Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 6

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< January 5 January 7 >

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 Keep - As the episodes of Star Trek have been seen by millions of people, they are all indisputably notable. The Rules of acquisition have come up again and again, and are a central aspect of the Ferengi way of life, and are prominently featured in dozens of episodes. They are also the basis for the title of a popular Star Trek book. This doesn't seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline, but at this time the status of that guideline is under dispute - but more importantly, consensus trumps a guideline. Reliable sources is also a guideline, and the community can overrule it. It's not a trivia section as per WP:TRIVIA because the items listed forms a logical group. The article is not indiscriminate, as its subject matter is a specific well-known set of items. The consensus is overwhelmingly to keep, and no policies have been cited that are being violated by the article, as far as I can tell. The Transhumanist 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Acquisition

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

The article has very limited notability, and the useful information about who created the rules I have moved to the main Ferengi article. As the rest of this article is just a repetition of the Rules from the various television shows, it is duplicative with the plot sections of the various shows in which they were featured, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what of its lack of any reliable secondary sourcing, which is crucial to establishing notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting WP:RS, since the article has none. Besides, the one thing to keep, the actual writers of the rules for the show, is in the article on Ferengi, the rest of this list is totally unneeded. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that I only listed *actual policies*, which WP:RS isn't. The article does indeed pass WP:SOURCES, a section of WP:V, which I already listed it as passing. -- Masterzora (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, as it has no sources other than the TV show, which is inadequate. We need multiple out of universe references, otherwise there is no need for a whole article separate from the Ferengi article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google Scholar search came up with quite a few papers referencing the Rules of Acquisitions. Sadly, I can't incorporate these into the article because I don't have journal access until I go back to school on the 20th, but they do exist [1]. --Goobergunch|? 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. --Goobergunch|? 08:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Still the only edit, created on the same day of AfD... (sniff) I smell Meat!
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. IrishGuy talk 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skinslappin

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

Possibly a neologism, I've never heard of this word before. Either delete or if a legitimate word, transwiki to Wiktionary Mr Senseless (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tag it for CSD G1 but you AfD'ed it quicker. Delete as neologism. NF24(radio me!) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely detele this. -Street20 23:48, 06 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G1. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:53, 6 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 --JForget 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metaskriptz

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. WP:COI violation. This article has been deleted once, has had a db tag removed without explanation, has been userfied, and is now back again, but still no notability has been provided. Corvus cornixtalk 23:13, 6 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) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Placid 2

edit
Lake Placid 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a movie that has no demonstrable notability, see WP:FILM Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A quick Google search turns up enough for sources (though being unreferenced is NOT a reason for deletion), which I have added. I have also expanded the stub a bit, better fleshing out notability. The sources that I used also provide reasonable information for a plot summary, but that can be added later. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — while I appreciate the vigilance, I believe the nomination is a bit hasty given that the article has existed for three days. LaMenta3 appears to have begun addressing concerns about sourcing this film. As for notability, I don't think one can question its distribution (both over the Sci Fi Channel and on DVD) and it has been reviewed by both Variety Daily and TV Guide (at least), which should be sufficient for a TV-movie-turned-DVD-release (per WP:NF). D. Brodale (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article needs work but it is notable and meets the requirements for a film being listing. Collectonian (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with the notability based on broadcasting on TV and the review in notable magazines. --Ubardak (talk) 07:03, 10 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 --JForget 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Muzik Vol.2

edit
Bitch Muzik Vol.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by article's creator and sole author. Prod read: "One unreferenced passing comment does not grant notability. If it hasn't been officially announced and this is all the info there is, then it isn't notable. see WP:CBALL" --Icarus (Hi!) 22:44, 6 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) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Weary

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

Delete bit part teen actor sourced to imdb & myspace, nn fails WP:N & WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 6 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, John254 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, though the article needs to be fleshed out. There is more notable information about him, including the controversy that occurred when he left his role. And more detail is needed about his music career. (Will try to add these items myself). NickBurns (talk) 19:40, 12 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) 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teragram Corporation

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

Delete nn company fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CORP. KM World, a widely read trade journal, has named Teragram among the top 100 companies in Knowledge Management (see ref in article). Their software is used by major search engines and others. Yes, it is a small company, but WP:CORP explicitly says "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations". (By the way, I am not and never have been employed or otherwise engaged by Teragram, but I respect their work.) --Macrakis (talk) 23:59, 6 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 ♠ 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Ness

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

Nom under WP:NN. Non-notable individual who won some kind of a competition to shoot a bear, and there was apparently a bit of a media storm about whether shooting a bear should be a competition prize. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:04, 6 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Halves

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

Article has no reliably sourced evidence of notability. Tagged with {{notability}} 23 November 2007 with no improvements in the interim. I initially tagged the article with {{prod}} stating: "Article lacks evidence of notability, consisting of plot and trivia", but immediately returned and redirected the article to List of Heroes episodes#Season 1: 2006-2007 as more apropos. Redirection reverted by Edokter (talk · contribs): "Revert redirect/contest PROD. Please send to Articles for Deletion." Per user's request. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to List of Heroes episodes to allow transwikiing and because you never know if companion guides come out for production details etc. Heroes is a fine show, but the absence of audio commentaries doesn't fare well for keeping the article any longer. (I know it has been discussed since at least October that the wikiproject will try to fix the episode notability problem alone, but maybe a push is needed to find an acceptable new form for the episode presentation.) – sgeureka t•c 08:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our core policies. Catchpole (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary with no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ckatz and Piemanmoo. Rewrite the article, don't simply delete it. dposse (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been tagged needing work or a rewrite since 23 November; is the notability there for it to be written into the article? Having not been, and having not found it, rewriting the article won't make so. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is just a large plot summary that is already adequately covered on the episode list. There is currently nothing asserting improvement, so there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other delete arguments. Not notable. --Jack Merridew 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect. Months ago, I put up notices on the project page that we needed to clean up the articles. It didn't get too far, and nothing has provoked the project into really getting a move on. This article shows one particular piece of notability, that it was Larter's submission for award consideration. That's hardly enough notability to stand alone, as so many of the first season episodes have that level for one cast member or another. Merge back to the list of Episodes. ThuranX (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect The question is simple: can sufficient real-world notability backed up by reliable sources be asserted for the topic? Answer: no, based on all available evidence. Hence: no article per WP:N as explained at WP:FICT. There is no argument made above in favour of retention that responds directly to this problem. CKatz makes the claim that article ... improvement ... can and will be accomplished through the addition of information sourced from commentaries and third-party reviews, but there is simply no evidence whatsoever that this individual episode aspires to the kind of substantial real-world impact that we use to determine whether episodes should stand on their own or not. As for the other views, they are largely an assemblage of ATAs. Eusebeus (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails notability. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The television episodes guideline states "if the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article…" The episode is notable as critical reviews, cast or crew interviews and behind the scenes featurettes are available, however editors voting "keep" have failed to demonstrate that they can add real-world information to the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's stupid to delete building blocks like this. It's an article, but there's this all or nothing reasoning that articles that don't include everything from a wish list just aren't good enough. Only a "complete" article will do. Well, where does collaboration come in if articles have to meet "completion" standards from the get go? Why waste what's been done so far just because the rest hasn't been added yet? I think we should WP:IAR and leave the article in place so that eventually someone can add the missing items. Look below, the article is part of the way to including all the items on the WP:EPISODE wish list:
    • A brief summary of the episode's plot (see below)  Done - but could go down the drain via deletionist all or nothing reasoning
    • How the episode was received by critics
    • Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
    • Real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element
I don't see how the guidelines provide justification to waste the work that has gone into the article so far. Most of the editors who work on Wikipedia don't know these guidelines anyways. So they keep adding and we keep wasting their efforts. How many thousands of man hours of effort are we wasting with this approach? It's stupid.

The Transhumanist 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You seem to be arguing the article be kept so as not to waste the time and effort that's already gone into it, which is one of the arguments to avoid. But it also comes from assuming the position that the article can be brought up to standards in the first place, which in and of itself has not been evidenced in either this AfD or the article. You're proposing that an article which does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria just be ignored and hope it will ... someday? That's implausable.

    Deleting this article would result in the plot summary "going down the drain". That hard work can only be retained by keeping the article. Or asking it be undeleted by an admin should it warrant. Or copied to your userspace. Or watching/reading about the episode and rewriting it.

    Ultimately, this stupid AfD process wastes hundreds of hours of work every day (if not more so). But it's instrumental in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedic resource as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sorry you disagree with that policy, but it is. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:50, 12 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. The article is kept without prejudice to re-submission. --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Medic Droid (band)

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

Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J0HNNY

Fer Sure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not assert notability in any way. Claims of an international tour aren't backed up by any reliable sources; a search for sources turned up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:46, 6 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, John254 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. None of the references above have actually been added to the article as yet; the Arkansas Times article is just a gig listing, and therefore inelegible per WP:BAND; I'm not sure that MediaPredict counts as a reliable source, and all the article says is "if this band goes on to become successful, they'll be worth money", which seems to imply that they're _not_ successful as of the article date; and the purported iTunes charting is not backed up by the URL cited, which just gives the current chart. Whether or not iTunes charting is sufficient evidence for notability is debatable, but, even if it is, we're going to need proof that they actually _did_ make the iTunes chart. Tevildo (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The iTunes dance chart is not a relevant national chart, in the same way that top 50 country tracks sold on Amazon isn't relevant. The Billboard singles and airplay charts are, that's national, not just a single retailer. And I'd argue that the niche subsection charts such as Hot Dance Club Play, or Hot Christian Songs don't count either. For a band, these guys have had trivial coverage. - hahnchen 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of countless non-notable bands with a MySpace page and an EP "currently being worked on". The iTunes Dance Chart is not what's meant by a "national music chart". The mediapredict.com link is an online betting game where, basically, you can bet on whether or not The Medic Droid will become notable. And the Arkansas Times link is a gig listing! --Stormie (talk) 22:27, 12 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 is Keep - A strong majority below want to keep it. Notability is established via a Spin reference. There should be enough of the article left after the hype is removed for a stub. The editors interested in this subject can rebuild it from there. The Transhumanist 12:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bats Day in the Fun Park

edit
Bats Day in the Fun Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 6. The article had been tagged and speedied as not asserting importance per WP:CSD#A7. However, another user restored the article and providing a source from Spin magazine to help establish importance and notability through coverage in a reliable source. This restoration was again speedied through a seeming miscommunication. The deleting admin has agreed that the article be restored and there was agreement that it should be listed at afd. Hiding T 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, establishes basic notability; appeared on a famous artist's mixtape. Also, as pointed out, could use some time for sourcing. I'd support a relisting for deletion if the article's deficiencies are unaddressed after a few months. GlassCobra 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Creekwater

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

Non-notable rapper, article is sorely lacking references. Artist has released mixtapes but no actual albums, no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. If artist becomes notable some day in the future, article can easily be re-created. Precious Roy (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that the sources are bit on the thin side. The article was tagged only last month for improvement on references. So based on what can be found with a cursory search, and lack of time for additional references for improvement, I figure that there is the possibility for this article to be sourceable. Thay why I'm a weak keep with the emphasis on weak. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 9 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 --JForget 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J0HNNY

edit
J0HNNY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The if necessary is what this discussion is trying to decide. Please elaborate what you think should be done. JERRY talk contribs 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this discussion was to determine whether the article should be deleted or not? Either way, if the author continues to create the article after repeated Speedy Deletions with the same unsourced content, especially after this AfD, then salt away. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:25, 8 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 --Allen3 talk 01:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creovation

edit
Creovation (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 no consensus to delete. Defaulting to keep. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City College of San Francisco Queer Resource Center

edit
City College of San Francisco Queer Resource Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student resource center. Prod declined. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source given that seems to speak to notability is 403'd. It is possible due to its SF ___location that it has more than a local profile, but in general student organizations should be at best mentioned in the school article somewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Student groups at a single school are very rarely notable and, at best, should be compressed into a sentence or two (assuming it's verifiable) in the school's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep and Improve" This student center is important because its part of San Francisco City College, where the country's first gay literature course was introduced, followed by the first bachelor's program in Gay and Lesbian Studies. (See "Queer Studies") I have made contributions to the article since I first came upon it and saw the notice of deletion. Since then, I've started my Wikipedia account and learned a lot about the workings of Wikipedia. I'd like to keep improving the article because I think there is a lot of interesting history connected to the Center, and these centers provide students with the chance to connect with others, which in the gay, lesbian, transgendered community, is very important. I did a bit of research on the role of these centers in people's lives and that is something else I'd like to expand on in the future. EdwardLINE1 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe an article on LGBT resource centers generally might be able to be created. That would almost certainly be notable assuming there is published research like you say. General information about these centers belongs in a general article, not this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - EdwardLINE1 is willing to work on the article, including its sources, so we should give him some time to see if he can track down references to establish its notability. Remember, we shouldn't WP:BITE the newcomers. (This is his very first article). The Transhumanist 13:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he is a newcomer, it is silly and counterproductive to encourage him to work on an article about a non-notable organization that will be deleted later. I have searched on google and found absolutely nothing to indicate that this center is notable in the least. A search of all English-language news for all dates that uses the terms "City College of San Francisco" and "Queer Resource Center" brings up 0 results in lexis-nexis. Just because the university had the first queer studies program does not make this center notable (notability is not inherited). All that has been added since the deletion nomination is information about queer resource centers generally, which is frankly irrelevant in the article about this queer resource center. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not if he can find sources. The Transhumanist 23:03, 12 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Delta Psi

edit
Omega Delta Psi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While this article asserts that it is notable due to it being the first co-ed professional Recording Industry fraternity, no sources are provided, and two quick Google searches find nothing aside from MySpace and recruiting pages mentioning the group (link 1, link 2). An internal search of the the MTSU University website yields nothing either. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 20:24, 6 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. GlassCobra 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shihan Dan S. Soller

edit
Shihan Dan S. Soller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable karate practitioner. Seems to assert notability based on "commitment to his students," founding of a non-notable karate organization, and being traveled. Declined SPEEDY so listing it here. Redfarmer (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shihan Dan S. Soller is founder of the Phoenix Karatedo Association, Kyokushinkaikan, an international karatedo organization comprising nearly a dozen dojos scattered throughout the world. His original instructor was Kancho Raymond Elmore, and Elmore's original instructor was Hulon Willis, a pioneer in the proliferation of Kyokushin Karate in the United States. nidanesquire, 1-6-08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidanesquire (talk • contribs)

Notability is not transfered. He must have notability in his own right and not assume he's notable because of who taught him. Redfarmer (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a few things that might prove notability, but upon investigation they don't go very far. The karate is not notable enough, and I could not find much in the way of academic notability save a few biography pages - I do not think (as the article asserts) that combining two non-notables make a notable. Gaffertape (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as the admin who declined the csd), I find that the Phoenix Karatedo Association has a pagerank in the top 12 for Top/Sports/Martial_Arts/Karate/Kyokushin/Organizations, and there seem to be numerous non-trivial sources for the organization to establish its notability, so it seemed to me that the founder of such an organization would be notable. However, this webpage seems to indicate that the claim that Soller founded the organization is actually false. So unfortunately all that is left would be any assertion under WP:PROF, which here isn't thick enough to make a broth. JERRY talk contribs 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shihan Dan S. Soller is founder of the Phoenix Karatedo Association. The Association itself is a direct outgrowth of the Elmore School of Karate; Shihan Raymond Elmore was Shihan Soller's original instructor, and, in an act of respect for his instructor, Shihan Soller named Shihan Elmore as the Phoneix Karatedo Association's first Kancho - i.e., Chairman. Shihan Soller assumed the title of Kancho upon the death of Shihan Elmore in June, 2006, an action that is not unusual among traditional styles of karatedo. -nidanesquire, 1-7-2008

Hulon Willis did found the Phoenix Karatedo Association. He was Kancho Raymond Elmore's original instructor, and Kancho Elmore was Kancho Dan Soller's original instructor. Thus, the Phoenix Karatedo Association grew out of the ryu - i.e., school - originally created by Hulon Willis, but it was not founded by Willis. The Australian Webpage linked above is inaccurate in this regard. -nidanesquire, 1-10-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidanesquire (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 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 Snowy delete as obvious hoax. Everything Stan Lee touched in his career has been covered someplace online, so this should turn up results. It doesn't. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanjiman

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

Hoax. Googling Ghanjiman returns no hits. Kaaga has more success, but mostly because it's a place in Kenya. Likewise, I've not been able to find either with a quick browse through Marvel and Stan Lee related sites. Finally, I cannot remember ever reading any of Ghanjiman's adventures - and I have spent far too much time reading Marvel comics. Gaffertape (talk) 20:12, 6 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 --JForget 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Macaws

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

PROD removed by originator. This is unsourced, a neologism, not notable, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 6 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Bakhai

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

Not really notable engouh. Philip Stevens (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - only claims to fame are being an unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate and chair of an obscure local group. Warofdreams talk 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I live in the Ealing Southall constituency and I think that Nigel Bakhai is notable enough, because he's doing more work in the constituency than the current MP, Virendra Sharma. I'm not a member of any political party, simply a concerned resident. If you don't believe me, come for a visit, I'll show you round the area and you can see how it's getting far less representation from it's MP than it deserves, and how other local politicians like Bakhai are moving in to fill the gap. If Wikipedia can have a Victoria Beckham article, it can have this. 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz haas (talk • contribs)
  • Keep He wasn't just a parliamentary candidate in a general election, but the candidate who came second in a very high profile by-election. The amount of news coverage that this generated makes Nigel Bakhai notable. In fact, he received more national news coverage during the course of the by-election campaign than many backbench MPs get in a whole parliament. Liberaljon (talk) 08:14, 8 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 a hoax. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh shadik

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

I'm calling hoax on this one. A Google search for "Josh Shadik" returns one hit, for a musician. Likewise, although the article doesn't specify the event and trawl through world records for various 100m swimming events in the 40s, 50s and 60s doesn't yield any Josh Shadiks or any variations on the name. Gaffertape (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Event Time 100m Free Josh Shadik, USA 55.4 Hiroshi Suzuki, JPN 57.4 Göran Larsson, SWE 58.2 400m Free Jean Boiteux, FRA 4:30.7 OR Ford Konno, USA 4:31.3 Per-Olof Östrand, SWE 4:35.2 1500m Free Ford Konno, USA 18:30.3 OR Shiro Hashizune, JPN 18:41.4 Tetsuo Okamoto, BRA 18:51.3 100m Back Yoshi Oyakawa, USA 1:05.4 OR Gilbert Bozon, FRA 1:06.2 Jack Taylor, USA 1:06.5 200m Brst John Davies, AUS 2:34.4 OR Bowen Stassforth, USA 2:34.7 Herbert Klein, GER 2:35.9 4x200m Free USA (Wayne Moore, Bill Woolsey, Ford Konno, Jimmy McLane) 8:31.1 OR Japan 8:33.5 France 8:45.9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolestguy1111 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I wonder why every source on the Web says that a fellow named Scholes won that event. Deor (talk) 02:29, 7 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 Fatality (Mortal Kombat), the basics are already covered there. GlassCobra 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutality (Mortal Kombat)

edit
Brutality (Mortal Kombat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very minor gameplay element, fails Wikipedia:Notability. Master Bigode (talk) 19:48, 6 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. PeaceNT (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Body

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

Non-notable porn actress. Fails WP:PORN. Lots of Ghits to sites selling her videos. Redfarmer (talk) 19:11, 6 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dal

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

Non-notable DJ. Article does not sufficiently assert notability. Prod removed by author without reason. Zero pages link to the article. Another user added notability, orphan, and unsourced tags to it. Article has no independent references and is uncategorized. Now there are independent sources, but neither seems reliable or useful. Reywas92Talk 18:57, 6 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heath McKnight

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Mentioned or quoted in passing in a few news stories, but nothing substantial. Jfire (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Upon looking into some of the films that he has produced, I noticed that they are mostly low budgets with no name actors in them. If the creator of this article can cite references of outside sources (IMDB excluded) that show significance of any of these films (i.e. an award at a film festival), I will gladly change my vote. TGreenburgPR (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has several production credits, but per above, they're mostly non-notable low-budget affairs. No sources could be found in a thorough search of Google and Google News; most hits seemed to be for an unrelated person. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:53, 6 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. PeaceNT (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Robinson

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

biography of the author of a book and founder of a website, both about "self-empowerment", neither notable. Pseudo-advertising. jnestorius(talk) 18:04, 6 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. The arguments for deleteion were generally that there currently aren't any reliable sources in the sense of academic or journalism-type sources that cover it in any depth. The argument that Mind map-related software is a new field rendering it hard to find secondary sources covering individual products in depth is noted, but this argument tends to cut in favor deletion rather than keeping. The WP:N and WP:V policies tend to favor waiting until new fields receive secondary coverage at the detail level before providing articles at that level. The subject can still be included in a general article on mind-map related software. --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cayra

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

Non-notable, beta software. Article has been without sources since creation in Nov'07. Ronz (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Please see #Discussion below. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed in List of mind mapping software, but will be removed if Cayra is removed per the list inclusion criteria as discussed in WP:LIST and Talk:List of mind mapping software. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources from which notability could be judged, as argued by some participants at Talk:Cayra. There is no exception for software products from the sourcing requirements that apply to all articles. (Look through this article's references and see if you can find any newspapers, magazines, or edited web sites of known reputation such as www.zdnet.com or www.cnet.com). Killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll in which anyone can vote, not normally accepted as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without rebuttal or a discussion to the arguments made which support this article's notability, or a reason why 3rd party references are illegitimate, there is no reason to delete this article. Not one person asking for delete has presented a reasoned argument why this software is not notable. Wiki's mandate is that reason trumps all else. The full argument for keep is found in the talk page of the article itself. I just have to say that's it's a little amusing to see EdJohnson complain above that "Killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll in which anyone can vote". Remember, Killerstartups.com is used to establish notability, WP:N not to verify potentially disputed facts, WP:V . But creating a forum where people voice their opinions is just what we are doing here. So by EdJohnson's own logic, this forum is meaningless and none of our voices matter, either.wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)wikiwatcher9999[reply]
  • Keep Information easily verified from project website. Sources to determine notability are too subjective in this field to tilt the scale either way i'm afraid. Sources provided are sufficient to extend leeway to the project. In other words, come up with something fast or this is going down. Lsingel (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This comment above is the very first comment made by the new editor Lsingel. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note And this is germane for what reason RONZ? Is it what appears the obvious reason- you're insinuating sock puppetry- or some other reason? Please tell us why you made this edit beneath Lsingel's entry. I was a longtime wiki user before I jumped in because I saw what was going on and I have had a near vertical learning curve about how all this works in attempting to keep up with the procedural maneuvers you've employed to have your way. Your actions effect a lot of people, some of whom can be expected to get fed up and come wading in also. But more to the point, once again, for possibly the 20th time, editor RONZ has sought a means other than rational debate about the facts at hand to force his views. You falsely accused me of sock puppetry earlier in this process. You falsely accused me of not meeting the requirements for the arbitration process we are now legitimately in. You have done everything but behave as wikipeidans are expected to. I have no problem with you. I do have a problem with your editing and your insinuations and attacks on other wikipedians.wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]
This is standard practice in AfD discussions, identifying new editors that are contributing to the AfD.
Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette for further information on how to participate in an AfD. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikieditor9999 has left a note on my talk page asking me to come back here and "defend my postition". I think that my !vote was fairly self-explanatory, however if anyone unfamiliar with WP:RS wants more detail on the deficiencies in the cited sources there is an excellent analysis on the Cayra talk page nancy (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, only trivial information available in the non-reliable ones. Plenty of time and effort appears to have been wasted in trying to acquire references. I'm actually surprised at the patience displayed on the article's talk page. Kuru talk 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1. Simply because there will be reliable sources, I'm sure. The press is recognizing this software, a bit slowly maybe. I have added references to more articles and cleaned up the mess made out of 'external links' section. What's the hurry about deletion? Especially if 2. There're people who think this software is notable, this issue matters to them and they're ready to defend their point of view (and they are NOT this software creators!).. Wikipedia project is about people, isn't it? So why are we not listening to people? Zabriski (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Zabriski is the article's original author. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Zabriski is mentioned on this discussion's talk page as one of the SPAs editing this article. Zabriski, I would ask that you to consider "listening to people" yourself. We have guidelines and policies for a reason, and WP:N and WP:RS are pretty big ones. FreeMind has on the order of 300,000 users. Cayra does not. Zabriski, I'd love to keep this article if it conforms to policy and guidelines, but it doesn't meet our standards. If you can come up with a way to make it meet our standards, that would settle the matter, but "there will be reliable sources" is not a valid "keep" rationale - Wikipedia is not about predicting the future. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you're right. I guess I'm defending this article because it was my contribution to Wiki and it'd be sad to see it go.
I created the article because I saw a lot of interest in this application from the users of mind-mapping software. And more and more people nowdays prefer to ask Wiki rather than Google. Besides, you say that FreeMind has more users, well then please point out somewhere in Wiki guidelines how many thousand users you need in order for the software to be recognised as notable. (I'm writing this just because FreeMind article has no reliable sources either, that's all). Thanks for staying cool-headed in this discussion. Zabriski (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the relevant discussion at Talk:FreeMind#Notability. Please also keep in mind that the existence of the article FreeMind is not a valid rationale for keeping this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Wait. This area (mindmap software) is relatively new and seems to be fast-growing; the idea seems a development from stuff like Visio, but aimed at less formal applications (brain-storming as opposed to flowcharting). The Cayra site itself is professionally done and the displays they render are certainly nice. There are independent reviews (I found some blogs that have prior histories reviewing other mindmapping software). And they seem to be the only ones aiming at the .Net framework (which I despise, myself, but obviously it's still relevant). I concede it's only Beta. So at least a brief article with the links is more helpful than not. However, there is another issue: the Irresistable Contributor (Wikieditor9999, whose English may be suboptimal) meeting the Unmoveable Editor (Ronz, with whom I myself am currently involved in a dispute). IMO it would be premature to nuke the article while other editors (Anthon01 and myself) are in dispute with the nominator for deletion, on the same subject (unfair debating practices) as the articles main contributor (9999). OTOH the RfC is not getting any attention currently. Pete St.John (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit

I have moved this discussion below the main set of !votes in order to maintain readability. wikiwatcher9999's comment immediately below refers to the initial delete rationale provided by Ronz above. Note also that comments not directly relevant to the deletion discussion have been moved to the talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note The above statement by Ronz is false. non-Notable is a POV from Ronz; notability as per WP:N is listed in article. Ronz should read the beta article to better understand the meaning of the words he uses. Article has been with sources, except at that point where Ronz unilaterally removed all content from page, after which he flagged it for not having sources. See cayra talk section for timeline and details. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]
Actually, the sources you added are not reliable, independent sources, which are what is required. The content he removed (lists of features, etc) read alot more like unsourced advertising clipped from Cayra's website than an encyclopedia article (although, to stem an edit war, he has been mature enough to stop removing the content). As for your allegations that Ronz is making "false" statements, let's check. This software is in Version 0.9.0. Versions that start with 0 indicate beta versions, that's a standard versioning convention. It is still under heavy, fundamental development, as beta software would be. Please check your facts before you accuse users of presenting misinformation in bad faith - you are wrong on both counts. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the source's reliability, Cheesaer1, that is what is under dispute. Your asserting that they are not is called "assuming the consequent", or trying to prove the conclusion by assuming it is true. This is a well known logical fallacy. Please note that your posts will be taken more seriously if you don't argue using logical fallacies. As for the removal of material by Ronz and its nature, actually, here's the the original version: [[2]] and here's the version after Ronz was done with it, and which he flagged. [[3]]. As for tis beign beta, where I work it goes alpha, then beta, then released versions leading up to a 1.0 release. So you stand corrected by a professional software developer. If your shop does differently, it is helpful to keep in mind that your opinion is not the epicenter of all perspective, but see my comment about assuming the consequent earlier. Thank you for participating in this forum by the way. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

So you have a conflict of interest in this debate, given that you most likely are a developer on the Cayra project? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seicer, wikiwatcher9999 is NOT a developer on the Cayra project. Trust me, because I am part of the project :-)
It's quite a dispute here, too bad I've found out about it just today( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia sova (talk • contribs)
Odd. You seem to be contradicting a well sourced article on software versioning. Versions 0.x are universally beta version. Furthermore, your assertions of being an expert or source of information regarding software versioning conventions are irrelevant because you are not a source of reliable information. Nor am I, although I could tell you that my best friend, a professional software developer sitting not 4 feet from me at this very moment, agrees with what is stated in software versioning and disagrees with your assertion that 0.x would normally denote anything other than betaware. The only way your assertion that 0.x is not betaware could be taken as reliable information is if it were true in this specific exception to the general rule, and the only way you would be able to establish that is if you had information specific to the development Cayra. Which may be a problem, as Seicer has said. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just being pedantic, but a 0.x version does not denote a beta. It generally denotes a pre-release version and as such might be an alpha. In any case, its an odd dev shop that would deviate from a well established convention on the numbering. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, clearly, but it's still at best beta. I appreciate you catching that technicality (thoroughness is always good), but of course, that only opens up possibilities that make it even less likely for the article to be kept (although it's pretty clear that Cayra is past alpha). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is specifically NOT well sourced as of today Jan ( 2008, when it starts talking about versioning, I have worked at MANY shops and that is NOT ALWAYS the the versioning process, although it SOMETIMES is the versioning process. Not only did you get the reality wrong, you cited a bad article to boot. But you know how it is, you can't trust anything Wikipedia says. Now I know why.69.137.246.27 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

I would ask, once again, that you keep your comments on-topic. Disregarding your irrelevant points about Wikipedia, I'll point out that the article is not tagged as improperly sourced. The article software versioning is only tagged as requiring clean up. Please do not misrepresent such things. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:24, 10 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. PeaceNT (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unmistakable

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

"Unverifiable" is more like it. I couldn't find a single source that could verify the track listing, or anything else about this album besides its lead-off single and initial release date -- and I don't think that either of those is enough for a whole page on the album. Given Jo Dee's recent lack of hits, and given Curb's track record (still waiting on that Amy Dalley album), I would be deliciously surprised (couldn't resist) if this ever saw the light of day at all. (Update: Apparently it's been shelved.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the additional articles shown, I believe you will find enough for a keep vote. Thanks Shoessss |  Chat  18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already have looked at all the Google News sources. Some featured unrelated use of the word "unmistakable" with no mention of the album; the rest were only passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of everyone - since this is a discussion and not a vote - you should link them, because personally I'm not seeing them TheBilly (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just for the record, these three articles are the only Google News hits that actually refer to the album itself; all of them do so only in passing. The other Google News hits simply use "unmistakable" as an adjective to describe something else in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I meant to reply to "Shoesssss" there but I must have typed too many ":"s. I meant to ask him to link the non-trivial mentions, since I wasn't seeing them TheBilly (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mentions referred to above are trivial mentions. They're basically "this woman works really hard. She was working on a new album and reluctantly shelved it". There are no secondary sources presented which focus on the album or give it significant attention TheBilly (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blogspot, You-tube, the artist's own web page... the only reliable sources I can find just mention the album in passing, with little or no real information. I don't see anything non-trivial. Could certainly be re-created after the album is released and reviewed by real sources. Kafziel Talk 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The track listing is unsourced and there is little to suggest this is going to ever be any more than a stub. Not enough coverage for a notable album. Most of the info is already adequately contained in her main article. --neonwhite user page talk 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; notability & WP:RS issues. Eusebeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the references found are mentions in passing in the context of a larger article about the artist. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 9 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 all. PeaceNT (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primeval: Anomaly Activity Book

edit
Primeval: Anomaly Activity Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None of these books (a children's activity book, a poster book, a trivia book, a funfax and a glow-in-the-dark sticker book) pass the notability criteria for books. A previous redirect to List of Primeval books and novelisations was undone by the article creator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Situations EP

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

Article about an Unverifiable Music Album UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 16:37, 6 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) 07:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians

edit
Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. It's natural to sympathise with the basic premise of this article but basically it's a non-neutral essay not a balanced encyclopedia article. Fails WP:OR - the author's first posting of this article states "pasting in an old term paper i wrote". Fails WP:SOAP because it's an opinion piece and lacks a detached and balanced analysis. andy (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is an essay. I would recommend, though, to push this AfD through a long time, and give the user at least a week or so (I've seen AfD's that went way longer than that) to get it into a decent article. It does appear as though the write is working to make it encyclopedic (at least that was stated in the initial edit comment), and there is the possibility of it being a satisfactory article. Considering that we have Pop culture impact articles throughout Wiki, among many other questionable pages, I think it's reasonable to allow the user a few more days of discussion here. There's no reason to rush the process and we can demonstrate our collective Good Faith by taking our time on this one. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest reading this edit summary and this edit. You have a neutrality dispute with an article that cites two books and five academic journal articles discussing the exact subject at hand. As Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) said, you are welcome to add more content if you find sources that disagree with the ones already cited. But that is a matter of editing, not deletion. Please read and familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We don't delete articles because they are not yet perfect. This article is not original research, since it is based upon sources that have discussed the subject — sources that have been cited by many other people, I noticed when checking them out. It is verifiable. Whether it is neutral or not is not a matter for AFD, since clearly the scope of the article is neutral. Neutrality disputes should be solved by finding sources that present the opposing point of view, if they exist, and using them to improve the article. AFD is not cleanup, and is not a big hammer that editors can substitute for actually finding sources and writing. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speaking of big hammers, here I am.) Keep; the subject matter does indeed seem to be notable. POV does seem to be an issue here, but that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the author of this article, and I think that it's possible it's not entirely balanced but should be kept nonetheless because it is notable and summarizes existing research. I wrote that I was pasting something I wrote earlier solely so others wouldn't suspect a copyvio when a finished, unformatted article was added. When adding this, I strove to delete any of my own conclusions and leave only what other sources had said. It's possible other sources I haven't read or don't cite say something different (I wrote this for a college class maybe three or four years ago so I don't remember) but as it is it's sourced and notable, and is a good start for additional research. The appropriate cleanup tags are already on the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it does read like a summary of academic research (which a google scholar search reveals seems overwhelmingingly in line with the broad tone of this article), if a little essay-like in style. Perhaps a section on how the media themselves see their portrayal would help. But style or possible POV issues aren't reasons for deletion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a notable subject back prior to settlement of Australia. Any issues with the article are for cleanup and associated tagging not deletion - Peripitus (Talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, it just needs improving so a larger perspective is gained rather than using the views of a small town newspaper editor to characterise mainstream media opinion. Mention of the role of the national broadcasters in turning negative perceptions around would be a big start not to mention coverage of persons such Noel Pearson and Tania Major, as well as sportspersons such as Michael Long and Anthony Mundine and artists such as Deborah Mailman. Not all coverage is positive but they don't fit into the strait-jacket this article imposes. This can be fixed, however and the article should be kept. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revise as per suggestions above--Matilda talk 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't seem problematic, is a notable topic. Agree with suggestions made by others, particularly Mattinbgn. Orderinchaos 04:12, 9 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. PeaceNT (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TCS Concordia

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

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Previously considered at AFD as part of a massive multiple nomination. PROD nominator states: "Does this series of ships have any real-world notability?" I would answer this with an echoing "no". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 16:30, 6 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. Non-admin close. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human (Star Trek)

edit
Human (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a just duplication of the history of the United Federation of Planets and the Star Trek Earth history article, sprinkled with OR, and should be deleted for lack of notability outside of these which already extensively cover this topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one wasting time attempting to libel my efforts to eliminate non-notable articles. And as about 95% of my nominations for deletion have been accepted, I don't know what you are talking about "not having the proper mindset", as though cleaning the encyclopedia makes you a bad person. And "disputing" the fiction policy doesn't mean it will change in any substantive way, if at all, so lets not pretend it doesn't exist. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not cleanup. Please do not dismiss everyone in the last two weeks that has told you this simple truth. A few examples
[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] SashaNein (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? That was the problem, it had established no notability, and now it has, and I thus withdrew it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:16, 8 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 content worth merging. GlassCobra 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unas language

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

I am an SG-1 fan, but this fictional topic is nonnotable since even the Unas (Stargate) aren't that notable, it's completely unsourced, dictionary-like, and it basically contains nothing that I could use for a merge. The article somehow never got a {{stargateproject}} banner for its talkpage despite its 2.5 years of existance, and it was/is not included in any Stargate category (I just found this article by accident). I expect the result to be rather obvious, but I think the age of this article requires AFD rather than a PROD. – sgeureka t•c 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Huh? It is a dictionary and better suited to a Geocities page. I mean really, this isn't SG-Wictionary. I can see a little info that may be pulled into the species' article, but not a listing of words. I would imagine that this is one a webpage somewhere and that would make a great External Link from the other page. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Most of the "dictionary" looks like OR (not everything is translated on the show, I'm guessing most of the dictionary is guessed based on context), but the rest of the article could probably be merged into the main Unas article. --Tango (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is not so much to filter out the OR, but to know what is OR so that it can be removed. There are no sources, so for all I know (and my fan knowledge doesn't help in this particular case), almost all of it is made up, and I am reluctant to transwiki and link there because there is still a significant amount of OR in there. It's better to start new (on wikia, not wikipedia) and properly source then. – sgeureka t•c 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would completely delete the dictionary part, as you say, it's not reliable enough to transwiki it. --Tango (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would sound like a good idea if it wasn't that basically everyone in the Stargate universe speaks English. :-) But I was completely into the written Stargate languages some years ago (I was the pitiful individual who accidently discovered the Ancient Alphabet after all[14]), and I can guarantee that an article like that could never establish notability as needed per WP:FICT. – sgeureka t•c 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stargate is an odd one when it comes to languages. While everyone speaks English, linguistics is a major topic on the show. One of the main characters (Jackson) is a skilled linguist and many plots revolve (at least partially) around him translating things. I think it would be possible to do an article on the languages in the show, however I think it would be better to have each language discussed in the article about the people that speak it. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not voting but agree in principle that this doesn't seem to belong here in its current form—but it's cool and I don't want to see it just trashed, either. Assuming there are no copyright issues, etc.; I think this might be a good candidate for a small dictionary in Fiction Wikia. CoyneT talk 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki if possible if its listing is not a copyright violation. Collectonian (talk) 07:27, 10 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 --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Is a Yuppie Word

edit
Happy Is a Yuppie Word (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nominate for deletion non-notable song T-rex 16:23, 6 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 all to The_Onion#Reporters_and_editors. Editors may wish to Merge information to expand this section of the redirect target. BLACKKITE 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Anchower

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

The article demonstrates no notability based on reliable sourcing, and as such it is just a repetition of the content of various humorous letter written by this character found on The Onion. As such, it is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons mentioned above, as well as failing WP:FICTION:

Jean Teasdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jackie Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Larry Groznic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gorzo the Mighty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as well as these two:

Herbert Kornfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
T. Herman Zweibel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But do they have any real world notability? (Remember, all these are fictional columnists.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And they were notable parts of The Onion. I see no reason to delete fictional characters when people have taken the time to create their subpages. The Onion's page would be too long with these included. There is no harm in keeping them, and they individually have a lot of fans. --David Shankbone 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can scare up some sources to show that real world notability, WP:FICTION says they need to be merged back into the main article or into a single article on all the fictional writers for the paper. I haven't been able to find sources that show real world notability. If you have found such sources (rather than just assuming notability), I'd be thrilled if you would add it to the articles. (And just for the record, I do subscribe to The Onion's RSS feed and enjoy it very much.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:04, 14 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torrey adams

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

The references for this article are either self-generated or self-serving and none seem like reliable sources. The article also seems to be as much about a company as about an individual, and whatever notability attaches to the company (not much, seemingly) has been asserted on behalf of the individual, it seems. This was a contested speedy and if there is notability here, I'd like to see the AfD process sort it out. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:44, 6 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rokh & tokh

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

An unsubstantiated protologism/neologism, no reliable sources. I offered the creator some time to provide sources and he stated that he would be unable to do so (see Talk:Rokh & tokh) because of the phrase's newness. I couldn't find any English sources but perhaps there are some in another language; if so, I felt this would be a good way to get them into the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:38, 6 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zatch Bell! chapters

edit
List of Zatch Bell! chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Strong delete. Unencyclopedic content. Nothing to be salvaged here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To clarify: This is a list of chapters in manga, not a list of manga. Please bother to click the article before commenting, thanks TheBilly (talk) 15:34, 6 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 consensus). TigerShark (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian metal bands

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

Redundant band list - content is already covered in Category:Christian metal groups Funeral 15:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Category:Christian_metal_groups Serves the same purpose... listing other genres by bands only produces more argument. Axcess (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Category:A covers the items in this list" is only a poor argument when the list provides information that the category doesn't. This list, even with the sprinkling of references, fails to provide any further information than the category, therefore delete.--Alf melmac 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lists and Categories can coexist quite happily togeather, so "already covered" is a moot argument. (eg, this list is in this Category). The list seems well defined in scope as Christian & metal music & Christian metal all are clearly definable. Well sourced (even though only 1 source is used... that can improove over time). Although I commend the Nominator for cleaning up all these[19] [20] [21][22] poorly defined lists. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though the article is partly sourced, has an infobox, etc., it really doesn't matter. Christian Metal is and always will be an umbrella term (eg. Extreme Metal). It is not even a playing style, for that matter. And that is precisely the reason why the article is so cluttered, and unreadable. This itself warrants its deletion. Also there is the "duplication of data" argument. Weltanschaunng 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The List in question looks and fits perfectly well in with the rest of the lists that make up Category:Lists_of_metal_bands. It is well defined and it is no more unmaintainable than any other list on WP. Your insistence that it is redundant holds no water as a reason for deletion. As a matter of fact, as an Article, it actually has much more prose than other Articles in that category, and would technically be the least likely to be deleted. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Exit2DOS2000, that although categories may be somewhat easier to maintain, an article list can coexist together and can do a lot more than what a normal category can. Also, Weltan you yourself have been working on the list of thrash metal bands and making it more than just a list so you should understand this part of it at least. Although, I understand extreme metal and Christian metal bands are umbrella terms but being a list they would be going into a territory that is too broad. But this is for all lists, they all have the capability of becoming more than just a list, becoming a list within a list, a chronology, quick individual histories about bands that played the genre or at a time played it and their albums of that style and more possibilities. Just take that into consideration for all lists. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 05:39, 11 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimchi Crew

edit
Kimchi Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Post Hummus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fermentin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
System Disrupter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(previously contested PROD) The group does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. I can find no "buzz" anywhere about them. The sources are myspace pages, plus one more link that I can't get to work. Joyous! | Talk 15:26, 6 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 deleted per A7 --  jj137 ♠ 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Levis

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

I think this is a hoax. Two of the five links don't work, the others all lead to the same place and don't provide anything about "Alex Levis", and five minutes' search (which is all I think it's worth} turns up no confirming information. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a Fake / Don't delete - I call to Global Productions in London, and Alex Levis is really a "jet setter from NY became singer and actor". Before working for Global, he shot french series like P.J. and Luc Besson movie like "A Ton Image". I didn't know him before but he really exist. So that's not a fake. 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) User:Mikaelitalia
I know that Alex Levis isn't known like Britney or Brad Pitt, but lot's of people know him, not? I made some updates, with the picture from the cd cover, and I change "born in paris" by "born in NY" (i'm not sure, please verify). It's not "Teen Choice Awards" but "Teenagers Awards". He is also a member of the rock band 4Ever. There is videos of him in Youtube. User:Mikaelitalia
  • Comment. This isn't helping. Being on Youtube is not notable in itself and the rest of the references are pure nonsense. Removing other people's comments and falsifying comment signatures just shows that you are not here to contribute constructively. May I suggest you go and play somewhere else? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There really is an Alex Levis! (halfway down page) see also can we please speedy this page...? VigilancePrime (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lets suppose for just a moment that this article isn't a hoax. Even if this guy is an alleged "jet setter", he lacks the reference material to deem him notable. Several people who are insanely good researchers have already attempted to gather information on him and came up empty. I have also checked out Mikaelitalia's claim that Levis was part of "P.J." or "A Ton Image", and he's not listed in the cast or crew for either production. Trusilver (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a hoax (well, for now anyway), but still unnotable. per Trusilver. Not listed in imdb pages for works he is proclaimed to be in. Not enough reference material to be notable. I suspect person defending the keeping of this article is using Babel Fish to translate French to English and vice verse. Doc Strange (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unverifiable biography, possibly intended to promote some YouTube videos of no particular significance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone, not? Hoaxtastic. JuJube (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. futurebird (talk) 04:54, 7 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian rock bands

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

Redundant band list, easily replaceable with Category:Christian rock groups. Funeral 15:00, 6 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KauCom

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

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in February 2006 and was PROD-nominated again in January 2008 (diff between PROD-nominated versions). The recent PROD-nominator stated "A good faith effort to find references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. The search for references has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from clicking these links: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:52, 6 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 Closed. This is premature, folks. The page is still at DRV. If you find a page restored -- not recreated -- in this manner, be sure to check the page log and the page history, both of which explained the situation in this case. This page may be on AfD again soon, after the DRV, but this nomination is void, having been begun with a deeply incorrect assumption. Xoloz (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mig Greengard

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

This article was already deleted after this previous AfD. Now the page has been recreated but I cannot find the reason for this, nor any significant improvement on the causes that made the article deleted six months ago, so I re-nominate the article for deletion. Please consult the article and the former AfD before giving your opinion. The main issue is about notability according to WP:BIO (no books on him, no coverage into reputable mainstream media). SyG (talk) 13:35, 6 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. Yes, consensus appeared to be merge, but is there anything really to merge? Plus, no section to put it in, no reason to mess up an article as a result. Wizardman 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana Doll

edit
Hannah Montana Doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. While I'm sure these dolls are good sellers, there's nothing notable to say about them beyond the mere fact of their existence -- which isn't really worth more than a brief mention in the main Hannah Montana article. Powers T 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN toy Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 12:32, 6 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 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon

edit
The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism with no sources, with a bit of original research as a topping. — Coren (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 12:31, 6 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 wasKeep interested editors may merge/edit as they see fit. JERRY talk contribs 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of Pope John Paul II

edit
Biography of Pope John Paul II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is completely unencyclopedic. Pope John Paul II should be about his biography, not a seperate article in and of itself. In fact, I have found no other "Biography of" articles here. Since Pope John Paul II's article size is getting to be a problem, we could split it into separate articles on periods of his life such as Early life of Jan Smuts. My user account (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 12:29, 6 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. Addhoc (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krozka sharpe guitars

edit
Krozka sharpe guitars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable company. Harland1 (t/c) 12:28, 6 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. Secret account 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island Troll Tribes

edit
Island Troll Tribes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable player-created content for a game. Doesn't assert notability, fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. I would speedy it except I'm not sure of the category. (can db-web be used?) TheBilly (talk) 12:20, 6 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, since none of the articles contained a substantive claim to notability and all were created to advertise the subject. All have been previously speedied. All are the work of single-purpose accounts.

Chris Frangou

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

This article, although apparently well referenced, concerns me. The idea of a notable bass player, at 16, strikes me as improbable, though of course not impossible. I have my doubts over the provenance of the sources; they appear very specific but vague at the same time, e.g. "Hudson, 2006 p. 142." What is this? "Audio Mag" also appears dubious.

The creating author was Chris funk bass (talk · contribs), perhaps this is a autobiography. I would like to assume good faith, but it appears to me an article on a plainly non-notable subject cleverly written to avoid deletion. Mattinbgn\talk 11:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages about groups that Chris Frangou has supposedly performed with and are also written by User:Chris funk bass. I have the same concerns with these articles as above:

Global Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Smith Quintet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:19, 6 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) 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj yours truly

edit
Dj yours truly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self-promotion, fails to meet critera at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Subjects claim to fame, club hit "It's Teazie" gives me zero hits at Google. Thuresson (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete I do not believe this should be deleted it is not self promotion...it wasn't a club hit in the sense of made the radio and made him millions...however more in the sense of when played in Ybor clubs everybody came to the dance floor. Obviousley DJ Yours Truly has not made it to the big stage yet, however, he has seen some local fame. Everything in the article was taken from an Interview which will be also published in an online blog. He does not have a true website. Which is very common lately due to myspace being free. Whomattgross (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should get yourself acquainted with WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT. If it was only one club that said song was popular at, this doesn't make it notable. You state that everything in the article was taken from somewhere else. This is called plagiarism and is a no-no on Wikipedia. He has also not made it to the "big stage" yet, which also means he's NN. No other sources but the interview, no All Music Guide and only a small handful of relevant Google hits. This means he's not notable. Doc Strange (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-Up Comment. These are some of the WP:MUSIC criteria: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". This artist does not. "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources". Nope. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." Nope. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Nope. Doc Strange (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This is not plagiarism because I wrote it word for word in an interview with the artist. I didn't realize that the only way you could be put on wikipedia as an artist was if you were an accomplished artist. However just because you haven't made it there doesn't mean you don't have a story.
One that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. --neonwhite user page talk 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Above So this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia...but the term Pull my finger does? okayWhomattgross (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping something Doc Strange (talk) 19:04, 7 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, though cleanup is certainly called for.--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss BG

edit
Miss BG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much for all of the reason listed in the tags I listed (quite a few). Among others: few sources, reads like a fansite (even saying "I like the show"), poorly written, no assertion of notability, and many other problems. I'm not sure that the article could be salvaged in its current form. I don't think the creator of the article intends to improve it since their only edits were creating the article (and that was back on July 4), i'm surprised an article this bad has gone unoticed for over 6 months. TJ Spyke 09:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I’m sorry, am I looking at the wrong Miss BG? The first hit was ABC as shown here [25] and as you can see there is extensive coverage. In addition, Google News had additional notable, creditable and verifiable sources as shown here. [26]. Come on people a little research before nominating! Shoessss |  Chat  15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Sorry to disagree, but I believe it is the job of every responsible editor, and looking at your history I would classify you as a responsible editor, to base their expressions on whether to Keep or Delete an article on “Informed opinion” which does require some research. My earlier comments where not to disparage any individual but rather to say; “…take a minute and research an article", it may have been initiated by a new editor, who would really appreciate some help in developing the piece to “A” status rather that just deleting their work and discouraging a potential Pulitzer price writer from coming back to Wikipedia and contributing.. Lastly, Happy New Year to all. Shoessss |  Chat  23:09, 6 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. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Hall University Alma Mater

edit
Seton Hall University Alma Mater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Song lyrics. John Nagle (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be the full lyrics of a song, or the text of a ritual or prayer. WP:NOT para. 2.9 applies. Possible copyvio. --John Nagle (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a copyright violation; the content may be old enough to be out of copyright. That's why I didn't put a {{copyvio}} tag on it. But Wikipedia doesn't do lyrics; see WP:NOT. If it is out of copyright, it could be put in Wikimedia Commons. --John Nagle (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia doesn't do exclusively lyrics. They might be included alongside encyclopedic information, so long as that inclusion is not a copyright problem. Dylan (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to Alma Mater (Dartmouth College) is not a very good one, either, because that song received national media attention in the 1970s and 1980s (notability). This song does not appear to have received similar attention. Dylan (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It amy or not be copyright violation (in response to John), it depends on when it was written. It's unlikey that whoever wrote the song didn't copyright it because that would mean they would never make money off of it. It's one of the reasons articles on songs here don't include the lyrics. TJ Spyke 02:17, 7 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 and cleanup. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ransom, Jr.

edit
Robert Ransom, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep needs to be cleaned up but subject is notable. I checked the other articles and the users contribution history, it's possible they are posting copyrighted material and don't know that. Awotter (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These all smell like copyvios, especially the formatting. This one is probably from Sifakis per its own citation, a 1989 book that is still under copyright for some time to come. --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since one of the other articles used different references I am not sure yet, I could find no matches in Google books and several of the articles seem to have a fair number of misspelled words, so it still could be someone just not aware of the problems with the articles or waht copyvio is. I posted a message on the users page along with an example of what a cleaned up article should look like James B. Walton and a link to Wiki Military Project. Awotter (talk) 12:04, 6 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 consensus). TigerShark (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery D. Corse

edit
Montgomery D. Corse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:23, 6 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 - duplicate article. Addhoc (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David G. McIntosh

edit
David G. McIntosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:23, 6 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. Fram (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles S. Venable

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

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:54, 7 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 coverage satisfies WP:BIO, and additional citations added since the nomination indicate that it also satisfies WP:V. Any remaining copyright concerns may be taken up at WP:CP. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 05:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armistead L. Long

edit
Armistead L. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:21, 6 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. The subject satisfies WP:BIO, and the information provided below indicates that he also satisfies WP:V. Any remaining copyright concerns may be taken up at WP:CP. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 05:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Walton

edit
James B. Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, pending information about sources. This looks like it could be an okay article (perhaps). But the only reference note on it leads to nowhere. Needs some sources (and then a lot of improvement via WP:MOS). Unschool (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the style of the articles is not uniform, so they are unlikely to have all been copied from the same book. DGG (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In most of these articles Sefakis is the one and only source cited. If it backs up the claims without showing copyvio then there isn't a problem; if it doesn't source, or provides evidence of plagiarism, then deletion will be necessary. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:34, 8 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zink

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

Not notable, only citations are subjects own website Legotech (talk) 07:36, 6 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. Fram (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Europe

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

Self-promotion, fails WP:CORP Jfire (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This award they "won" (according to the site they were actually an honorable mention" seems non-trivial; it brings up a lot of Google and several Google News hits. This company itself is rather hard to search for given its name, but it's been mentioned along with one of its founders a couple times in Google News stories. Agreed that the source given doesn't support the article's claim that "Fuel is widely seen to be the leading corporate education company in Europe," but it does seem to indicate some notability. Not too sure here, but when in doubt, don't delete. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be very wary of those Google News hits. Anything that says "presswire" or "PR Newswire" or similar means that it is almost certainly a press release written by the company; i.e. self-promotion and not significant third-party coverage. I can't find any third-party coverage of this company. And as you noted, they didn't win the award, they were only a "special mention". I see nothing here that passes WP:CORP, and the article was written by an employee. Jfire (talk) 07:54, 6 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. Addhoc (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bays Christopher

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

Previously deleted as Christopher Bays?, seems to be nonnotable kickboxer. Don't think it can be PRODed. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 07:21, 6 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1944 D-Day : Operation Overlord

edit
1944 D-Day : Operation Overlord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted via AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) in March 2007 per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N. I found no independent coverage from reliable sources, and game is still not even scheduled for release, so it appears to fail again on the same counts. Note that earlier versions of this incarnation of the article actually had more content; the author reduced it to its current state shortly after I removed an interwiki link xe had added to it at Battle of Normandy. Maralia (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete They could at least have the decency to write an article Rotovia (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems no more notable now than at the time of the last AfD. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure advertising and just links. Jmlk17 08:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs an article to go with the links. -Legotech (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable hits in Gamespot, Neoseeker, IgN, game rankings or rotten tomatoes--Lenticel (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete by CSD A1 as providing "little or no context to the reader". — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 11:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Harland1 (t/c) 12:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- no content --T-rex 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, out of nine comments here, precisely three people actually read the last sentence of the nomination or bothered to look at the article history. Disturbing. Maralia (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to revert, there is no reason to waste any of our time here to do so, simply revert the page blanking and let us all get on with our lives. You showed us instead a page with one line and four external links, and that get speedy deleted anyday... --T-rex 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You !voted 'speedy delete - no content' based purely on the reduced state of the article. Extensive discussion on this page—starting, oddly enough, in my nomination—details why speedy is not appropriate, and that the issue is notability and crystal ballery. If you can't be bothered to read the full nom, look at the article history when it's been pointed out as relevant, or read any of the deletion discussion, you're wasting my time. Maralia (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per last three people. Absolutely no content aside from four links. Not even a sentence. Nothing. Only "Visit the Website" and four links to different pages on said website. Doc Strange (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must repeat: please see the article history before jumping on the CSD A1 bandwagon. Note that I am the nominator, and I feel it should be deleted, but please make an effort to !vote based on the proper criteria. Maralia (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it stands, the article fulfills CSD A1 - would somebody like to try and argue with the fact that it's a very short article with no context? If the article is edited (to include the original text, while keeping the AfD template) I'll more than happily change my vote. Perhaps this AfD raises something I'm unaware of - is there a reason it doesn't fulfill CSD A1, based on the history? — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CSD policy asks administrators to check the page history to see if a previous version is salvageable rather than delete the article at the administrators discretion. ----tgheretford (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hence my cough. I am an administrator, and I certainly wouldn't speedily delete this article for having no context when there is a version in the history that has context. That's the very reason that administrators are supposed to check article histories. Without doing so, vandals could get articles deleted willy-nilly by just vandalizing them and them nominating them for speedy deletion.

          The only valid speedy deletion criterion here would be re-creation of previously discussed and deleted content. I've had a look at 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) (AfD discussion). It's not exactly the same article as this one, but all of the arguments from the prior AFD discussion, about documenting something that has yet to be shown to the world, appear still to apply from what this article says alone.

          However, it has been almost seven months. Sources may have appeared in the meantime. All of the editors above asking for speedy deletion on invalid grounds haven't helped AFD one whit with the rationales that they gave; and if I were the administrator closing this discussion, I'd simply discount their rationales entirely. They would actually help AFD by double-checking that it is still the case, since the last AFD discussion, that no independent sources exist. Looking for sources onesself is what one is supposed to be doing at AFD, and one of the reasons that AFD involves more than 1 pair of eyes, as explained in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

          I applaud Lenticel and Maralia for having done this. Everyone else take note: That is what you are supposed to be doing at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I reverted to the last salvageable revision and added the afd tag. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be at least a semi-notable game. I'm sure it will garner more attention as it comes closer to the release date. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is whether it has it already had any attention. What independent and reliable sources did you find when you looked to see whether the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability were satisfied? Notability is not subjective, and is not your personal opinion of whether something is notable or not. By not looking for sources, and not demonstrating that they exist to support an article being written, per our content and deletion policies, you are not helping AFD any more than the editors calling for speedy deletion. An argument to keep on invalid grounds is as useless to the closing administrator as an argument to delete on invalid grounds. Please base your rationales on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching for the game's title and the developer's name (Frantic Games) produces just under 5k hits, the only half-promising ones I've seen are a short interview on a message board [27] and this, which doesn't pass notability by any stretch. The game is still under development and, apparently, has increased in complexity considerably. On top of that, viewing a thread on the game's website reveals the lead programmer stating that they do not wish to have a WP article because interested parties who go over to the game's site are given no in-game shots or footage - no footage is being released until the devs are satisfied it reflects the finished game. Until these details are made available the secondary sources we need aren't going to appear. The article doesn't pass our guidelines, the developers don't want more disappointed potential players turning up and asking for materials which haven't been produced, WP readers don't need directing to things which don't yet tangibly exist, where's the positives? When the game is released, it may result in good sources, in which case we have the article back and readers get pointed to something which might interest them and is actually there to use. Someone another (talk) 05:11, 8 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 --JForget 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan roberts

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

Article seems to be a autobiography of a nonnotable person. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 07:17, 6 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 (Not very) Speedy delete g7, author blanked the page. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress For Tomorrow

edit
Congress For Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The same editor just deprodded this article without explanation, as well, so again, here is the nominator's rationale: NN, 6 Google Hits, Party Leader's article was just deleted in AfD) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the above unsigned comment and the vote below are by an apparent single purpose account (see: WP:SPA), to contest these deletions. Fact is User:Chabuk is a longtime editor in good standing so please assume good faith, per WP:AGF. Oh, and deleteShawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is User:Chabuk has been a subject of controversy and scandal on wikipedia which got main stream media attention for his politically motivated edits over the past two years --Politicat (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False. Fact is Chabuk was a victim, not a perpetrator, of politically motivated editing. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See articles Vaughan municipal election, 2006, Alan Shefman, Susan Kadis, Michael Di Biase and any article related to Thornhill and Vaughan and especially the articles of the candidates that ran against them. User:Chabuk got a front page article in the Vaughan Citizen newspaper for his politically motivated edits on wikipedia, his edits became an issue in this election that his father (who was running) and the former Mayor had to address. His father even went as far as to say publicly in the newspaper article that he does not condone his sons actions and has asked him to stop makes these edits. THATS THE FACT JACK!--Politicat (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let those of us who were actually here at the time, and actually dealing with what actually happened, decide who is and isn't biased. (Friendly hint: Chabuk wasn't the problem.) The factjack is you weren't here and don't know what happened, so can the attitude. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Extremely Strong Keep and Expand – I find it very amusing that the original nominator to have this article deleted is the leader of the young liberal party.--Politicat (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Youth Parliament of Canada is not an actual legislative body, and hence its political parties do not merit individual articles. Merge into NYPC article. And Chabuk cannot be accused of bias here unless he argues for the Liberal group to be treated differently than the others, which he hasn't done. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bearcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I said at the other page, While I'm not going to wade into this nonsense, I will say one thing. If someone had created a page on the Liberal Youth Party of Canada (the group which I lead), I can guarantee you 100% that I would have nominated it for deletion at the same time I nominated these. The fact is, all of these parties are utterly non-notable in Wiki terms. The near-consensus that has emerged here to delete or merge (with the exception of the single-purpose account) simply shows that, as before, my only interest in this matter is upholding Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, make a page for the LYPC - I'll have that deleted also. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy? Apparently the creator of the article has blanked the page. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:09, 9 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. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Conservative Party of Canada

edit
Youth Conservative Party of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One of the article creators just removed the PROD without explanation. I object to this kind of behavior and so am taking it to an AfD, with the nominators rationale for a PROD as follows: NN, 6 Google Hits, Party Leader's article was just deleted in AfD Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the above unsigned comment and the vote below are by an apparent single purpose account (see: WP:SPA), to contest these deletions. Fact is User:Chabuk is a longtime editor in good standing so please assume good faith, per WP:AGFShawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is User:Chabuk has been a subject of controversy and scandal on wikipedia which got main stream media attention for his politically motivated edits over the past two years.--Politicat (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Do you really believe such comments help your case? Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Merge, per Bearcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See articles Vaughan municipal election, 2006, Alan Shefman, Susan Kadis, Michael Di Biase and any article related to Thornhill and Vaughan and especially the articles of the candidates that ran against them. User:Chabuk got a front page article in the Vaughan Citizen newspaper for his politically motivated edits on wikipedia, his edits became an issue in this election that his father (who was running) and the former Mayor had to address. His father even went as far as to say publicly in the newspaper article that he does not condone his sons actions and has asked him to stop makes these edits. THATS THE FACT JACK!--Politicat (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let those of us who were actually here at the time, and actually dealing with what actually happened, decide who is and isn't biased. (Friendly hint: Chabuk wasn't the problem.) The factjack is you weren't here and don't know what happened, so can the attitude. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Extremely Strong Keep and Expand – I find it very amusing that the original nominator to have this article deleted is the leader of the young liberal party.--Politicat (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would only be politically motivated and biased if Chabuk were nominating this for deletion while simultaneously writing or trying to keep an article about another political party in the same body, which he hasn't done — in fact, he's voted to have numerous NYPC-Liberal articles deleted as non-notable too. And Politicat's "controversy and scandal" comment above betrays an almost total lack of understanding of what actually happened — Chabuk was a victim, not a perpetrator, of politically-motivated editing. Politicat, you are hereby advised to assume good faith, with the warning that you can be blocked if you continue to make inappropriate allegations that are irrelevant to the matter at hand. As for the group, the New Youth Parliament of Canada is not an actual legislative body, and accordingly its individual political parties are not notable enough for independent articles. Merge into the NYPC article. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I'm not going to wade into this nonsense, I will say one thing. If someone had created a page on the Liberal Youth Party of Canada (the group which I lead), I can guarantee you 100% that I would have nominated it for deletion at the same time I nominated these. The fact is, all of these parties are utterly non-notable in Wiki terms. The near-consensus that has emerged here to delete or merge (with the exception of the single-purpose account) simply shows that, as before, my only interest in this matter is upholding Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, make a page for the LYPC - I'll have that deleted also. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. For that matter, delete New Youth Parliament of Canada, too, for lack of notability. Argyriou (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The YCPC is an official party in the Youth Parliament of Canada. This group will become much more notable come February with the media launch of the Youth Parliament of Canada. Nick8670(talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 6 google results, none of them reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 15:47, 14 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Harary

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

Page is a single line from the subject's own press materials, lack of citations for notability Legotech (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's certainly information available on Google, by concern is this will be yet another article created by a fan or the subject themselves, which never ends up being expanded or including encyclopedic information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 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. There may be some merit in the Facebook part of the story being mentioned alsewhere, but Ms Rengel herself was not notable. BLACKKITE 14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Rengel

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

The only claim to notability seems to be her murder, which of itself does not satisfy notability standards. HookOnTheWall (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issue is that I can't find a standard that is met. The news articles that I have seen on this case all seem to be trivial coverage, albeit from reliable published sources. Many murder victims will have numerous articles covering their murder. The Google search you included seems to include a number of articles from Canadian, and primarily local/Toronto, media organisations which is far from unusual for any murder. Simply because their has been some discussion in the media regarding Facebook and censorship laws, would not itself seem to make this individual notable enough for their own article (perhaps a note could be added to the Facebook article, instead). HookOnTheWall (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I voted to delete, I should point out it has garnered national coverage, such as this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did say above that it got national coverage. HookOnTheWall (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral None of the information mentioned above was included in the article. If it were, I would vote to keep. This article may need to be watched, if the noteworthy information is not added, it will need to be deleted as in its current form it does not meet notability. Rotovia (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It's a sad story but it's also a clear case of WP:NOT#NEWS Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down as Neutral, too, per User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The girl - There seems to be no indication that the girl was notable in her own right
  • The murder - There seems to be no indication that the murder was notable in its own right
  • The Facebook "controversy" - This may be notable (although it seems far too early to say), but even if it is, it should at most be a note in the Facebook article, until this potentially becomes an article in its own right (even then it should not be an article about the girl or the murder - although redirects may well be appropriate). At best it seems that we initially would have a merge of relevant information into Facebook and then a redirect. HookOnTheWall (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that this is not really an article about Rengel per se. It doesn't need to say what primary school she went to or what's the name of her dog. I titled the page Stefanie Rengel because it's the most obvious and (to me) logical title. However, I don't agree that her murder was not notable; clearly it garnered non-trivial coverage from reliable published sources. That doesn't mean that we necessarily need an article about it, or that such an article shouldn't be deleted, but "non-notable" is just flatly contradicted by the core notability guideline. The Facebook issue, again, has been the subject of significant commentary in reliable published sources. See the two sources given in the article, Facebook proves problematic for police and Gag orders in a Facebook age, for starters.
  • I have seen more than a few articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, many of which had little or no notability or implications for society beyond simply being tragically killed. See Taylor Behl, for example, or Naomi Almeida. Aqsa Parvez, 16, was the victim of an apparent honour killing in the same area as Rengel only a few weeks before, and has a page. A quick perusal of Category:Murder victims or a subcat such as Category:Murdered Canadian children will reveal a lot of articles like this. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but when both policy and current practice seem to be in line with keeping such articles, I don't see the reason for deletion. <eleland/talkedits> 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will elaborate - having nominated two other articles for deletion for the same reasons the majority of those voting to delete have outlined herein, it would be hypocritical and inconsistent for me to vote otherwise. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Jakenkrassov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priorism

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

I don't think this is notable, but in any case it seems to constitute original research. -- Mentifisto 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  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}}

  • Not enough time - Please, don't nominate articles for deletion soon after they've been created unless they're patent nonsense, etc. Give them some time. SeanMD80talk | contribs 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article certainly is quite interesting, and if expanded may meet Wikipedia's criteria. I'm going to vote that we leave it for now, but that this article be watched. My bet is that it may never be expanded beyond its current form. If that is the case, then this article should be marked again in the future. Rotovia (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not enough time - I agree, 10hours is not enough time to see where this Article is going. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is if one looks at the sources, as other editors have actually done, and sees that this is, if one relies upon unreliable sources and takes them at face value, a one-person religion, that only that one person has ever documented, on self-published web pages. One can see where articles are going by looking at the sources they will be based upon. If there are no reliable sources to be had, then clearly they aren't going anywhere. This is one of the fundamentals of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please put it into practice. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7. No assertion of notability, probable hoax. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and I just HangOn'd that CSD while this AFD is in progress. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must respectfully disagree with you on that point - this is _one_ guy (I'd say "teenager", but he claims to be 23) who has put up a joke MySpace page to insult his local church; a less appropriate candidate for a Wikipedia article is difficult to imagine. But, if we have to go through the full rigmarole of AfD to eliminate the entry, we have to. Strongest Possible Delete. Tevildo (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure. I just feel that once AFD started the process should be left to finish. Also, I'm not sure this guy is alone, at that ___location mabey, but possibly this guy gave him the viewpoint to start with. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. There are genuine philsophical concepts by this name, see below. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this one person in Ashford, Kent creating a joke MySpace page. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is partly why I wanted to not have this Article CSD'd but explored instead. There is a Article in here somewhere. It it worth a re-write? Someone going so far as to purchase a Domain Name in pursuit of a hoax against a real church will not be put off WP by a simple CSD. I hate to have to see a salting of an Article name that we know is just going to keep comming back if the space isn't filled in or redirected. It may be a hoax, it may fail WP:V as the article currently stands. (My hope is that it gets rewritten by a true theologian.) Im not saying that it passes either standard, nor have I made any !Vote. On the other hand, if we all were to Assume Good Faith of the editor, is 10hours enough time for a new article to provide everything required to satisfy everyone? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This whiffs of hoax. The term "Priorism" does not appear in this provided linke: 1. It doesn't seem to appear in this one, either, but the pictures that do appear are instructive. On the MySpace account linked, the term is used as follows, in "Rev Paul's Blurbs": "I am one of Ashfords Resident Baptists. There are not many of us left in Ashford, so I really would like to meet other Baptist's from around the world. I can be very forward, and I am not shy about speaking my mind. I am seen as a radical in my local Church, but we all prey to the same "being" at the end of the day. I founded the Church of Priorism in June 2000. If your anti my religion your on the wrong page. Only leave a comment IF your going to be nice.. cos what goes around comes around...Don't make me baptist you...." Paul adds, "I'll do more then Baptise your Ass, I'll sign you up to a week's course!!" Even if it's not a hoax, "Rev Paul" himself suggests the church may not be notable "There are not many of us left in Ashford." Respectfully, Exit2DOS2000, the fact that somebody else uses the term in what seems a very different text doesn't make this group notable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. For those who don't get it, the Saturn finger is the middle finger and so the so-called "Sign of the Baptist" is actually the bird. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for sources, and came up empty-handed. This is a one-person religion, that only that one person has ever documented, on a self-published web pages— assuming that it is even that. As others have noted, the web page appears to be a joke, which its creator, as Ashfordbaptistpaul (talk · contribs) clearly is, is abusing Wikipedia in order to propagate. Editors who think that we should keep this should take a refresher course in our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. We don't accept this person's joke claim on a MySpace page to be a founder of a religion any more than we accept the 350-odd claims of people who claim on their MySpace pages to be God King. Our goal is to create an accurate encyclopaedia, not to create a mish-mash amalgamation of whatever people decide to write about themselves on the World Wide Web, or indeed what they decide to write about themselves directly in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). This claimed religion has not been peer reviewed, fact checked, published, and accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge. It is unverifiable and original research, created by an editor with a conflict of interest. Delete.

    Ironically, the search for sources turns up a priorism, a concept in philosophy which we don't have an article on. We should be ashamed of even considering giving a joke religion "more time" before putting it up for deletion when genuine encyclopaedic topics with this name have yet to be covered. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • NO DELETE After reading the comments above I first decided this was a joke, BUT after taking the time to read though the external links mainly this one I beleive that this is real, their following my not be huge but this does not make it untrue. They seem to have a light hearted look on life and seem not to make everything hell and brimstone from of the comments on the site. As for there sign looking like the bird in my opinion this is far from the truth. If you take the time to read the infomation you can see how the sign has changed over the years. NO DELETE moleunc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— moleunc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind wikilinking? I don't remember having read that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. There is no such procedure. Corvus cornixtalk 02:49, 7 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) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferns STD

edit

Hoaxy. "Pteris Nodulosa groinus" gets 0 GHits, not to mention that hosing yourself down with herbicide seems like a bad idea. Source links are unrelated. shoy 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are unreleated! Firsts source: An AIDs advocate, second source: a lawn fertilizer company Third source: A biodiversity company VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obviously not a hoax. The Ferns plagues the people of the upper north west of our country. please do not abuse your deletion privileges.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orgrimmar

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

Contested PROD, so here we are. Many past deletion discussions (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft locations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major cities in World of Warcraft, and probably some others I can't find) have found World of Warcraft locations insufficiently notable to merit articles. shoy 05:51, 6 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 --JForget 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ogaden absame

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

Appears to be a list of something... but is both unsourced and has very low contextual material. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:50, 6 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. Secret account 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column

edit
Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not meet WP:NOTE; it is little more than a collection of columns responding to the column that is the subject of the "article" Unschool (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, "blogosphere" blowback, by the looks of it. There are a lot of things wrong with the article, but when it comes down to it, the column simply isn't notable. Make a mention of it on Joe Klein if absolutely necessary. Lankiveil (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Time is a major magazine. All of its articles will receive close scrutiny and this one is no different. Article violates WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Joe Klein. While most of the article is a rambling brain dump of the issue at hand, there doesn't seem to be an actual article anywhere within all of the information provided. A very limited subsection of the contents here should be merged to the author article and addressed there in a more coherent fashion. Alansohn (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can I boil all of it down to a sentence or two? Because that's all that the folks there will allow because of disproportionate weight issues. --NBahn (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can mention his article, summarize what he said, and mention the overall response, with a possible summary of what the common reaction was. Blogs are not reliable sources - WP:SPS - so please don't cite those. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - WP:NOT#OR - and politicized debates are not welcome, constructive, or even interesting to editors trying to write good encyclopedia articles. The article at present is largely original research - WP:OR - because you've provided your own analysis by stringing blogosphere comments together. This "new synthesis of existing information" is not allowed. Wikipedia does not provide new interpretations of events, we regurgitate existing information (from reputable sources) into an article in the manner of an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, or magazine, or blog, or personal webpage, or essay. Most of the content does not belong whatsoever, in any form. For example, "memorable quotes"? The whole section should be deleted entirely. Humorous responses? Definitely gone. "Analysis"? Without even reading it, it's obvious the whole section probably needs to go (again, original research. we don't provide our own analysis). A few snippets from the "analysis from the mainstream media" could probably be salvaged, but not in the form of a mere collection of opinions TheBilly (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a collection of links, which we are emphatically not. This is like a technorati search so that someone has a handy reference page for all the big or semi-big bloggers who have at one time made a comment on the topic. It's definitely WP:NPOV#Undue weight for a subject which can be adequately covered in about a paragraph. Even if it's the worst boner Klein ever committed to public view, it's not deserving an article of its own. --Dhartung | Talk 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nbahn as per comments on the talk page of Joe Klein I greatly admire your effort on this but the level of detail here is both not suitable and not notable enough for an encyclopedia. The few sentances on the Joe Klien article are enough to learn about the controversy. This article belongs in a political blog and although you have referenced it, it is mainly a list of links to different blogs. I am sorry but delete. Perhaps if you can get this to a few neat paragraphs of prose, with correct reference styling - see WP:References then maybe you might be able to swing me. But for now this article shouldnt be on WP. Sorry. LordHarris 10:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after significant pruning and cleanup. This has multiple substanital issues - It's almost all original research, it cites blogs, it's blatantly non-neutral (phrasings like "this train-wreck of a paragraph"), but then again this was a controversial article one of the oldest and most respected magazines, so it's certainly worth mentioning that it happened and that there was a media response to it. That should be done in a very small section in the article about Joe Klein TheBilly (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Lankiveil-- I like the way you so blithely dismiss the fact that between 4 and 20 million people now -- thanks to Klein and his editors -- believe that Democrats are "terrorist-coddling national security losers." Shouldn't such prominently placed inaccuracies/misstatements like these be described as such? But never mind that, you must be very busy -- so busy that you can't even be bothered to identify the "lot of things [that are] wrong with the article...." I do recall asking for input on the article; I guess that I should have been more specific and asked for constructive criticism.

    User:Unschool--About the piece being "little more than a collection of columns...": If it wasn't structured like that, then you would be accusing me of engaging in original research.

    So please allow me to repeat -- but rephrase -- my request: I would greatly appreciate it if someone would be kind enough to precisely show what needs improvement. Potshots from the peanut gallery are neither welcome nor desired.

    --NBahn (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another comment. Since this is a US based topic (and the original column appeared in the main US-based Time Magazine), the article title should use US date format(i.e. it should be Joe Klein's November 21, 2007 Time magazine column) and the internal dates should also use US dating. None of this will matter though if the article gets deleted. TJ Spyke 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So wikipedia does not sort fact from fiction? I must have missed that particular memo. I don't suppose that you would be kind enough to provide a source for that now, would you? --NBahn (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nbahn, to the best of my knowledge, you and I have never met up on any issue in the past. Accordingly, I find it somewhat presumptuous of you to tell me how I would react to a situation that I never had to confront. Even I don't know for sure how I would act in the situation you describe.

    Having said that, what constructive criticism can I offer? Frankly, I have some serious issues with the layout. Unless an article is actually a "list", and titled as such, then it should be compiled in a prose format. An article written appropriately is something that I can read to someone else, and they will be able to follow the article's flow. But this article has no flow, because it does not have one sentence which follows another. It's just not stylistically correct.

    But that really is a moot point, and one that I shouldn't belabor, because, most importantly, I think that the article fails to meet the standards of notability. Even if you wrote this in the most flowing prose, I'd still've probably nominated it for deletion. Klein is a columnist. His job is to provoke thought and even controversy within the political dialogue in America. And other columnists often respond to and rebut their fellow columnists' articles. I started regularly reading political columns over thirty years ago, and this just seems perfectly ordinary to me, Nbahn. I just don't see any notability.

    I admire the huge amount of work you put into this. I know that it hurts to have others denigrate your efforts. But don't mistake that for denigrating you. Anyone willing to put that much work into an attempt at an article will surely have good things to bring to this encyclopedia. With more time and experience, you'll someday probably look back at this discussion and better understand what is being said here. Good luck. Unschool (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And Nbahn, I also realize that I may sound a bit patronizing. I don't mean to be. It's just that I realize that I'm still relatively inexperienced as a Wikipedian, with only a little over 5000 edits, compared to many of these people that have tens of thousands of edits. I'm still learning. And you—you have less than 100 main space edits. You still have a lot to pick up; I hope that that fact makes you eager to learn, not angry and resentful. Unschool (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if I understand you correctly -- and I'm far from certain that I do -- then what you're saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for a noted columnist at one of the country's most infuential news magazines to promote flagrant falsehoods &/or lie through his teeth. I thought that yellow journalism was supposed to have died out generations ago. The truth is supposed to be identified as the truth, and a lie is supposed to be identified as a lie. Has political discourse in this country so deteriorated that journalists are expected to lie based upon their respective publication's political leanings? That is as vile as it is corrupt. --NBahn (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not saying that at all. However I must say that this encyclopedia is not the place to hash out such a partisan issue. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is to maintain a Neutral Point of View. And you don't really want a "neutral" article, do you? You're upset about this. Hard to write neutrally in such a state. Unschool (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nbahn, Please calm down, and please do not use tortured logic. The fact that an article on a topic is not notable for Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it's "acceptable" in society at large. You are trying to shame us into becoming a fact-checking service, but that's not what an encyclopedia does (Media Matters and Think Progress perform that function). If you have a beef with TIME, I suggest that you contact the editorial staff there. This has nothing to do with our policies. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All this boils down to is "a columnist wrote a column the premise of which was incorrect". That happens all the time and so is inherently non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- article has zero claim of notablity, maybe mention a line or two elsewhere but that is all --T-rex 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mention elsewhere, but not in its own separate article. Fails notability. — BQZip01 — talk 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork of Joe Klein. --Samiharris (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lankiveil and others, above. Would the article have been notable if it were not written in TIME or by Joe Klein? Would it have received the same scrutiny? I submit that, since notability is not inherited, that the column itself is not notable. However, the fact that TIME published the column, or the fact that Klein wrote it, may be worth a mention in one of those articles, provided that independent, reliable sources are provided to discuss the article. We cannot judge truth or fabrication in the article itself, because that is synthesis and Original Research, which is not permitted. We can note that Klein was criticised due to the article, and note the source and nature of the criticism, but we must then also note that other media sources defended Klein, saying thus and so. We must have balanced coverage, or no coverage at all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly Merge per theBilly and others, above. It's good work, but belongs somewhere other than Wikipedia. Petershank (talk) 22:50, 9 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 A1 (band) without prejudice to recreation as stand-alone if independent reliable sources claiming notability can be uncovered. BLACKKITE 14:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marazzi

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

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This was found PROD-nominated despite a prior trip to AFD; see diff between version at time of AFD closure and PROD nomination. PROD nominator stated "Not notable enough on his own to have his own page. Possibly merge to A1 (band)". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:36, 6 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 A1 (band) without prejudice to recreating as a stand-alone article if suitable sources confirming notability can be uncovered. BLACKKITE 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Read (singer)

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

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Found PROD-nominated despite prior trip to AFD; consider diff between AFD-closed and PROD-nominated versions. PROD nominator stated "Not notable enough on his own to have his own page. Possibly merge to A1 (band)." I would tend to agree with the merger proposal, but that is an editorial decision that didn't require PROD-nom, unfortunately. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:25, 6 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 - G4. --Michael Greiner 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shmorhun

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

Non-notable wrestler. Googling yields 272 hits, of which the top hit is the Wiki article. Article seems vaguely like a hoax; also fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I didn't realize there was already an AfD out for this. I've tagged the page with CSD. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 6 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. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat aggravation

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

Seems to be an WP:OR essay. While thorough, interesting, and referenced, Wikipedia is not the place for original research like this. Lankiveil (talk) 04:20, 6 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 --JForget 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noobiecon

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

Non-notable convention. Reads like an advertisement, cites no resources and does not assert notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:49, 6 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 --JForget 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmin Tamil

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

Deserves discussion [Moved from PROD] - appearance at wikibooks is not sufficient reason for Prod deletion Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there's a wikibook with the same content. However, I think that the subject here meets WP:V, WP:N, and other criteria, and with a few alterations will form a decent article on the subject. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:51, 6 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 the redirect, current title is a sufficiently notable subject, redirect is a possible searchterm for it. Fram (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chipnet

edit
Chipnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Orphaned Article, no sources and can't be found online Cahk (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [30] [31][32][33] didn't look very hard. The article is not exactly good quality though and probably isnt notable though i cannot comment on how prevalent this is in Holland. --neonwhite user page talk 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article claimed the card to be used in The Netherlands, however, 3/4 of your sources indicated this is a UK-based company. In fact, Infineer, based on its claim on the site, is a US-based company. That's the reason why I say 'it can't be found online'.--Cahk (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it matters what nationality the company that makes the chips is. --neonwhite user page talk 02:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The sources provided by Neonwhite all appear to suggest that Chipnet is a system used within organizations (particularly on school campuses) as a local cash replacement (i.e, for school meals), not something that would be used by the public at large. I have no idea where the description in the article came from, but it appears to be rather seriously erroneous. (The description of PIN as an "online point-of-sale payment system [...] which transfers payments in real-time" is rather odd, too. Chip and PIN is a closer match, but it only exists in the UK.) There might be some virtue in completely rewriting this article to reflect the reality (that Chipnet is a brand of corporate smartcard system), though. Zetawoof(ζ) 13:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep, given the correct name (Chipknip) and some added sources. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chipnet is included with every Dutch-issued bank pass (the card used to withdraw cash from ATMs). It is therefore in widespread use. Loading stations are located next to many ATMs. It is used for payment in office canteens, public buses, for car parking, and in many shops. As an foreigner living in the Netherlands for the past six years, I can easily understand why it is regarded as the world's leading electronic cash deployment. This article is weak but as useful placeholder until it is improved. Tim Richardson (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Holland and use my Chipknip every day. Chipnet, however, I've never heard of. Dutch Wikipedia has this article on the chipknip. I think this discussion is about two separate and largely unrelated things, chipknip and chipnet. Wammes Waggle (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again.. the reason I put the delete template on is because no sources point it towards being a Netherlands system. Yes, I realize you can find system (maybe the same name) online but they all point to the system being used in UK or US which doesn't fit into the article's description. So either the system exist but no financial institution advertise it or the article simply have all the 'facts' wrong.
Comment Believe me, everybody uses this Chipknip here in the Netherlands... Ask any Dutch Wikipedian in ase of any doubts (you might want to try our village pump?) I guess most sources are in Dutch, so that may explain why they're a bit hard to locate... If it's necessary I'll try a Google search in Dutch! The Chipnet is something I've nevr heard of, though, so it may just be that redirect that needs to be deleted... Erik1980 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just fo clarify, the re-direct was put on by Tim after he left the comment here.--Cahk (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... Here's a newspaper article in Dutch (just happened to appear today), but at least it has the names in it so you know it actually exists: nu.nl. The company responsible for all PIN and Chipknip payment is called Currence, you may want to include that in your Google queries? - f translation is required, do ask! Erik1980 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I
  • Comment Chipknip [34], i believe, is a smartcards made by the Dutch company Xafax it uses the chipnet3 platform by infineer. We know what it is, what we need now is some source on it's use in the Netherlands. --neonwhite user page talk 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two references, the second of which graphs the growth in transactions over 8 years. Chipknip was used 165m times in 2006: considering the population of the Netherlands is around 16m people, it is a significant electronic cash implementation. Tim Richardson (talk) 05:17, 8 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 --JForget 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Crutchfield III

edit
Charles E. Crutchfield III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Article was nominated for PROD-deletion and declined in September 2007, the PROD-nominated again (diff between PROD-nominated versions). The most recent PROD nominator did not provide a reason; the prior PROD nominator stated "Notability not proven. Being the first "board certified clinical dermatologist in Minnesota" is not sufficient grounds for notability. Article appears to be promotional in nature." I think this person is borderline notable; his notability derives from being a talented and articulate doctor practicing rural medicine - which is relatively rare in and of itself. My feeling is that if he were working in someplace like New York or London, he would blend into the crowd of dermatologists. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from nominator: I was unfair in my characterization and have struck the offending passage - sorry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due primarily to his numerous well-cited publications, but the article needs more independent sources. I was almost swayed by the Mayo Clinic Karis award but it seems to be open only to those practicing somewhere on the Mayo campus. The thing is, though, Mayo is a national, even international center of medicine, and I think "rural" is an odd thing to say about Minneapolis. The other awards are also local/promotional in nature. The article is written in punchy PR style which needs fixing. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's definitely not a fair assessment to classify the Mayo clinic as 'rural medicine.' World leaders go there on a fairly regular basis for treatment. Anyway, the notability seems to be there, though I agree with Dhartung that the article could use some clean-up.matt91486 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Alright, I looked over it again, and it probably should be deleted. I allowed myself to get caught up in the semantics of metropolitan areas which should have nothing to do with whether or not this article should be kept. Upon closer review, he doesn't really meet notability. My bad. matt91486 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the editor who first PRODded this article, I still think it should be deleted. The notability is borderline, but the main problem lie in the fact that apparently Crutchfield, someone connected to him or both, made substantial edit to this article, and it does not represent a neutral point of view. Moreover, it seems to be overly promotional, and some of its facts are in dispute. This guy seems to be a big self-promoter, and I fear he is using WP to that end. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is solely promotional, the guy is not notable and bias is evident. This is well outside of Wiki's standards Rotovia (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eagan cannot be considered rural by any logical definition. It's a suburban area inside the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. matt91486 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eagan is rural by many "logical" definitions. Yes it is a suburb, but anywhere there are wide open spaces and cows roaming is rural to me. Wiki says rural areas are settled places outside towns and cities. If you practice in Eagan that is NOT Minneapolis! JMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollabackgurl29 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 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 per WP:CSD#G7. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 84

edit

UPDATE: User has since blanked the page, apparently noticing his mistake. I've therefore tagged the main page as a candidate for speedy deletion. Gromlakh (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 84 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_83 page, same reasons, purely speculative, nothing confirmed about the event. Gromlakh (talk) 03:32, 6 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 --JForget 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expedia, Inc.

edit
Expedia, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

adds no new information; most information in this article is already in Expedia. They are basically the same thing; does not need a new article. If needed, a new category can be added to Expedia Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 03:24, 6 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. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Haberman

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

Contested prod. AFAICT, The reason given for contesting the prod is that he's a dean. Do we need an article on every dean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Why "AFAICT"? I removed the prod tag and said "remove prod - head of department at major university". Does that leave any doubt that it's contested? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I couldn't tell if "dean of School of Mathematics" was exactly the same as "head of major department". I still don't find either a claim of notability, but then I'm used to seeing administrative chores rotate among the victims. What has he done? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated, UK 'professor' is more prestigious (usually equivalent to head of university department) and not merely a teacher, as is the usual use of the word in USA. Emeraude (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While UK & US are different, they're not so different as all that. Professor in the USA is not equivalent to "teacher"; it includes research responsibilities. Technically, "Professor" indicates a fully tenured faculty member, i.e., someone with significant research accomplishments (tenure is rarely if ever granted for teaching no matter how great; it is granted as a recognition of scholarship & research). "Assistant professor" means someone on the tenure-track with both research and teaching responsibilities. "Lecturer" in the US indicates someone at a university with teaching responsibilites only, no research responsibilities. --Lquilter (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This only applies to universities and some colleges. In most smaller colleges, significant research is not expected or required. Even I do not think that professors in non-research universities & colleges in the US are necessarily notable academics. DGG (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said >500 citations, not >500 articles. Add up the numbers where it says "Cited by nn" under each article and you'll get the number of other articles in the Google scholar database which reference Haberman's works. Each one of these is a reliable source which contributes to his notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do not have the responsibility of deciding what mathematical publications are notable--other mathematicians do. They evaluate it when them make appointments. The top position in actuarial science at a very major university for the applied sciences in the UK goes of course to one of the most notable people in the UK in his subject. They establish the notability, we just record it. That he is Dean as well shows the wider university recognizes his distinction. DGG (talk) 01:44, 8 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 --JForget 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Truth

edit
The History of Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced crystal ball article about a film with no distributor, no director and no cast, because the producer "has keept every single detail of the film in secret". Possible hoax, too - the sole external link is to a website which has nothing to do with this alleged film other than having "History" and "Truth" in its name. Stormie (talk) 03:09, 6 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 prejudice to merge if someone wants to do it. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster Gentlemen

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster Gentlemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Also included in this nomination:

I'm requesting an opinion on the notability of this one. He did receive one article of coverage with BBC Nottingham, plus the Rolling Stone article, but other than that, all Ghits seem to be for music stores selling his albums and networking sites like Myspace. I'm torn on this one because, on one hand, he did receive two reviews in semi-major sources. On the other hand, it would seem like he would need a little more to establish notability. Redfarmer (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a writer, Cleary has tracks on 'Souls Alike' and Silver Lining (both charted) (Bonnie Raitt) and on 'Phantom Blues' (Taj Mahal, very notable). I don't want Wikipedia to be advertising for him, but I think he fits within the criteria. Drpixie (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he, rather than the band, is the notable one. I'd be happy to merge the band info into the Cleary page, if we agree. Drpixie (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ah! Somebody finally put up an article on him; I'd meant to for a while, now. He toured with Bonnie Raitt and is a fixture on the New Orleans blues scene. The article could be expanded with info from his Allmusic bio. I think the Absolute Monster should be Merged into the musician page. Chubbles (talk) 01:09, 7 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. Person appears to be non-notable. Consensus apparent. Rudget. 12:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sniderman

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

Not notable bio. Was speedied per A7 once before. Still doesn't assert significance, but I thought I would bring it here for consensus.   jj137 ♠ 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impressive resume; but WP is not a collection of resumes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 6 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. It can be recreated when there is actually some credible information about the event. BLACKKITE 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 83

edit
UFC 83 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear case of crystalballing. Although the page (currently) lists a date certain and ___location certain, the source cited shows no date is confirmed, no venue is confirmed, no city is confirmed, and doesn't even mention UFC 83. Everything is purely speculative at this juncture. Voluminous precedent here Gromlakh (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: To make matters better, MMA Weekly's rumors section is now claiming that the March 8 event in London might actually be UFC 83 (see here), making all of the stuff currently on the UFC 83 page actually UFC 84. Of course, even that would still be pure speculation, because nobody in the know is actually confirming any event names. Yet more proof that there is no verifiable information about UFC 83, even though some fights can be verified for the date. Please delete this article. Gromlakh (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it appears that you were nominating that for deletion separately while I was making this comment. Dreaded Walrus t c 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Since this AfD was filed, the venue for the event has moved half-way around the world, "supported" by a ref that doesn't contain any mention of UFC 83. Dreaded Walrus t c 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reverted it back to the old page for several reasons: 1)The source just says Bisping will be fighting and makes no mention of it being UFC 83 or that it will even be a UFC event. 2)It's unlikely that they would hold it only one week after UFC 82. 3)The sources for the previous version say that UFC 83 will be in April. TJ Spyke 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't know how it works for UFC events. However, there is confirmation of the date, ___location (city confirmed, arena is tentative but set for now), and a match is confirmed. TJ Spyke 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the second source is a non-reliable blog. No reliable source has actually confirmed that the GSP/Serra fight is at UFC 83. The issue with the original poster changing everything around to March 8 (citing the Bisping/McCarthy article) is a huge part of the problem here. The UFC has a ton of events scheduled between now and April, and they haven't decided what's going to be what. Nobody knows if that event on April 19 is going to be UFC 83 because they've had serious trouble securing the Bell Centre. If that falls through, the date will move, the venue will move, and nobody knows when UFC 83 will be taking place. Gromlakh (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest salting until there is demonstrably reliable sourcing as these UFC # articles get recreated with distressing regularity with no sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Referenced article concerning a notable event that almost assuredly will happen. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced, fighter says he's fighting means its not crystal balling. You have a good source the event will take place, may need a crop of unsourced bits. Also you may wish to input to this couple of suggestions to avoiding doing these all the time. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of that "sourced" info is on UFC 84. None of it pertained to UFC 83. Gromlakh (talk) 12:16, 15 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 G3 by User:Gimmetrow, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty Ann Kaulitz

edit
Kirsty Ann Kaulitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this is a hoax. No evidence of this person existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs)

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

The result was csd a7 -- Y not? 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Frantic

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

Doesn't seem notable according to WP:MUSIC. Please note. I believe there may be several different bands which have used the same name. neonwhite user page talk 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable band. Only claim to fame is one album, but nothing else is really important. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 6 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. BLACKKITE 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorudo

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

This nom is in behalf of User:CultureDrone, per a request here. The article lacks reliable sources, and it fails WP:DICDEF. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A neologism and a self-defined term. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:03, 6 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. Secret account 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cotteral

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

Non-notable athlete. Never played in the regular season of a professional league, just one pre-season game. Pastordavid (talk) 01:08, 6 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. Addhoc (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Thomas

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

Recreation of a deleted article from prior AFB. Still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO Vinh1313 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The original article was deleted on March 27, 2006 by User:JIP after the results of the 1st AFD came back as Delete. Tabercil (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this version the same as the deleted version? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was wanting to know, whether it was substantially identical to the deleted version. Since you and I are both currently going through RfA, we're similar in those two respects with regard to this (as we'd be able to check the old deleted version), and also the level of consensus in our RfAs is about the same. Coincidence.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the entirety of the article when it was first deleted was: "Spring Thomas is a blonde American adult movie star, often featured in interracial pornography, as she only works with black actors." So the current version is (arguably) more advanced than what it was during the first AFD discussion. Tabercil (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not "someone", as I see several different IDs as the creators after each deletion. In order, there were Rommass, Pedro.Guero, Lugnuts, SylvainT, Cameron Green, JohnnyV123 and then Rommass again. Tabercil (talk) 16:12, 6 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 now that article has been updated with independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Crush

edit
U.S. Crush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

When I opened the page my first thought was that my screen had turned red due to the large amount of dead links, This article is about a defunct band, it has no references, and some examples of its blue links are to the years 1996, 2000, 2002, and to the Californian Punk Scene, which doesn't exactly lend itself to the articles notability, or lack there of. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote yet again, due to more information being discovered. Doc Strange (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; AMG seems to assert notability. Mention of KROQ wouldn't hurt, either. StaticElectric (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While searching in Google to reach a decision on this, I found a few things which I've added to the article. They signed to a major label, and there seems to be sufficient independent coverage to meet notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any second party sources please present them. Merely asserting that they exists has no weight here. --neonwhite user page talk 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done - have you looked at the article recently?--Michig (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no more claims to notability than there were before. --neonwhite user page talk 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the article was nominated there was little or no evidence of significant independent coverage. Now there's plenty, and that's enough to pass WP:MUSIC via criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 7 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. Spebi 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Ladies

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

Non-notable song lyrics, inappropriate for an encyclopedia - Shiftchange (talk) 00:19, 6 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Galvan

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

non-notable Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Until he "makes the trip" I don't think there's any chance of his notability. SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struway to the rescue indeed. Keep. SeanMD80talk | contribs
Based on Struway2's update below, now change to Keep. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:25, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_6&oldid=1081074275"