of collectors or hobbyists who have written about these perfumes somewhere; the fact that I don't know where to look doesn't mean that no one knows. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can Can (fragrance)

edit
Can Can (fragrance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources can be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V and WP:N. Russavia (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are all high-profile products by major brand names, each of which have not insignificant seperate claims to fame. It should not be hard to form good articles about each, should someone actually take the time to do non-Google research (newspaper archives should be a good start). The nominator, however, does not appear to have done any of these, and has just whacked a bunch of perfume articles on AfD. Rebecca (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as this, this, this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little verifiable, non-advertising, non point of view information from reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that notability is inherited, I say notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted. --Russavia (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's an article in PR week about the marketing of this perfume [25]. I have no idea how reliable they are, or if the short article is enough, but I'm inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt; this perfume will have been extensively covered in printed women's magazines.--Nydas(Talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High profile consumer products are likely to get independent coverage. The products are subjects of legitimate curiosity: what's in them, what do they smell like. I do know there are various families of perfumes, like chypre and florals, under which these could be categorized. The fact that nobody has yet bothered to find any doesn't mean that it can't be done, and there is no deadline. There ought to be some kind of collectors or hobbyists who have written about these perfumes somewhere; the fact that I don't know where to look doesn't mean that no one knows. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to acronym laden nomination, I am unable to appreciate the reason why it should be removed (see also: avoid cryptic language) Tarinth (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Bowman

edit
George Bowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Zen master/psychotherapist. I don't know if the references mention him or not, but there's nothing in the article to indicate that he's anything other than a run of th emill psychotherapist. Corvus cornixtalk 04:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Dharma heir of Seung Sahn Soen Sa Nim, this is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the Kwan Um School of Zen. Seung Sahn Soen Sa Nim made many students Dharma teachers, but he did not give full Dharma transmission to many; Bowman is one of the few to have received transmission. His Dharma name is Zen Master Bo Mun, which was given to him when he was made a Zen master by Seung Sahn. He is not just a "run-of-the-mill" psychotherapist, as you say. If you don't know something, you shouldn't say it. Referenced material. There is nothing to delete, notability has been established. (Mind meal (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Corvus cornixtalk 04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Notability is established by citations. Notability does not mean "above average", it means that the individual has been covered in published works. (Mind meal (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
User:Corvus cornix, with all due respect, I do not know that you understand how notability is established on Wikipedia. Notability means that the subject has been noted by reliable sources—sources that have considered them worthy of note, otherwise they would never write about them. You have mistakenly equated notability with fame. I understand that you could care less about Zen Buddhism and Dharma transmission, and who the teachers are in the field that are considered an authority. The idea that it is nonsense is to be expected from someone ignorant of the subject, but this ignorance does not excuse nominating an article for deletion when it has numerous sources on the subject matter. Wikipedia is one of the top sites on the web because of its diverse content, not the content Corvus cornix finds to be relevant and notable. Let the authors and publishers of specific fields define relevance and notability—the task is obviously too large for yourself. (Mind meal (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • I wasn't incivil, merely pointing out that the deletion policy requires that if there are no sources listed, that you make an attempt to find sources to add before you list for deletion. In this case, by your own nom statement you didn't even bother to take a look at the references provided to determine whether they prove notability. Please see WP:JNN, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:IDONTKNOWIT. -- RoninBK T C 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG ...secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability... - Operknockity (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

What does Google have to do with this? We have University of California Press, Council Oak Books and Wisdom Publications as our sources. Please explain yourself further concerning the "Google search" logic, as you are ignoring the citations that are in the article itself. Do you think only web-based sources should be allowed on Wikipedia? Your reasoning is not based on any policy I've ever seen. Google search is not relevant. Non substantive argument. If you have not even read the primary source materials, how the heck can you call them unreliable?! Preposterous. (Mind meal (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result wasdeleted Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz

edit
National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV article created by User:Arab League to push fringe movement (maybe even non-existent) that has only a website. The user has a history of creating these nonsense articles and is not improving wiki. Khorshid (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Keep. Their are Referenced cites, and citations to the article, the Organization does exist, and we cant deny that.

--Arab League User (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Delete Just search the "National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz" ;here,It will show 16 results overall , and 12 results with omission of some similar entries !! That many of them(12) are mirror sites of Wikipedia ,and the remaining few sites are blogs that perhaps are written by the creator of this wiki-page ... I test my own name in Google ,and the results were ten times more than this unknown imaginary organization ....--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place to promote non-notable fringe political advocacy groups, please see soapbox.--07fan (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced by a considerable number of google news outlets [26]. Also, with all due respect and without minimally putting in doubt their good faith, I'm afraid that our Iranian fellow editors may be a bit too emotionally involved in an issue that touches them so closely to be all reach a full detachment from the issue.--Aldux (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Did you check the links on google? There is only 16 hits, most from Arab sites, none are mainstream media outlets. Just a few mentions in the activest-type websites, does not make a a tiny fringe organization with no constituency, notable enough to warrant an article.--07fan (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The depth of coverage for the subject needs to be considered. These are the independent secondary sources I found: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Source #1 includes an analyst's opinion and comment about the National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz. Source #2 includes a quote from ANLM's chairman, Tahir Aal Sayyed Nima. Source #3 is a short article about the return of Ahwaz TV. Source #4 briefly discusses a statement made by ANLM. In my opinion, I don't think that the coverage of the ANLM by these sources meets WP:CORP. The notability guidelines state that "[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I think this is the case for the National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. English language GHits don't really do it for me, either for or against, especially on subjects that exist outside the English speaking world. I'd like to know what coverage they've received in Farsi and Arabic language sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't looking for GHits. I was looking through Google News for English-language news about the group. Of course, I do realize that other language sources won't appear in the search. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This article is as of yet unsourced and it seems quite unnotable too. However, as someone who is politically interested, if the bold claims about this organisation being made ("It has an Anti-Syria and Hezbollah Policy due to their Support and cooperation with Iran") can be cited from reliable sources and media outlets, then I think it should be kept because I think Wikipedia should document these kind of movements. But as of right now, the article seems more like a promotion of its flag (Flag of Al-Ahwaz) than actual coverage of the organisation, since well, the article has more image content than text. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Organization does exist, they have a website and they were involved in some activities. therefore it is notable enough to have an article. Even though it needs to be sourced and made NPOV.--Aziz1005 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Organizations are supposed to be involved in activities, and in this day and age, many have their own website. Your criteria for notability seem to be quite low in comparison to Wikipedia' standards. I suggest you try to justify notability by checking if the organization meets WP:CORP. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references provided, no independent verification of notability.--Larno Man (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly written article about a group which is not notable and relies on Wiki for spreading propaganda.Nokhodi (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. propaganda for a political group. not notable.Farmanesh (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete while there are undeniable separatist movements in the Iranian province of Khuzistan aiming to ethnically cleanse the province from its Persian, Luri, Bakhtiari and Qashqai Turkic residence and to deliver it as a Arab homeland to the Arabs, these articles are partisan. They fail to describe the external ties of the separatists, and the extent of support under population. In addition they do not show that all these oragnizations are different names of the same and they only refer to their own pan-Arabist propaganda websites as "sources". Waht is more disturbing is that they call the province Khuzistan as Al-Ahwaz, while Ahvaz is only the name of its capital and the region has never been called as such by any one else than the pan-Arabists.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is some original piece of research.--Zereshk (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to promote political advocacy groups. Farhoudk (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hardly notable, the groups importance is reflected in how there's very little written about them anywhere and even in this article! Alireza Hashemi (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete CSD#A7 non-notable term somebody made up recently. JERRY talk contribs 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teledeism

edit
Teledeism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject is a non-notable neologism. A google search yields zero hits.[27] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:49, February 1, 2008

Modern Art Records

edit
Modern Art Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was originally listed as CSD, but I googled it and determined that there is just enough ambiguity to it that I wasn't comfortable deleting it without an AfD. The label certainly exists, but it seems to be comprised of completely non-notable MySpace bands and the available sources are shaky at best. Trusilver 04:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that afds are based on what exists now not what may exist in the future. In the unlikely event that the label establishes notability the article can be reacreated based on the secondary sources. --neonwhite user page talk 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.   jj137 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Studio

edit
Organic Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Software with no claims of notability. There doesn't seem to be a speedy criterion for software, so I listed it here. Corvus cornixtalk 04:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:48, February 1, 2008

Altair (Assasin's Creed)

edit
Altair (Assasin's Creed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article on this character was already reviewed and deleted previously, this version faces the same issues of lacking notability (and being aware of the game, I have not seen any information to support notability) MASEM 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I have done what I can with the article. At the least, it now distinctions between fact and fiction. The finding of reliable references has been difficult; while there seems to be a lot of coverage, reliable ones are proving to be more rare. I have done what I can, but appreciate any help anyone else can offer. Also, I have never played this game, so my actual knowledge of it is limited. I did my best to maintain the original author's message, though. SorryGuy  Talk  03:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete - references include nothing resembling significant, reliable, independent coverage. The videogamer.com article is close, but still essentially a press release. This is nothing that can't be included in the Assassin's Creed article. Marasmusine (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Altair is now a part of two games. Merging into Assassin's Creed is problematic because you then change the article to refer to the series of games rather than the specific game on the XBOX360 and PS3. As such, I would suggest either making an article on the series and merging information on Altair or keeping this article. --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no reason why the DS game (the second game) cannot provide a see also link to the Assassin's Creed page where the character info is located; there's no need for a separate character article with this little secondary information provided. --MASEM 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this information isn't important enough to be included in any of the relevant game articles (its not like he's been around for many game/media iterations like Mario or even Master Chief), than I don't see the need for an entirely new article for it. I would have no opposition to merging this information if people feel that its relevant for the game(s) articles. Wickethewok (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Easily covered in the game articles, no need for a separate article. Pagrashtak 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a character sub-article. Well, there just above we have two incompatible opposite reasons for deletion. Not knowing the game at all, I'd suggest what I usually do, a list of characters with a paragraph or two about each of the major characters, and a sentence or two about the minor ones. Then we can stop these endless AFds, and just write the best content, wherever it is that we put it. DGG (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is is that while there are other characters in the game, the amount of detail for these characters are practically nil as to make a list rather difficult to create. This is a case where there's no need to make a summary style list of characters because they can be adequetly covered in the main article (as particularly it's nowhere near SIZE issues. --MASEM 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Nothing I could add that hasn't already been said. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and redirect without deleting. Notable character in a notable game for which video game magazines can be used as reliable second party sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:48, February 1, 2008

Fred Smith (football)

edit
Fred Smith (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high school football player. Every Division I-bound player attends camps, gets offers from schools, etc. There's nothing special here. Plenty of players that were the best thing since sliced bread in high school wind up doing nothing in college and nobody ever hears from them again - we normally don't create these articles until the person is in some way notable (NFL-bound, all-something in college, earns a major award, etc) B (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republicans

edit
List of Republicans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I though about this for a while and tried to find a template message that fit this situation, but I couldn't figure out any way to solve the problem: this list is unmanageable. It consists of a hodgepodge of internal power-brokers, representatives, senators, governors and ex-cabinet members. Since about 50% of all politicians in the US are Republicans, and the party has 55 million members, the inclusion of people on the list as "prominent" violates WP:Synthesis. I'm sure that the topic is already covered by categories, and is better covered by categories in any case. Midwest Peace (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogged.com

edit
Blogged.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was speedy tagged and contested. Original author and tagger have written comment on talk page. Tag read an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, online game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Procedural submission. --VS talk 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't find any notability and the article reads like advertising. some of the info is obviously untrue. --neonwhite user page talk 05:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless improved significantly. I don't see any sign of bad faith here but I can't see notability either. The article has a lot of discussion of social networking and blogging in general (which might be an original research problem as it is unreferenced) but very little about blogged.com itself so notability is not really asserted. As I see it, the site is a search engine and directory for blogs. If so, there seems to be nothing obvious to distinguish it from other sites of that type. I did try Googling "blogged.com" and got a lot of irrelevant hits due to the name being a substring of some other website names and due to its member blogs linking back to it. I didn't find any reputable sources covering it. I guess there might have been something buried further down the list but I didn't find it. At best that can be considered inconclusive. (Note: I am the person who originally tagged it for speedy deletion) --DanielRigal (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, at least - numerous sources were added after the "delete" opinions were given. Sandstein (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arifs (gang)

edit
Arifs (gang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No clear reason why this gang is notable. There are claims of serious crimes, but this would be expected for any criminal gang. Any claims lack verifiability due to a lack of sources. The single source only briefly mentions the gang. Mark is ace (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The passing mention in a single article does not meet the requirement of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only one trivial reference creates a WP:BLP issue here, since most of the stuff in that article is controversial and unverifiable. - Zeibura ( talk ) 11:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • StayThe Arifs have grown in power during 1998, it would be silly to delete this entry. Many of the facts there can't be verified due to the lack of evidence online but may be true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifs1 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I don't think there can be any question as to the notability of the Arif bros.--there's an overwhelming amount of coverage in UK papers. I added a few quotes and cites, but the article could use expansion.Wageless (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, providing the offline references can be vetted to confirm that they actually support the assertions in the article. I'm curious as to why someone would have built such a list (did it come from a magazine article or academic paper?) and would like to see as many as possible converted to online references, which should be possible at least for those post-1998 or so. --MCB (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowen Staines

edit
Bowen Staines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Speedy tagged and contested (speedy tag was removed). Up for consideration by wider wikipedia community. --VS talk 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Improved since nomination. Mr.Z-man 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Entertainment

edit
Synthetic Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy tagged for blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. Contested and now submitted along with two other links for consideration by the wider wikipedia community. --VS talk 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for consideration as to keep, merge or delete the following articles which appear to fork out of this one (or vice versa):


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 in the sense of "not delete". There is no immediately apparent consensus as to whether or not the article should be merged to one of a number of proposed other articles, but that is a matter for editors to work out. Sandstein (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenicum album

edit
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Arsenicum album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV Fork Content fork that is inadvertantly (WP:AGF) Homeopathic POV of Arsenic trioxide TableMannersC·U·T 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Quoting from that guideline: Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. —Whig (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously enough sources, and obviously should not be part of the trioxide main article because too much material. An article on its use in homeopathy is not POV, just nearly an entirly different subject from its use in chemistry and industry. This article also needs to be NPOV, and describing its use in homeopathy in an NPOV way is not a POV fork. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge and redirect. The content could easily be included in Arsenic trioxide#uses or Arsenic trioxide#Medical applications. The trioxide article is not that long. Including the homeopathic preperation in trioxide article will help ensure that the content remains WP:NPOV. Avoiding content disputes by having these forks is not the way to go. Whether or not the creation of the homeopathic article in August of 2007 is intentional "consensus-dodging" does not matter. While the article originally stated "Arsenicum album (also known as arsenic trioxide) is a frequently-used homeopathic substance,"[29] and it has since been corrected that Arsenicum album is a very dilute solution of Arsenic trioxide, the preperation of Arsenicum album belongs in a section of the Arsenic trioxide article. TableMannersC·U·T 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Arsenicum album is not a dilute solution of Arsenic trioxide, in potencies above 12C there is not a single molecule of Arsenic trioxide in the remedy. —Whig (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Homeopathy is crap, but unfortunately it is notable. The article should exist and be NPOV so people know what they are getting when they take the stuff and they know what the scientific opinion is. --Bduke (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You keep repeating yourself. Arsenicum album is not water, it is a homeopathic remedy. The ingredients used to prepare Arsenicum album include arsenic trioxide and water. Also lactose, and sugar... —Whig (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is as indistinguishable from water as distilled and UV energized agate juice (water once in contact with agates but distilled and exposed to UV radiation). See and
Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not really understanding the agate thing, that sounds like original research and this doesn't seem appropriate to debate in an AfD. —Whig (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Arsenic trioxide. This article is 90% complete bollocks and the rest is trivial. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to a list of homeopathic remedies. I just added a source plainly establishing notability as a homeo remedy (says it's one of the 15 most important ones). See diff (two edits) here. Per Hesperian above, this redirect to water business is POINT-y. No problem with list of remedies, instead. But let's back off a bit on AfDing homeopathy articles, please, and instead ref-tag them and give them time to grow: Per WP:WEIGHT, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". --Jim Butler(talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tilt? - Are you replying to me? The source I added (see diff above) did note denote temporary interest. It's a text for laypeople saying that in classical homeopathy, Arsenicum-whatever-it's-called is important in homeopathy according to a V RS on the subject. WP:N established, full stop, time to move on. To put it over the top, WP has endless articles on games, trivia, etc.; WP:NOTPAPER applies. --Jim Butler(talk) 07:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I assumed you were refering to citations to the Khuda-Buksh et. al. study that had recently been added. Looking at your dif, your citation would appear to be neither particularly WP:RS nor independent of the subject, so adds nothing to notability. HrafnTalkStalk 08:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problemo, re citation. However, I don't get how a book for the public (DK publishing) by two MD homeopaths isn't an RS for our purposes. Don't homeopaths get to say what's important to a homeopath? And independent of the subject: it's a medicine, not a person...?? --Jim Butler(talk) 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, homeopaths get to say what's important to a homeopath -- but what's important to a homeopath isn't necessarilly important (i.e. notable) to wikipedia, hence the need for independent sources. It's part of a class of 'medicines' that the authors are promoting so, no, they aren't "independent". HrafnTalkStalk 12:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Hrafn. I'm still not sure I agree with your take on "independent" here. The relationship between a modern doctor and a traditional medicine is not the same as that between, say, a song and the person who wrote it. It seems to me more like a case of a rock critic talking about a song, or a theologist talking about a longstanding tenet of her religion, and we use such sources all the time. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you have incorrectly delineated the relationship. The relationship between a homeopath and the efficacy of homeopathic remedies is a matter of faith, not evidence, putting them in the same class as a theologian's relationship with tenets of their religion. That faith eliminates independence. HrafnTalkStalk 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for being patient here. I follow your argument, but am still not sure I agree. Sounds like you're raising the bar for independence a bit high with an overbroad "faith", especially in the case of daughter articles on very notable topics. As counterexamples that aren't too IAR-ish, I suspect I could find a number of articles that are series on obscure tenets of some religion or other. Instead I will just try and find a better source here. :-) If not, we can let it go to a list, not a big deal either way. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong acceptance (a classification that would include advocacy), lacking evidence = faith' is hardly an "overbroad" definition. Just because a parent topic is notable does not make every daughter topic of it necessarily notable (and if they are not, then either room should be found for them in the parent article, or the topic should be dropped altogether -- WP:NOT#INFO). I suspect you could find a number of articles that violate pretty much any wikipedia policy, so finding such articles would not be legitimate "counterexamples". HrafnTalkStalk 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're citing the wrong guideline -- "independence" isn't mentioned in WP:SOURCES but in WP:NOTE: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", where I would think "faith"/"strong acceptance lacking evidence" would normally be seen as a fairly unambiguous sign of "affiliation". HrafnTalkStalk 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, your interpretation goes against the spirit of the guideline. The idea of needing "independent" sources is, for example, to avoid having someone non-notable quoting his self-published autobiography or press release as proof of notability. It does not mean that any one of millions of people who subscribes to a certain belief can't be used as a source regarding that belief. If you take your approach to its logical conclusion, you couldn't use any source coming from a doctor to show the notability of a medical topic, or from a physicist on a physics topic, from the government on a government topic, or from a church on a religious topic. What would that leave us? We could only use journalists as sources? (Except in articles about journalism, of course.) In reply to all the "merge with water or with arsenic oxide" comments, the notability of a homeopathic remedy has nothing to do with whether it works or whether it is made out of water. The notability comes from the attention that people give to it. We wouldn't merge this with water for the same reason that we wouldn't merge holy water with water. And there is a lot of attention given to this remedy; there is a wide literature discussing it, whether scientifically or not. Google books gives 812 hits for "arsenicum album".[30] --Itub (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. My interpretation does not "mean that any one of millions of people who subscribes to a certain belief can't be used as a source regarding that belief" -- only that such sources cannot establish notability. ANY belief, no matter how obscure or non-notable, is likely to have books written about it by its true believers. It is only when that belief becomes sufficiently prominent to be written about by people outside that circle of true believers that it becomes in any way notable. HrafnTalkStalk 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking specifically about establishing notability too, as I said in the next sentence. You are basically treating a group of thousands or even millions of people as if they were just one for purposes of "subject independence", which makes no sense in my opinion. Like I said, look at any advanced mathematics or physics topic and you'll find that all one can find regarding notability comes from the mathematicians and physicists themselves. You won't find many newspaper articles about spin tensors, and yet they are a notable topic in mathematical physics that you can find in many textbooks. Same with any homeopathic remedy: you can find it in the homeopathic textbooks. Whether it is science or witchcraft is completely irrelevant to the question of notability. --Itub (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Hrafn: No, I didn't cite the wrong guideline. Go back and read WP:NOTE, and see what it links to when it talks about independence. I agree with Itub, who has made the case much more clearly than I did. Since you haven't answered my question on whether any guideline or talk page supports your "belief = lack of independence" criterion, I'll assume it's a novel rule you're proposing we adopt on WP. Which you're free to do, but we're not bound to follow it on an ad-hoc basis here. Suggest you go to WT:N and WT:V and propose it there. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your wikilink for "independence" is a pure easter egg -- Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources does not discuss "independence". I have read WP:NOTE: it states "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. [Footnote:] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations." What part of "but not limited to" did you fail to understand? And are you claiming that your Homeopathy authors don't have "a strong connection to" the subject of homeopathy generally, and homeopathic preparations specifically? WT:V is UTTERLY irrelevant to this point, and a "proposal" on WT:N isn't really necessary as I'm not proposing new policy, merely interpreting existing policy. HrafnTalkStalk 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not limited to" isn't carte blanche. Your interpretation is, per Itub, a novel one and not without serious problems. Sorry if you think WP:NOTE is easter-eggy (quote): A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (unquote) Like I said: if you have issues with WP:N, you should address them there. --Jim Butler(talk) 05:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per User:Jim Butler, and add to List of homeopathic preparations. Major homeopathic preparations would seem to pass notability (is there information available for a history section? that could be interesting) for stand-alone articles, and the minor ones can be adequately treated on a list. None of this precludes noting that mainstream scientific thought considers both the theory and the practice absolute bunkum. If consensus points to delete without a list, the space should be left bare - people searching for arsenicum album are not looking for information on the "catalyst" molecule. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I assume there are Project:Homeopathy people here? I see plenty of interest in creating a list under one name or another, but I do not want to start it using the "wrong" name. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: why would "major homeopathic preparations" "seem to pass notability"? This would seem to be a mere unsubstantiated assertion. HrafnTalkStalk 08:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment We're splitting it from homeopathy because the article is too long. Same as if we do a series on Shintoism, or Indian astrology or something. Anyway, agree with Eldereft, start with list and go from there. --Jim Butler(talk) 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The list is a good idea regardless as many homeopathic remedies may be non-notable for a standalone article even if Arsenicum album is notable enough to have its own article. I do not think "homeopathic preparations" is a term in ordinary use. —Whig (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment to Hrafn - on reading your comments I have decided to dilute my vote. An after school club discussing that my neighbors' kids have the best garage band ever would be both wrong and non-notable. Rolling Stone doing the same thing would just be wrong. Part of the problem with establishing notability of individual remedies is that many of the studies in the non-fringe journals study efficacy of several homeopathic "remedies", either in the same patient or across the study. This is good for establishing the unreliability of homeopathic "medicine" and deflecting criticism of misusing the system, but bad for establishing any particular dilution. This skeptical website indicates that a 1994 diarrhea study has been widely bandied about by promoters. As an inclusionist, I favor a fairly low notability bar; perhaps one criterion could be use in a methodologically sound study reviewed by the Cochrane Collaboration? Arsenicum album, so far as I can discern, would not pass this test.
On the larger issue of how to present homeopathic preparations, I say we should make sure that text is in accord with this meta-meta-analysis that states "there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo," and deal with notability casewise. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is quite simply a major homeopathic remedy; major means used a lot especially in deep chronic work. Homeopathic remedies can be classified as big and small according to their frequency of use and also their range of therapeutic applicability. Arsenicum scores big on both counts. There are probably only about 60 major remedies and these will appear in the list I am working on as requested by User:Filll currently in my sandbox, thank you Peter morrell 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you vote twice by mistake Peter? Anyway, when I voted merge, I did not mean we remove the content, only that it form a section of another article, and its name be redirected to this section of the other article. It would also appear in the list of homeopathic remedies/preparations that we are developing of course. Sixty sounds like a very reasonable number; I am just nervous about the number climbing much higher if we are not careful. By the compromise I proposed at the Thuja article, we would have paragraphs or sections about homeopathic use in each of the 60 or so relevant articles, but no more to prevent this from getting out of hand. It seems like a reasonable compromise to me, but what do I know?--Filll (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Jim was obliquely referring to "piss-prophecy, palmistry and magick,"p.33 in Philosophaster a Latin satirical comedy by Robert Burton, but using the more polite term 'urine.' Peter morrell 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Arsenic trioxide and redirect of course. I think before this becomes any worse, we need to come up with some rules of engagement, considered widely by the entire community interested in these things. Adam Cuerden proposed an Arbcomm ruling, which might not happen at this writing, by all appearances. As an alternative, I suggest that we consider convening a mediation and work on forging a Memorandum of Understanding or comparable document that all can sign on to, and then display as evidence of community consensus on homeopathically related article talk pages. Editors arguing tendentitiously and disruptively against the MoU would then be subject to normal administrative penalties. Hopefully we could come to some agreement and compromise about how to handle this situation so we can all be productive instead of fighting each other.--Filll (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redir to List of homeopathic preparations per Luke (1st choice) or Arsenic trioxide (2nd). There is no need to have a content fork for every preparation used in Homeopathy. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There seems to be some general confusion here about what a content fork is. When the subject matter is the same as another article, it is a content fork. No other article is about the homeopathic remedy Arsenicum album. It would be inappropriate to make more than a brief mention of it at Arsenic trioxide as the raw chemical is triturated and potentized to create the homeopathic remedy which contains little or no arsenic trioxide. —Whig (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though I do not believe in homeopathy, (I have been somewhat surprised at how otherwise reasonable and educated people do believe in it) I also do not see why this content should be removed or minimized. After all, this "Encyclopeida" lists practically every species of Pokemon and every moon in the Firefly Universe. Its not like we are spending tons of money publishing extra pages in a dead tree encyclopedia or that wikipedia is running out of electrons or space. Why not provide fair and neutral articles on homeopathic preparations since there is a pretty large group of people who would want to look such things up? Deleting or minimizing this just seems to me to injure the encyclopedia in terms of being an information source. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs to be revised to explicitly remove the non-evidential medical information and pseudoscience claims. If someone wants to go to the wiki-well to find information on some product they see on the drugstore/chemist shelf, then they should be able to come here so they can learn that all they are pushing are sugar pills. Wiki is global so there are likely a lot of places in the world that are not actively questioning homeopathy as a valid medical practice; they should be able to come here to get the scientific facts about the product. Arsenic kills. Arsenicum album is candy. ThracianSlave (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete.   jj137 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bernard

edit
Jeff Bernard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no such person seems to exist (hockeydb has no record) Mayumashu (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:43, February 1, 2008

Woomail

edit
Woomail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy delete as an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, online game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Contested. This is an appropriate procedural nomination. --VS talk 02:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. east.718 at 08:43, February 1, 2008

Mega Society

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mega Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article twice nominated for deletion as a non-notable organization with an intervening DRV (First AfD, intervening DRV, and second AfD). Present draft is now being considered for deletion per recent DRV‎. Justification for deletion has been notability concerns. Procedural listing, so I am Neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as far as I can see, the sole "improvements" to the article are the addition of an infobox ([31]), and a sort-of relevant source. Other than that, deletion rationales from the first AfD still seem to apply - its a club with a handful of members, only a fraction of which seem to be actually active. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The article was substantially improved after the first AfD and DRV, which is in accordance with policy, was suggested by the closing admin, and actually is the preferred outcome of an AfD. Several primary and secondary source citations were added to the article. The second AfD was closed prematurely with no consensus. References to the mere adding of an info-box are ahistorial since they refer to changes since the second AfD, which because of the premature closure are not relevant. Thus there is no historical case for deleting the current version of the article.
As for the merits of the case, the operative Wikipedia standard is WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Here is the primary criterion from the standard:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

The article cites several secondary sources from reliable international books, magazines, and newspapers over a span of more than twenty years. All of these sources are independent of the subject. Some of these sources are about the subject and others refer to the subject in a way that establishes its notability (e.g., the Guinness listings). The article is rounded out with details from primary sources, the Society's journal and Web site. In all these respects this article clearly meets the primary criterion.
Finally, let us look at the size issue. The nature of the Society limits its size, so this issue must be given special consideration. Here we can be guided by explicit language in the standard:

Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

The drafters of this standard clearly intended that size alone not be used as a reason to exclude an article about an organization.
In summary, the article meets the requirements of the relevant Wikipedia standard and should be kept.
Canon (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nor is Guinness Book of World Records trivial, having strict, formalised entry requirements of its own. The small number of members cannot reasonably be quoted for deletion, because in this type of society, the notability is inversely proportional to the stringency of entrance. It is for similar reasons that any elite society or ___location is notable, including eg. Skull and Bones. Bards (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why does this keep coming up for deletion? Nominator says reason is "notability concerns" but is "neutral" and thus can not make direct argument as to why he thinks it is non-notable. No argument to rebut or discuss. I'll just say then, that I think it's obviously notable.Tstrobaugh (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Mega Society is notable as the highest-cutoff high-IQ society with credible admission standards. Mega is widely known; a Google search returns over 4000 hits. The Mega Society has existed for over 25 years. High prestige is attached to Mega membership by members of the high-IQ-societies community. Many issues of the society's journal, *Noesis*, are available at the Mega Society website. Recent issues have included many high-quality articles. Kevin Langdon (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability of Mega is the rearity of what the group represents. This is a clasic case of less being more. Mega Society is also a link in a progression of high IQ societies that start around Mensa at one in 40, and go up past prometheus society at one in 32,000 and onto mega society at one in 1,000,000. A member of Mega Society wrote CTMU as a ToE and this was deleted from wikipedia. 6 votes to 4. This is staggering. Mega Society needs to be kept and as a product of the internet only wikipedia can contain this dynamic. As Obama said it "Yes we can" keep Mega Society. RoddyYoung (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as presented on the last AfD. As noted above this is recreation of deleted material - the page was salted for a reason and I fail to see why the salting was removed. Also, just like the last AfD none of the keep arguments are even remotely related to our established notability standards. I urge the closer to consider the validity of these arguments in relation to guidelines and keep in mind that G4 applies here. Canon's self-admitted COI and his wikilawyering above makes this a clear cut delete. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:43, February 1, 2008

Summaries for The Black Pearl

edit
Summaries for The Black Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article for chapter by chapter plot summaries of The Black Pearl (Scott O'Dell), which already has its own plot summary. This article is not necessary. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says Wikipedia is not plot summaries, so a purely plot summary article should not be allowed. It is also not very well-written. kollision (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirected since band article does not assert notability. the wub "?!" 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Quarter

edit
No Quarter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. Possible self-promotion (IP originates from St. Petersburg). Band website contains only photo and no content [32]. Allmusic.com entry has one entry but it doesn't appear to be from the same artist [33]. Band doesn't even have a myspace page. HelenWatt (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus (default keep). For more details, see: AfD talk page. JERRY talk contribs 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj Amin Elahi

edit
Hajj Amin Elahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was successfully deleted twice before: [34] so it may be an option to speedy delete per G4, and the closing admin might also want to salt it.No notability has been established: being a musician and composer of musical modes is not by itself notable: Wikipedia:Notability (music). The only references given are a paid obituary notice and a book written about the subject’s father: notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N for these reasons. Teleomatic (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The nominator has not been with WP very long and is misstating policy; the prior deletions were a speedy and for copyright violation, hardly a reason to justify deletion of the current article. This statement is prejudicial.--Octavian history (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Problematic References
After having found that the only reliable reference that this article cited does not support the claims made in the article (see my reply to Kevin Murray below), I thought it prudent to check the additional reference that author of the article added after I brought up this fact. I was not entirely surprised to find out that The Yaresan by M. Reza Hamzeh’ee, makes no mention of Hajj Amin Elahi whatsoever. In a short section on pages 160-161 concerning the importance of music in the meditation and mystical dancing of the Yaresan, there are 2 sentences that mention his father’s musicianship, but no reference to any of his children was found anywhere. I added a note to the article’s talk page noting this, and the appropriate notice to the article page as well.
I’m not sure what stake the editor has in the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, but it's my opinion that the means he or she are using to ensure it (including, as it appears below, using a IPsock to voice an opinion on this page) are entirely inappropriate. Teleomatic (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This man was the greatest Kurdish musician in history. There are many article and books in which he is mentioned as one of the greatest masters of the Tanbur, but most of them are in Kurdish. It is very important to keep this article and would be an academic crime to delete it. All obituaries in the New York Times are paid for. Just because a person dies does not mean they get a free obituary. They are all paid for! Even the biggest names in history. This person lived outside the United States and not in New York, but was still in the New York Times. Plus the New York Times is used as a source and citation for the date of his death. This is not a paid add to sell an item, get your facts strait.
Also, just because the entire book is not about him is not a good reason to try to discredit the citation.--Octavian history (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please see my comment below to Kevin Murray about the During book that you cited – I think I have shown that it can be discredited as a source that establishes notability. As for what you said about New York Times obituaries, it simply isn’t true. Celebrities and well known public figures do not have paid obituaries – they are researched and written by respected journalists. The obituaries that appear in the paid death notices section can be written and submitted by anyone, and no fact checking is done. That is why paid obituaries, regardless of where they are published, are not valid as references for an encyclopedia. Teleomatic (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The book can NOT be discredited. It is a valid book that was published. The New York Times obituaries is valid to establish the date of death. You are wrong about public figures not having to pay. Public figures do not have to pay if an editorial is written up about them, but they absolutely do have to pay if they place a notice in the obituary section. Regardless of the above, a lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's clear that I'm not denying that the book has been published, but it has been discredited as a valid reference for the claims you make in the article you wrote. I don’t think anyone will mind if you cite a paid obituary for the date of someone’s death. The criteria you mention (WP:CSD#A7) is used for speedy deletions of articles, which is not what is happening here. Lack of notability is what is being disputed here, and that needs to be demonstrated with some reliable sources, not just asserted. Teleomatic (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not excited about the flavor of the nomination. The nominator has not been with WP very long and is misstating policy; the prior deletions were a speedy and for copyright violation, hardly a reason to justify deletion of the current article. This statement is prejudicial. The nominator does not clarify how the article fails BIO, as one of the writers of BIO and N, I don't see an obvious failure as we have a significant source. That the primary focus of the source is the father does not mean that there isn't enough info to demonstrate notability of the son. I am impressed by Octavian's assertion that there are many foreign language sources, and assuming good faith this adds to the notability (these sources can be cited to establish notability). The NY Times is meaningless, but the Tanbur Society webpage gives a minor but apparently independent reference (more info on the Society would be compelling). It's a squeaker, but considering the weak nomination and two reasonable sources, I'd like to see us keep and improve the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: I concede that G4 doesn't apply in this case and have adjusted my nomination accordingly. Since I initiated this AfD, and you justifiable raised the issue of a valid source being given, I took it upon my self to obtain the book by During and search for the relevant citations. What I found were a few sentences in an appendix:
[Ostad Elahi's sister] had several students, among whom Amin Elahi, Ostad's eldest son born in 1920, stood out. He too, practices music as a means of devotion and meditation, and plays the tanbour in a sweet and captivating manner with an inexhaustible inspiration. In addition, he plays the flute (ney) using the circulatory respiration technique... (p.144)
There is also a mention on p. 146 where Ostad Elahi is quoted as describing Haj Amin as a "good tanbour musician", while the younger brother of Haj Amin, who is cited in the book as being the one who inherited the gift of tanbour playing from his father, describes Haj Amin as simply "play[ing] in his own manner." There is no mention of the subject being a "master musician", a "prolific player" or a composer of "many new musical modes", which are the claims originally made in the article that cite this book as the source. The few lines dedicated to the musical ability of the subject in question give no indication that he was a notable musician, given the guidelines of WP:BIO, and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Teleomatic (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tele, I don't see how you can search for references without reading the whole book, page by page and line by line. I'm a little concerned about the intellectual independence of both the writer of the article and the nominator; is there something deeper here? While I applaud dedication, what would motivate an editor to go out and optain an obscure book in order to document an Afd. I think that there is more to the story and controversy smacks of notability. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as obscure as you think: [35] especially if you spend a good portion of your day studying in a library that has it. While I admit I didn't read through the whole book, I welcome the writer of the article to point out anything I may have missed. Teleomatic (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources that assert notability is a reason for deletion. Claims are not enough, it needs to be backed up or the article will be a stub. --neonwhite user page talk 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you keep mentioning is among the criteria for speedy deletion, which doesn't apply here. The subject's notability is in question, and as I'm sure you know, that is typically backed up by reliable references. Teleomatic (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag according to wikipedia rules

  • "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.
  • Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.[36]

Octavian history (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The above procedure only applies to WP:PROD deletion nominations, not to AfD or CSD. I've restored the tag and warned the user. My opinion on the article is, at present, Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No reliable sources to indicate the notability of the subject, per WP:MUSIC. To clarify, he's not notable merely because his father is notable, and, to consider him notable as a musician, we need evidence of non-trivial coverage of him or his performances in sources that pass WP:RS. Tevildo (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Like billions of other people, the person did not live in the United States nor speak English, so 99% of the text about him is in Kurdish. There is now two book citations, a website, New York Times obituaries and plus a lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP I love his music, a very big man.--Hasan075 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) — Hasan075 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.blocked sockpuppet of Octavian history[reply]

Keep the guy is cool, great music.--208.125.21.226 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think that we need to be sensitive to the difficulty in obtaining western-grade verifyable sources for people in less-well-connected parts of the world. If there was a suspicion that this was some form of fake material then I'd want better proof, but what's there seems to circle around the subject enough to support the article as is. Ideally, more references can be found, but at this time it passes my smell test. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE PS-If you look at the TanburSociety.com website that is endorsing Hajj Amin Elahi’s music, you will notice that they are official members of the Recording Academy, which is the same as the Grammy Awards. The Grammy Awards are the most prestigious venue for musicians in the world. If it was not true, why on earth would an official Grammy member state "Hajj Amin was a master at the art of tanbur... His style which is known as the “Hajj-Amini” style has become universally accepted by many mainstream tanbur players...".--Octavian history (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I could read Kurdish, Farsi, or Arabic there'd be hundreds of sources. It seems English musicians get a Wikipedia article as soon as they get a record deal even if they go nowhere. Here is someone recognized as a master of a instrument and famous within a stateless nation and he doesn't seem important enough? I think it is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. If this man really was as important as most of the people urging 'Keep!' say he is, something would be written about him in a reliable source somewhere, yet that does not seem to be the case. While he clearly has many fans who would like to see the article kept, reliable sources must be provided in order to do so; in its current form it fails Wikipedia's guideline for the inclusion of biographies. Terraxos (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (also note that as a separate action, I speedy-deleted the article as WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation). JERRY talk contribs 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Spellbinder

edit
Spells in Spellbinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Some entries in the list are identical to their counterparts in [37], others are shortened versions. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and the article appears to be listcruft. Thinboy00 @093, i.e. 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:43, February 1, 2008

Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains

edit
Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Article is a how-to or tutorial for City of Heroes UnfriendlyFire (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating these other articles because they fall under the same scope as being game guides:

Items in City of Heroes and City of Villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zones in City of Heroes and City of Villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


  • Merge We do not need guides on what the game options are, but the game has been noted in many sources for the flexibility of the character creation. For that reason alone, I think parts of this should be salvaged into the main articles. I love COH/COV. I have played since beta. I still don't think that these articles stand on their own. Slavlin (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:44, February 1, 2008

Crosstown Commons (Corpus Christi)

edit
Crosstown Commons (Corpus Christi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable mall that doesn't even exist yet. Too WP:CRYSTAL as a lot could happen in 8 years, and there is no guarantee the mall will be completed or opened. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:44, February 1, 2008

Phaeax (band)

edit
Phaeax (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete no assertion that this band meets WP:BAND. No reliable sources currently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 08:44, February 1, 2008

Rat excitation

edit
Rat excitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Rat excitation" is an admitted neologism with no reliable sources discussing it. The article states, "There was no official designation for this procedure so the appellation "rat excitation" was chosen so as not to conflict with the names of any extant articles." A Google search shows a few false hits (referring to various scientific experiments), a bunch of mirror sites, and one or two blog references that may have used this article as a source. There are no sources cited anywhere in the article, so it is unverifiable. The coining of the term "rat excitation" is clearly original research as well. It might be possible to write an encyclopedic article on rats as a form of torture, but this article doesn't really contain anything worth keeping. *** Crotalus *** 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn duplicates AfD already in progress Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GéNIA

edit
AfDs for this article:
GéNIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not fit criteria of Wikipedia. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Internet phenomena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article states:

This is a list of phenomena specific to the Internet, such as popular themes and catchphrases, viral videos, amateur celebrities and more. Such fads and sensations grow rapidly on the Internet because its instant communication facilitates word of mouth. The search and rating features of sites like YouTube and Google then amplify this interest

  1. Who or what decides when something on the internet has earned the 'phenomena' status?
  2. If this list was complete, it would be constantly growing from the thousands of 'phenomena's, a small fraction is in Category:Internet personalities, Category:Entertainment websites, Category:Internet forums etc. Anything which is notable enough for Wikipedia could be considered an 'internet phenomena'; there is no way to accurately measure it.
  3. Can a line be drawn between very popular internet content and internet content that has gained the phenomena status?
The following guidelines & policies this article may not comply with are:
  • This article is a target of endless edit wars as there is no way to properly identify what is a phenomena and what is not. Just look through the huge amounts of talk archives.
  • Every 'phenomena' has an article, do we really need this ever-growing list of things chosen by random Wikipedians who feel it is notable enough to include?
--Seriousspender (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably when a reliable source says so. Though I see scant evidence of reliable sources, it has to be said. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of your objections apply only to individual articles within the list, not the list itself, and the remainder of them are collectively minor enough that the answer to them is viligance and care rather than deletion. -Toptomcat (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use the words to that effect? That involves the editors opinion, and going along with that rule this list would be considerably larger.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a normal feature of English that many words have synonyms. Your point is cheap, devoid, dishonest, dumb, fatuous, frivolous, futile, hollow, idle, ignorant, inane, ineffective, ineffectual, insincere, insipid, jejune, meaningless, nugatory, otiose, paltry, petty, purposeless, senseless, silly, trivial, unintelligent, unsatisfactory, unsubstantial, vacuous, valueless, vapid and worthless. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You added the Angry German Kid and used [38] as a source, does it "describe the item as an internet phenomenon or use words to that effect"? I don't think so, if so where is the Farting Reverend, or The Christmas Lights House and other things mentioned in the source? This just shows the extent of the problem this article has. And please make that your last edit that is filled with nonsense.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant phrase in this case is Greatest Hits of Viral Video. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like your missing many from Category:Viral videos then. And why is it there if it doesn't even have its own article? I thought a 'phenomena' had reached 'mainstream news and culture' as mentioned above? These things I have just been mentioning is the prime reason this article is not worth keeping. As User:Dhartung mentioned, this list would be far more manageable split into List of Viral Videos, List of Viral Images etc. In it's current state it is unmaintainable.--Seriousspender (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see our editing policy which is summarised as : "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect". In other words, if you find this article to be imperfect, please improve it. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to clean up or improve a list which is unmaintainable anyway. Just go to categories of viral videos, flash cartoons, and other related categories, and you'll see that it is likely to exceed 1000 entries. That is also not including the main problem as mentioned in the nom.--Seriousspender (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has about 80 entries and the article size is 35K which is well within the size guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I have to add 1000 entries to prove the problem?--Seriousspender (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1000 wouldn't even come close to the record. Please see List of minor planets. This and its 173,000 entries regularly survives AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are split into seperate sub-pages, similar to the suggestion of splitting this list up. Plus that doesn't face the same problems as this does.--Seriousspender (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see anything new being added to the this discussion that hasn't been discussed in the old AfDs. For example it has ask before Who or what decides when something on the internet has earned the 'phenomena' status? and been answered that

    The "accepted definition" [of phenomena] is in Wikipedia's own notability policy: once a phenomenon is covered by a secondary news source, it becomes verifiable and thus notable.

    This is the very reason why almost each entry has a reference attached to it. I would be very tempted to say this AfD could be a WP:SNOWBALL but meh who am I to decide that. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should be a category, not an article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory.Undeath (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's characterisation of the list as subject to "endless edit wars" is a blatant falsehood as you can readily see by looking at the edit history. The nominator's own edits have been largely uncontested and there were no edits at all between 8 and 13 of Jan - a period of 5 days. I have been watching the list for some time and it seems remarkably stable and uncontentious now. Since the requirement for good sourcing was established, editors are quite tentative about adding new entries and there is usually some discussion on the talk page first. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because I didn't add or remove any phenomena's, you reverted my legitimate template additions twice with a rather hostile response on your talk page. Well I get the 'impression' that you are acting like some kind of defender of this article since you have been editing it since March 07. You exhibit the behaviours of an article defender.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would agree that the list existing as an article is a bad idea, with the equivilent category existing the article offers no notability for suitable inclusion on Wikipedia. If the category didn't exist I would have nothing against this article, but as it does I believe that the article has little or no purpose. If someone can suggest a suitable feature that can be added to the article in order for it to be notable enough for inclusion, I may change my opinion. --GM matthew (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I'm sure this invites unsourced additions all the time and thus needs a watchful eye, but so do loads of other articles. It's currently a well-sourced and scoped list of such phenomena with short descriptions, which is quite useful—if I'm looking for one that I vaguely recall, how else am I supposed to know what the article is going to be called? — brighterorange (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a WP:USEFUL. There's categories, and if the list has 1000 entries it won't necessarily help you find what you are looking for. Categories are more suitable for this purpose. It's not well sourced, if you look at the article and the discussion of this AFD.--Seriousspender (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely you don't think being useful is a negative quality. When discussing a list, it's totally relevant whether its arrangement as a list (as opposed to or in addition to a category) is useful. In this case it is for all of the usual reasons: it allows us to mention things that don't have articles, and it allows us to include additional information (short descriptions). Obviously I looked at the article and AFD and simply disagree with you about the quality of sources. 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brighterorange (talk • contribs)
  • If it doesn't have its own article, then obviously it isn't notable enough to be considered a phenomena? Right? I wasn't talking about the quality of sources, I'm talking about the quantity. If we mention 'phenomena' that are not notable to have their own article, you can assume that this list will exceed 10,000+ entries.--Seriousspender (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. See WP:N "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." A sentence can be appropriate in a list, with citation, even when something isn't notable enough for a whole article. — brighterorange (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as it's sourced, etc (and links to Wikipedia articles on the subjects in question count in this instance as the individual articles establish notability, references, etc) I see nothing to suggest that this list is any less worthy of a Wikipedia list article than it was when it was speedy kept 11 months ago. If there's an issue whether or not these phenomena are notable, that's an issue to be settled by the editors of the individual articles themselves. Last I looked I saw only one redlink (which can be culled); otherwise in lieu of any successful AFD challenges against the individual articles, the fact they have Wikipedia articles is in itself an indication of notability. 23skidoo (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems fine to me and is similar to an Almanac type listing. It is well-referenced and a useful starting point. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Earthere (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a good list, nominator is encouraged to be bold and edit items that they think aren't notable. Tarinth (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I sympathize with Seriousspender's intentions and applaud his well-written nomination, however I'm afraid I come down on the side of those arguing that the article is well enough sourced. I join Tarinth in suggesting that all editors should rigorously apply our notability guidelines and especially our sourcing policy to this article. But as long as there are reliable sources showing that an independent, published reliable source has recognized a particular entry as a phenomenon (or a reasonable equivalent of that), then the entries are okay. Best, Gwernol 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a good idea.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this type of information is why people started coming to WP and has always been the core of the project. it is still our strength. Our real policy is to keep this type of list, and any poorly worded statements implying otherwise need to be adjusted. DGG (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you have problems with individual items on the list, fix or AFD those articles. The list contains some indisputably notable items. Jwray (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep important topic. Woth keeping this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is these internet meme are barely lived, they are rarely known from the public, and thus, no new notability are found for these. Ryou-kun16 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are an important part of "Internet culture" and should be covered, a list is a very effective way to do that.Shadoom (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- In its current size its ok, as there's no policies against having a list and a catergory, and it seems well sourced. If it grows to an unmanagable level, then we should split it up, albeit with an introduction paragraph to internet phenomena, and a short introduction and perhaps one of the most notable examples of each type of phenomena --Patar knight (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Size is not a consideration, because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no guideline against redundancy between lists and categories. Besides, large lists are easier to manage than categories. The list is not a directory, because it lists articles, which makes it a navigation aid. Very interesting and useful list. This is the type of coverage that makes Wikipedia great. The Transhumanist 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Per consensus reached. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Podcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Service is now defunct. LightSpeed3 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment They went out of business in a couple of years. They might not have merited an encyclopedia article even while they were in business. Internet companies can create these subsidiaries without much investment, making them unlike railways or manufacturers of automobiles or computers. Would there be an appropriate place to merge the information, such as an article on former Yahoo services or former podcast hosts? Fg2 (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being defunct does not mean they were not notable. the preservation of information is one of the key functions of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not temporary. Even if something once received some public attention, but isn't notable any longer, we should not have an article about it. User:Dorftrottel 12:41, January 29, 2008


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_26&oldid=1234119190"