Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 11
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E-Mail Letter[edit]
- E-Mail Letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redundant. Maniamin (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is about methods of sending paper letters by composing them as e-mail and having them printed and delivered through the mail. Could possibly use a clearer title, but for the moment I am at a loss to think of one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I do not understand the nomination; could the nominator please expand? pablohablo. 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep: not a good article, but I need some clarification of what's wrong, other than the obvious (lack of good references). The concept gets over a quarter of a million Ghits, and some news Ghits: [1], [2], and [3]. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Can be rescued easily. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep The reference section has two major news papers that talk about this. The external links section does seem a bit spammish though, it listing commercial sites that provide this service. Dream Focus 10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Combine with Hybrid mail, which is much the same thing. (Maybe that's what the nominator meant by "redundant", we can only guess). pablohablo. 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not combine hybrid here instead? If most who use this call it E-Mail Letter, then that should be the name of the article with the information for it. I only hear the word hybrid when someone talks about hybrid cars these days. Dream Focus 09:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in agreement with the nom, and with aplogies to various contributors. The information is already quite extensively covered at Email, which itself is a quite definitive and well sourced article on the subject. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read through that section of the Email article, and it doesn't have nearly as much as information as this article could provide. The information about the US government's first attempt to use it in the seventies, is something that should be copied over to this article, it being a relevant fact. Dream Focus 09:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is not about email messages in general, as delete voters seem to think, but specifically about an interface in which one writes and sends an email, which is then printed by an intermediary and delivery. It needs better sourcing if it is to be kept, however. Wkdewey (talk)
- keepJust need sources and some editing.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
- Keep but tag. -- samj inout 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean-up. Plenty of sourcing and notability as pointed out above, I'll see if I can add a notability bit myself. -- Banjeboi 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (snowy). Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shaukat Hameed Khan[edit]
- Shaukat Hameed Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems notable, but doesn't appear on any search engines. Maniamin (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete No secondary sources suggest notability Kristof15 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to pass WP:PROF #6. But it needs to be rewritten to fix the copyvio with this article — as it is now, it is in danger of G11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio issues addressed. -- Banjeboi 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As noted by David Eppstein, meets WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society). Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #3 as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per David Eppstein. Added a ref sourcing two more of the claims of notability. MuffledThud (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it has been cleaned up, trimmed of lard and referenced. pablohablo. 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep of improved article. Nice work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reasons David Eppstein mentioned. Dream Focus 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Unclear why it didn't show in search engines, I had no problems. In any case article has been sourced for notability and now needs expanding which is regular clean-up. -- Banjeboi 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. converted to diambig page. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Wigglesoinkswaddles 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen[edit]
- Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Strong Delete Turn into a disambiguation page - Nominator withdrawl. Alan16 talk 23:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTurn into a disambiguation page - use the page as abroad overview of the conceptdisambiguation page and link to the more detailed pages. Deletion is overkill, the page has some form that will be useful and deletion is unnecessary.WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Well one option I thought of was just redirecting it, but I didn't think it would work seeing as it would have to be redirected to three pages. And I think it is to detailed to be considered a broad overview. I think the page is now pointless. The other idea that crossed my mind was making in to a sort of disambiguous page. i.e. if you type that in, it show you links to the three other pages. Alan16 talk 23:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I made that clear, so I'll try again. What I'm trying to say is that the new pages contain basically exactly what is in that page, but also stuff from the geography page, and the magic page, etc. Therefore this page is now irrelevant, as it shows 1/3 of what is in the new pages. It seems pointless to keep it, as all it is doing is repeating what is in the new pages without the extra info. And I think that that makes it a completely pointless keep. There is nothing wrong with the page per se, but it has now just been incorporate in a better fashion. Alan16 talk 23:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well one option I thought of was just redirecting it, but I didn't think it would work seeing as it would have to be redirected to three pages. And I think it is to detailed to be considered a broad overview. I think the page is now pointless. The other idea that crossed my mind was making in to a sort of disambiguous page. i.e. if you type that in, it show you links to the three other pages. Alan16 talk 23:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article that is proposed for deletion has now been split into three more concise pages. The current page has no benefit, and only makes researching the subject a more difficult experience. It requires having three or four pages open to find out the same information as in one of the new pages.ScotsmanRS (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 03:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Futaba (H-anime)[edit]
- Futaba (H-anime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability Maniamin (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Forget notability (WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion), I can't find any evidence that such an anime (or manga) actually exists. It may be just a lack of information in the article as it currently stands. So FOR NOW I'd say delete on the basis of WP:V. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find Futabu manga listed, as well as Futaba Kun Change Manga, when I google around. Does anyone know the Japanese name of this series? Dream Focus 12:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I found Futaba-Kun Change! of course, did some copypasta on the hiragani and tried searching for "ふたば," but... I think if we knew the author's name we'd have a MUCH better chance of finding... something. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dream Focus and notability jbolden1517Talk 06:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What notability? No one has even proven it exists! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a probably hoax. Completely unverifiable, failing WP:V and obviously failing WP:N. Can't be shown to be notable if it can't even be proven its real. Only Google results matching it are this article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. No Google hits other than the article itself. The subject probably doesn't exist to begin with, let alone being notable. Article content is a questionable list of (made-up?) characters and their unverifiable statistics (ejaculation volume, etc.), taken from no listed source. Take the OR contents away, and nothing remains, but the title and lack of references. This is a travesty. Out with it. Freederick (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Possibly a hoax, possibly confusion with something else, useless in any event. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails a basic verifiability check. A Google search using the title and the main character's name and excluding Futaba-Kun Change! to avoid false positives did not come up with a single hit to suggest that this manga even exists.[4] It's possible this is a dōjinshi (self-published/amateur comic), which wouldn't be notable in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That's probabably an hoax as i failed to find proofs of existence. Scanlation, fansub, download websites don't even mention it. The Afd nominator should be warned that just writing a laconic notability to motivate an Afd won't do in his/her future nominations. --KrebMarkt 13:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allison Hedge Coke[edit]
- Allison Hedge Coke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability Kristof15 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self published sources, not notable, poorly written, looks like an advertizement for her self published writing--Nefariousski (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self published sources, marked for improvement since April 2008, reads like an advertisement, few external sources, not notable, poorly written. Kristof15 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (edit -- note that I've attempted to clean the article up a bit. If this is to be kept, someone needs to slog through the awards section and sort out the notable awards from the non-notable. Whoever listed them threw in the kitchen sink, even including an award from a community college. Kristof15 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is indeed poorly written and looks like an ad, but she does hold an endowed chair and appears to have garnered reviews from major literary venues (eg. Fourth Genre) for work that was not self-published. But my "expertise" is fiction....maybe somebody with a stronger knowledge of poetry publishing can comment on the credits? Vartanza (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. Dwain (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs a rewrite. If there are reliable external sources, a few of them is enough. As for named chair, although University of Nebraska at Kearney is not a major flagship university, (the Lincoln campus is the main one), this particular professorship seems from the article on the university to be particularly distinguished. DGG (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What self published works would these be, that are under accusation? I don't know that Coffee House or Salt would appreciate the suggestion. - Travis Hedge Coke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- A) Travis Hedge Coke, calm down (and please, read our guidelines on potential conflict of interest). B) The article needs a good rewrite and trim, but Allison Hedge Coke does meet notability criteria. DS (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)`[reply]
- Keep. Salt Publishing certainly aren't a vanity press, and Allison Hedge Coke is a well-established poet. Clean-up is certainly needed - I'll have a go in a week or so when I have a bit more time on my hands. Vizjim (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David lavery[edit]
- David lavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Did he write this himself? A lot of personal, trivial info for a seemingly trivial guy. Maniamin (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Sources all self published. It reads like a PR flyer. Wouldn't be suprised if the author was the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 23:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE' Read like an advertisement, no sourcing, not notable 192.104.231.235 (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Papercut (song)[edit]
- Papercut (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable non-charting single. Fails WP:NSONGS. A redirect to the album the song comes from was reverted. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable song. No evidence it charted. JamesBurns (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - song reached a very respectable number 14 in the UK Singles Chart (ref: Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums, 2005 edition, page 299) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's very different—I stand corrected. Chartstats.com has the archive of UK charts, someone might want to put that in the article. Weird how every other Linkin Park single has an exhaustive chart list. Cancel my nomination. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also became 32 on Modern Rock Tracks in 2002. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete as vandalism. The hoax is obvious. DGG (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Thessaly Sixty[edit]
- The Thessaly Sixty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. This is a hoax, about a supposed legend about Thessaly in the Trojan war. There is no evidence that this legend exists at all; three sources are included, but none of them support the legend (and neither does anything else). Two sources don't support the text they're next to; and the remaining one supports the accurate but irrelevant assertion that there was a family named Skaranos some millennia later. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. There's no truth in the piece. All attempts to elicit a WP:RS from the contributors were met with deletion of tags, obfuscation and the addition of false sources with no relevance to the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Most of this story has been put together by images depicted on pottery from Thessaly" is not enough. Citation of sources that don't support the article means it is probably a hoax, but in any case unverifiable. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google search for the names "Skaranos" and "Martanas" together yields only this article, which seems unlikely for a real mythological subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism, author has created about 12 nonsense/vandalism pages within the last 5 minutes. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aserty[edit]
- Aserty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod tag removed by page creator. WP:NEO. Nothing to substantiate this. Taroaldo (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This user has yet to contribute anything but junk pages and vandalism. Making up words is no exception in my opinion. Wperdue (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:MADEUP. That is, without even looking at the creator's contributions list. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for words made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's either a neologism or misinformation. Wronkiew (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Wishing does not make it so. Nomination of an article that has been AfDed before and is well-sourced requires a clear explanation for any claim of non-notability. This AfD lacks that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous (group)[edit]
- Anonymous (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
With the exception of Project Chanology, Anonymous is a non-notable troll group with few to no reliable sources, with the exception of a heavily-sensationalized report by a Los Angeles news station. The Gay Nigger Association of America article was famously deleted under similar grounds. Delete Anonymous (group), but keep Project Chanology, as it is really the only notable thing "Anonymous" has done, and has been heavily covered by the media. Scootey (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Delete or merge Anonymous is a weird case in that it's debatable whether it counts as a BLP (the whole meme/biography thing is a bit gray, though we're trending towards deleting meme/biographies). However, it's evident that Anonymous have only has a short burst of reliable sources, which doesn't indicate notability. Either merge it into Project Chanology, or delete it. I'm not fussed to either. Sceptre (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. In addition to the Fox11 thing, I see numerous sources that meet WP:RS covering them, and many with no connection or only a tangential connection to Chanology. Look at references 47 to the end, and the majority of them are not connected to scientology. I see a several things in there, including LA Weekly, a Wired article (two of them, actually), a Wired blog (which doesn't count quite as much), NPR, 7 News, Irish times, 9News, Associated Press, ABC News, Toronto Sun and Global News. None of those sources mention Chanology. The article clearly and unquestionably meets WP:N, WP:V, and any other acronym you can throw at it. Firestorm Talk 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; you are joking. If all our articles had as many third-party, reliable references as this one WP:N wouldn't need to exist. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Anon is far greater than a group of internet trolls. Their actions are not just on message boards or websites. They've received extensive news coverage etc.. The first entry on this AFL leads me to believe there's some hidden reason why this article which should obviously be kept keeps getting nominated for absurd reasons.--Nefariousski (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonymous is a troll group, regardless of the fact that the majority of their publicity is from Project Chanology. And from what I've seen the only thing that's really notable about them is Project Chanology, which should no doubt be kept. That's where the majority of news sources are from. Scootey (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority, yes, But I can find at least six sources on that page alone (where three are the standard for a decent pass of WP:N) that are about other activities. I'd advise you to retract this AfD before things WP:SNOWball. Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep WP rarely considers anything as a reliable source unless its Mainstream media crud. Of course you could turn to Wikinews on what Anonymous has done in the past and present, but WP doesn't consider WN reliable either. If this is the third time to try and delete this article, and it failed two other times, then why are we wasting our time with this? I would consider this mass request of deletion of this article as disruption. DragonFire1024 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep I agree with the points with DragonFire1024, Firestorm, and others in past attempts to delete this article. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless the nominator presents some explanation for how an article with 61 references fails WP:N, and some explanation of why the previous two nominations did not settle this matter, I will close this nomination tomorrow as a speedy keep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to request that this AFD be allowed to run its full course, so that a firm and conclusive consensus can be reached, once and for all. Otherwise, we'll be back here in a few months with another one and another one, just like what happened to GNAA. The reason it took 18 nominations to get it deleted is that they kept on being speedy kept without establishing a firm consensus. Firestorm Talk 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two previous AfDs, including one of the most overwhelming keeps I've ever seen, do not to me suggest a lack of clear consensus. Furthermore, AfD is not for the nomination of articles that have nothing wrong with them. It is transparently and empirically clear that this article passes WP:N. Unless the nominator has some explanation for why that fact should be overlooked, this nomination is querulous and disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Facepalm keep- You're seriously going to try to tell me that something with all the verifiable sources this article has, that is that obviously notable, needs deleted? No. Just no. Meets notability standards by a few dozen lightyears. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I WP:AGF that you dont really mean to make a personal attack by calling them Trolls. Even so, as you say they conducted something notable and I believe they have had an effect on society, thus making them notable. Notability is not fleeting. And I dont see the reason for mentioning GMAA in the Nom either, as that cuts very close to a Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST argument. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I went through the sources, and at least 40 of the article's 58 sources were about Anonymous's attack on Scientology, aka Project Chanology. Another problem with this article is that it's difficult to define Anonymous as an entity. Some people appear to think anything that's done by users on 4chan /b/ is in the name of Anonymous, as with what /b/ had done against the abuser of "Dusty the cat"...however I could not find anything about "Anonymous" tracking down the abuser. (Because of this, I had removed the section.) Scootey (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The non-Chanology material is sourced and has attained enough notability that it merits inclusion. evildeathmath 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep multiple RS covering them outside the chanology stuff (already listed by Firestorm) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I would close this immediately, except for the usually responsible and experienced Wikipedian supporting the deletion. DGG (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Valley2city‽ 03:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oracene Price[edit]
- Oracene Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article does not satisfy WP:Notable. The mere fact that Oracene Price is the mother of Serena Williams and Venus Williams and one of their coaches does not make an article about Price "notable". Tennis expert (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No, the mere fact she's the Williams sisters' mother doesn't make an article notable. It can't it is subjects that are notable, not articles. She's notable because multiple sources discussed her, because she's a notable tennis coach and because there are plenty of sources to base a full biography off. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Oracene Price's notability has been established by the sources cited in the article, and she is a long-time coach to two historic tennis players. Alonsornunez (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per Mgm and Alonsornunez. Price is the coach of two of the best tennis players ever. I don't think this is a particularly close call. The article would probably satisfy WP:Notable even if she were only known as Venus's and Serena's mother. GreenGourd (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there seems to be a lack of information as to why she would be notable other than being the mother of the Williams sisters... per WP:NOTINHERITED, "parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent"... what has she done in her life (that had nothing to do with her children) that would cause her to be notable? Is she a famous tennis coach for someone other than her daughters? If independent notability can be shown, it would really help the outcome of this discussion... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- The matter is simple, she has been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" meeting WP:N. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Slocombe[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Mike Slocombe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete this was deleted three years ago and now its back in another form. Was tagged speedy, but I'll bring it here. Still seems to be nn per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of cites not directly from Urban75. Agree that it's not a speedy; some concern that versions of the article have been an attempt to push a lot of unsubstantiated pov as well -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given the fame of Mike Slocombe, including one of the UK's top photographys, technology review and most influtenial person in the UK web industry. FatGary5436 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC) — FatGary5436 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete unless further notability can be established Vartanza (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the sources don't constitute "significant coverage". TrulyBlue (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The OJR article from USC Annenberg is sufficient as a source. A full featured article, and the comments about him there are sufficient. The book adds to it. DGG (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Whilst I've heard of Mike (and indeed remember him from back on news:uk.misc) I don't see enough to satisfy WP:BIO Mayalld (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deceiver.com[edit]
- Deceiver.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete - A non-notable blog and non-notable blogger. The article depends almost entirely on primary sources, suffers a poverty of reliable third-party coverage and hence does not meet the notability threshold. In addition, the page is orphaned and will likely remain so. [5] This blog receives only a bare mention in 3 or 4 online publications: Slate, [6] ocregister.com, and a brief nod in The Daily Telegraph (Australia) [7]. But the article stretches these sources well beyond breaking point. According to the site's own "about" page, "Deceiver.com is a project of Hat Tip Media". [8] There is not a single mention of "Hat Tip Media" anywhere on the Internet. [9] It would appear the proprietor of Deceiver.com (James Seaver, a.k.a. "Oversneer") has been busy promoting his blog all over the Internet, mostly in the comment section of other blogs, in an effort to push up its page rank. Deceive.com further solicited their readers to create this page here on Wikipedia, which they happily did, including a section to its very own online Shop. Interestingly and perhaps tellingly, the proprietor also nominated Deceiver.com for 4 "Blogger Choice Awards", but garnered zero support, receiving not a single vote. Best Gossip Blog: Deceiver.com = 0 votes [10]
- Delete - Harsh, but valid and supported by facts, especially the part about the self promotion and Blogger Choice Awards. And I could not help but scoff when they presented the Wiki page as being some spontaneous, unexpected event when they in fact emailed their supporters to ask someone to step up and create the page. Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete = Sadly I looked into this and found that, yeah, the comments above are correct. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- samj inout 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy close and relist at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (discussion link). –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cogido[edit]
- Cogido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am not sure what is 'Cogido' and why is it redirected to Taken.. Anshuk (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Cogido is the Spanish for "taken" - the past participle of the verb coger, to take (among other meanings). But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, still less a Spanish dictionary. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - foreign language redirects to the page in English are actually wanted per my reading of WP:REDIRECT. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Alternative_names_and_languages has a section about other languages that gives examples for proper nouns or common phrases:
The Abduction from the Seraglio redirects to Die Entführung aus dem Serail
As far as I can tell, a single word does not fit that guideline and does indeed fail Wikipedia is not a dictionary as JohnCD stated. - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brown seaweed redirects to Wakame
Argumentum ad ignorantiam redirects to argument from ignorance
As-Sulta Al-Wataniyya Al-Filastiniyya redirects to Palestinian National Authority
- Delete - implausible redirect. Deb (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep - This is the wrong venue. This should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clearly not yet notable, further discussion unnecessary DGG (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Page[edit]
- Matthew Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-written article by an "upcoming" young artist who won second prize in the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest in the state of Georgia. His picture went on exhibition in various places, and another was published in a calendar. That's it, really. I have sorted out the references and removed duplicates: the first two are about his duck picture, the third is irrelevant (a place where it was exhibited) and the last is his website. Searches don't find anything significant. Sorry, but this does not establish notability to the standard of WP:CREATIVE. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, no RS to establish N. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE since the contest isn't major and when the guidelines talk about exhibits in galleries, it is solo exihibits of multiple works. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Midland Avenue[edit]
- Midland Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Street in Scarborough, Ontario that does not establish notablility. Attempted to establish notability, but I decided to let others decide if it is notable or not. This article was deleted before. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birchmount Road for another equally non-notable Scarborough street. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of notability; Wikipedia is not a directory. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I realize that personal attestation is not considered reliable, but I have driven the length of the street, and driven it quite often, and about the only thing distinguishing Midland Avenue from most other streets might be that the Scarborough RT (TTC) has the Midland (TTC) station on this street. In case there is some historical significance, I had a go at Google Books. This seems to indicate that it used to be a muddy side road. This might be considered to impart some notability. But I would say that it would be more of a mention in an article about the history of Italian immigration to the Toronto area than justifying an article on Midland Avenue. With only this little information being turned up, there is insufficient evidence for notability.-- Whpq (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, since most arterial roads, notable or not notable, began as mud roads. Yonge Street began as a mud road. Vaughan Road also began as a mud road. Though not notable, Kirby Road began as a mud road. Midland Avenue is slightly more notable than Kirby Road, but not notable enough to have its own article, unlike Vaughan Road, which has a long and significant history. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It seems to be part of an attempt to have articles on all the concession roads in Toronto (or maybe all the Highway 401 exits in Toronto...), but no source I can say tells me that Midland is on any concession (and neither is Brimley Road - in fact my sources say that there are no concessions between Kennedy and McCowan). Even Birchmount (sources differ on whether it was a concession) is more notable since it extends into Markham (that's still iffy for me as to whether that says in Wikipedia, and that a source said that there are no concessions between Warden and Kennedy). I'm not from Toronto, but in the short time I've lived there, I know that there should be a concession between Markham Road and Morningside Avenue, and there's no article on that here... kelvSYC (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nunavut national football team[edit]
- Nunavut national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nunavut is a sub-division of Canada and as such can't have a "national" soccer team. Nor could I find any indication that there is a territorial team. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
- Prince Edward Island national soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Quebec national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Candidates for deletion. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI don't know how to put it better than CambridgeBayWeather, however interesting to note that the Prince Edward Island national soccer team says it played in the 2007 Island Games. While this shows them as participating in the games (only 5 of 14) Football at the Island Games does not list them as participating in soccer.--kelapstick (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RSSSF has PEI playing in the 2007 Island games Women's section, which we don't currently cover in a lot of articles. Still a bit dubious with nothing else to go on tho. Nanonic (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Quebec national football team was originally created, then moved to Quebec national soccer team, deleted as an expired PROD. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Note that these are a subset of a large number of "fringe" teams created by Stanza13. In most (all?) cases, he used http://www.fedefutbol.net/ as his source, where these teams are listed as "Otras posibles federaciones - Potencial N.F.-Board". That "potential" is hardly reliable for a citation, in my opinion. If you look at the Nunavut, Quebec, and PEI pages, contact information for each association is listed, but in all these cases (and probably several more), clicking on the "ficha de datos" tab on the left hand side brings up a "No existe histórico de partidos para esta federación" message, which means that they probably have never played a single match. On that basis, they should be deleted. I would also encourage a review of many of those other team articles that Stanza13 created. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There doesn't seem to be any mention of a national team on the Quebec Federation's website (just an "elite programme" for a select few players). Ditto for Prince Edward Island, and the Nunavut federation doesn't even have a website. I think it's safe to say these all fail the verifiability test at the very least. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having seen Andrwsc remarks I found this list of Provincial Associations / Associations provinciales from the Canadian Soccer Association. I also noticed that we have several provincial associations, see Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Association and the rest are linked from there. Would it then make sense to move Prince Edward Island national soccer team to Prince Edward Island Soccer Association, stub it and then delete Prince Edward Island national soccer team? The same for Quebec but with the Nunavut one turn it into a redirect to the CSA. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move PEI & QUE, delete Nunavut (delete the page not the territory) The move for PEI and Quebec make sense to me. I don't see any reason to keep the Nunavut National Team as a redirect though, as you stated Nunavut is a territory and therefore cannot have a national team, so realistically nobody should be looking for it. Since we would be presumably speedily deleting the PEI and Quebec national team as implausible typos, I don't know why we would keep the Nunavut National team, although creating Nunavut Territory Soccer Team or something similar as a redirect to CSA would make sense.--kelapstick (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bettia. GiantSnowman 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only possible reason given for notability is participation at the Island Games, which, if I could be bothered, I would nominate for deletion itself as being unnotable. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom: "Nunavut is a sub-division of Canada and as such can't have a "national" soccer team". Rosiestep (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comte du Vérac[edit]
- Comte du Vérac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Part of the "Spring family" series of hoax articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Baron Lavenham. Choess (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. I have no reason to trust any article created by the hoaxer concerned, but it's useful to do a second check if possible. Has anyone with access to any of the relevant reference works on nobility checked to see how this one stacks up? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation. A google search for "Comte du Vérac" -wikipedia throws up only 3 hits, all of which appear to be wikipedia mirrors whch do not acknowledge the source. This is very suspicious: there are so many peerage and nobility buffs out there that it's highly unusual for a genuine peerage not to get a number of other hits. There are also no hits on Google Scholar, which furthers points to this being a hoax. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The arms are not du Verac. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted: they are File:Artois Arms.svg, the arms of the County of Artois. I'll hold off until someone checks the nobility guides, but this now looks like a clear hoax. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator [11]. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchism and capitalism[edit]
- Anarchism and capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It has become a critique of anarcho-capitalism and capitalism which already exists in critique of capitalism and anarcho-capitalism.Soxwon (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're proposing outright deletion of an article that contains a fair amount of well-sourced material and has been rated "top importance" in Wikiproject Philosophy. I think that in the circumstances, you need to cite a clear, policy-based reason for deletion, that would balance the policy-based reason to keep it.
- I'll look forward to reading what you come up with.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - AfD is not for issues that can be resolved through normal editing. Deleting an article is the wrong way to go about things. — neuro(talk) 21:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Desert Saints Magazine[edit]
- Desert Saints Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable periodical with limited scope and a lack of coverage in verifiable secondary sources. Could only find a passing mention in a regional newspaper column and an obituary that mentioned it. Seems to fail WP:V, WP:N, and WP:ORG. tedder (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fair amount of blog hits, but I'm not finding evidence of notability or reliable source coverage beyond directories and the ones cited by the nominator. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As a frequent editor among the Latter Day Saint articles, I've always been a bit surprised that this magazine as an article. In the extent of my knowledge, the magazine is non-notable. Even within Latter Day Saint-oriented sources, there is scarcely a mention of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: does not appear to have significant coverage in secondary sources so fails the basic notabilty critera, SpitfireTally-ho! 05:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Spitfire. Ottre 11:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pulpie[edit]
- Pulpie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
delete nn website V2e0 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete nn -- samj inout 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not meet WP:WEB, does not meet the first critera because: does not have any indication of being the subject of a published source. All the links currently in the article link to the same primary source. Does not meet the second critera because: no suggestion at all that it may have won any awards. And the third beacause: is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" SpitfireTally-ho! 05:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I came across this through a link on Learning community - as far as I can see this seems to be little more than an attempt to build credibility for somebody's project Compo (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Tone 21:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GC Marketing Services[edit]
- GC Marketing Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- delete nn company V2e0 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Company with no claim of notability. 16x9 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Company does not appear to be notable SpitfireTally-ho! 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete w/ WP:SNOW as above. -- samj inout 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Billa 2[edit]
- Billa 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A disputed PROD, the tag was removed with no improvement to the article. This article asserting that a film script will be completed in the future doesn't remotely come close to meeting WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Can be merged neatly into a "Sequel" section at Billa (2007 film), I see no reason for an AFD here. Regards SoWhy 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: Per WP:NFF, the single source is extremely unreliable (a forum), even if a reliable source were provided the article would still fail WP:NFF, without a reliable source, no merge should be preformed, but if a source was provided no reason not to merge, otherwise, delete. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Spitfire. If this was a reliable source, I would've supported a merge to the original film, but as it stands the article content cannot be verified. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily delete: No sources, there is no such film that has been officially confirmed, only a rumour. The user also vandalises other pages after several warnings. --Eelam StyleZ (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this one without prejudice. I have just addded the one paragraph and its sources about the rumoured Billa 2 to Billa (2007 film). If/when the film is made, it can easily come back as a full-fledged article of its own. And in the meantime, how come no one mentioned that this article already existed as Billa (2009 film)?? Maybe another worth merging?? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MERGE the film series is notable/popular, the article is inferior to the other one on the same subject, & both are stubs (why don't we have a stub template for indian cinema?), but wikip is a lot thinner on the ground when it comes to bollywood, as compared to hollywood. take the info & the references, rewrite it so it's better, & add it to the other article. call it a merge, as a courtesy to the page's creator. we need more people writing abt bollywood on here, not fewer. Lx 121 (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Pathiparambil[edit]
- Thomas Pathiparambil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(PROD removed without explanation by IP of course) > I don't think that this person is particularly notable. The only three sources listed are comparatively self-published and his career doesn't seem that remarkable. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep the "of course" statements out of deletion nominations. It distracts people from looking at the real reason for deletion. Every editor, including those who are not registered, has the right to remove a PROD tag with or without explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since no hits in Google News, Scholar, and Books; the article and its references give me no reason to assume this person would meet the notability guidelines.Drmies (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Essentially the same results as Drmies's. Tried two spellings. As Thomas Pathiparambil (with a “b”): No citations in Google Scholar, no books in WorldCat, and zero news coverage according to Google News. As Thomas Pathiparampil (with a “p”): No citations in Google Scholar, no books in WorldCat, and one news entry on Google News.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent secondary sources; no eye-catching claim to notability either; fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M.C. Untytled[edit]
- M.C. Untytled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An "underground rapper" who doesn't seem to meet the WP:MUSIC notability guideline. None of his works seem to be notable, and I can't find sufficient reliable sources to prove notability. Jamie☆S93 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't meet music per nominator, and failing of points #1 through to #12. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--a MySpace artist who, apparently, doesn't have a MySpace page. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a rapper who fails WP:MUSICBIO. Tavix (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Original research/Fluff with no reliable sources. seicer | talk | contribs 17:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IT Project Management Conflict management[edit]
- IT Project Management Conflict management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pure personal analysis piece, WP:SYNTH. Also, the links in the first three references are all broken. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete reads like an essay written by Dilbert's pointy-haired boss. Probably impossible to turn into an article without a 100% start-from-scratch rewrite, and doesn't appear to be a notable topic anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as (poorly-written) Howto guide. . . Rcawsey (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spring family[edit]
- Spring family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of notability. Not supported by WP:V or WP:RS. Article created by editor who clearly falsified sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. There may be elements of truth in this article, but an article created by a demonstrable hoaxer is no place to start building a coherent and reliable article. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close per first reference cited. Come back when you've made a phone call:
“ | The family originate from the area around Lavenham, where they were seated from very ancient times as Lords of the Manor of Lavenham, well before the Norman invasion of 1066. | ” |
-- Ottre 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, without prejudice to recreation. I had just started to nominate this article for AFD when I opened up a copy in another browser tab and saw that this nomination had just been opened.
- Per the nominator, there may be elements of truth in this article, but the only two points referenced by inline citations are to unreliable sources: the user-generated website rootsweb.com, and the suffolkchurches website; neither of those is a scholarly source. The book cited is an old one, and the only evidence that it actually exists is the claim of the article's creator, who has demonstrably falsified other sources.
- The link to an Amazon listing of a pamphlet entitled "Lavenham Suffolk" proves nothing other that Lavenham Suffolk exists according to someone of unknown reputation who wrote a pamphlet. There are plenty of other sources to demonstrate the existence of Lavenham, but "pamphlet exists" is not enough to support this article.
- Per evidence in related AFDs, I accept that the kernel of this article is probably true: that there was a wealthy family in Lavenham called "Spring". But all the detail is mixture of fantasy, conjecture and unproven assertion. For example, the article claims lists the contemporary Richard Spring MP as a "notable spring", but where's the evidence for any connection? It also lists Dick Spring, the former Tanaiste of Ireland, but offers no evidence of any connection other than a shared name.
- East Anglia's wealthy medieval wool merchants were a hugely significant force in English history, and thoroughly deserve coverage in wikipedia. But that's no reason to accept this work of a hoaxer as a staring point: much better to delete and allow someone else to sytart again with reliable sources.
- Ottre's call for a "procedural close" is groundless. I see nothing in any relevant guidelines about a phone call being relevant to an AFD, and plenty to suggest that a phonecall is an unreliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. We can't afford to take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No evidence the book "The Springs of Lavenham" exists? Try Google book search, which shows it is in many college libraries. That does not show that it is more than, perhaps, a privately printed genealogy of uncertain accuracy. Is publisher "W. E. Harrison" a vanity press or a major publishing house with a reputation for scholarly imprints? I have seen private genealogies full of doubtful claims of notable ancestors in the holdings of research libraries. Edison (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as just too riddled with falsehood. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (a much more scholarly source than "The Springs of Lavenham") has an entry for this family, and a very few facts do match, but most of the WP article appears to be complete fabrication. The bit about being Lords of the Manor pre-1066, for example, a pretty major thing if true, is not mentioned in the ONDB at all, nor is anything else in the WP article from the 1550s onwards.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I too have DNB access, and having just checked the "Spring family" article at www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/55402?docPos=1, I can confirm Chris's assessment. (Should have checked DNB myself). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nominator closed. Keep the personal attacks out, though. seicer | talk | contribs 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andris Ārgalis[edit]
- Andris Ārgalis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No major notability established. Mayors of most cities are not inherently notable, especially for such a small community in Latvia. Also nominating:
- Aivars Aksenoks
- Andris Bērziņš
- Jānis Birks
- Gundars Bojārs
- Māris Purgailis
- Andris Teikmanis seicer | talk | contribs 13:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment calling Riga a "small community" is a bit of a stretch: it's a city of nearly a million people and also the capitol. And mayors almost always have plenty of press coverage. That said, a single-sentence sub-sub-stub isn't really helping the encyclopedia, but I'd be happy to vote keep if this can be expanded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Various votes (below)
- Andris Bērziņš - Very Strong Keep (speedy keep?) as an ex-prime minister, easily meets WP:POLITICIAN
- Aivars Aksenoks - Strong Keep as an ex-justice minister which meets WP:POLITICIAN
- Others - Weak Keep. Mayors of major cities are generally considered notable. Riga with a populatioin of three quartes of a million, capital of a country and largest city in the region certainly meets this. However the lack of sources is worrying.
- I would hope that the nominator reconsiders his nomination given that Riga obviously isn't "such a small community" (the fact that it's in Lativa is completely irrelevant) and that at least two of these people have notability beyond being mayor. Dpmuk (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep they pass WP:POLITICIAN secondly did you contact the creator of the page? Valoem talk 15:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on all articles. And by the way... Be bold! Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have expanded the article on Andris Ārgalis a bit and added a few references. A prominent Latvian politician. Plenty of room for expansion. Same with the other politicians in the list. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on all. Mostly members of first level (i.e. national) legislature therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN. There's also systematic bias to consider. Valenciano (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All Thin rationale for bundle deletion. What is "major notability"? Townlake (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, speedy close, etc. Riga is midway in size between Boston and Detroit, and their mayors are by consensus notable. Riga is also a national capitol. I cannot imagine why these nominations were considered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, speedy close, along with the whole slew of articles on Latvian politicians labeled for deletion. What a waste of editors' time and effort. I'm tired of the Baltics being insignificant nations with no areas of habitation larger than fishing hamlets inhabited by 3 families, so we just delete everything as not notable. PetersV TALK 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should comment, I took my elderly mother out of the hospital today and into rehab. Days like today put that we have limited time alloted to us, and that we should use it wisely, into perspective. I have asked repeatedly that articles for relatively unknown countries such as the Baltics not be open to AfD as soon as first created. Articles need time to gain attention by the community, and editors not familiar with the countries/history/culture should not be doing wholesale nominations as here. PetersV TALK 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And Riga a small community? I'm sorry, I'll be rude, that's just idiocy. PetersV TALK 01:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Michigan Review[edit]
- The Michigan Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No independent sources of a university newspaper. Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities/Article_guidelines#Student_life TM 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete student activity at a single school, no particular claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Improve. Independent sources available,[12][13] and meets WP:N. THF (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Apparently an independent right-wing student newspaper at the University of Michigan. Just considering the community it serves, it probably is more widely read than, say, the Presque Isle County Advance. The article mentions but does not reference coverage in independent sources. (I hesitate to call American Spectator "reliable", myself, but it is independent of this paper.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail WP:N due to a lack of multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. The best notability evidence, press coverage of a couple of publicity stunts, seems weak. Just being a contrarian paper (right-winger editors at a liberal campus) does not make it inherently notable. Claims that several former editors have had a bit of prominence similarly fails to prove the paper is notable. I could find at the paper's website no evidence it has a large circulation, or that it has won national college press awards, or that its articles have been widely cited. Claiming it is "probably more widely read than" some other paper are unconvincing. No student activity automatically deserves an encyclopedia article, any more than an article about a bowling league or a choral society or a camera club would. Edison (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. New York Times; Detroit News; CNN; Detroit Free Press; Washington Post; Fort Worth Star Telegram calls it the "dominant paper on campus." And only one of those was for the "publicity stunt," which was notable. THF (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but in what sense is being the dominant paper on a particular campus grounds for inclusion in a general-interest encyclopedia? Newspapers are part of everyday school life, just like cafeteria meals, messy bathrooms and lockerroom towel fights. Encyclopedias don't document these things. If it's an extraordinarily unique part of life at that particular school, it can get a couple of lines in the school's article, but not its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one makes news. Several college newspapers--The Dartmouth Review, Harvard Crimson, Yale Daily News--are independently notable, even if not all are. This isn't a claim for every two-bit publication to get in; it's a claim that this is a notable publication on its own, and meets WP:N. The editor-in-chief of the paper--no matter who it is--is regularly quoted in the media when it comes to nationwide controversies at this university, which has had several. THF (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not "make news", they may occasionally be called upon to comment on the news, though. None of the articles you cited was actually about the school paper itself, it's mentioned in passing, in one case in regard to a publicity-stunt bake sale held by some staff members. That is not the same as substantial coverage in reliable sources, nor does it imply or confirm notability of any sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true: the Ft. Worth article is about the newspaper; this Academic Questions article is about this and similar papers; as is this "Change" article and Washington Monthly article; criticism by the Review of the affirmative action "Mandate" made national news, and was mentioned in books about the subject; the New York Times article finds a Michigan Review article notable; and the bake sale protest made national news. THF (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not "make news", they may occasionally be called upon to comment on the news, though. None of the articles you cited was actually about the school paper itself, it's mentioned in passing, in one case in regard to a publicity-stunt bake sale held by some staff members. That is not the same as substantial coverage in reliable sources, nor does it imply or confirm notability of any sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one makes news. Several college newspapers--The Dartmouth Review, Harvard Crimson, Yale Daily News--are independently notable, even if not all are. This isn't a claim for every two-bit publication to get in; it's a claim that this is a notable publication on its own, and meets WP:N. The editor-in-chief of the paper--no matter who it is--is regularly quoted in the media when it comes to nationwide controversies at this university, which has had several. THF (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but in what sense is being the dominant paper on a particular campus grounds for inclusion in a general-interest encyclopedia? Newspapers are part of everyday school life, just like cafeteria meals, messy bathrooms and lockerroom towel fights. Encyclopedias don't document these things. If it's an extraordinarily unique part of life at that particular school, it can get a couple of lines in the school's article, but not its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. New York Times; Detroit News; CNN; Detroit Free Press; Washington Post; Fort Worth Star Telegram calls it the "dominant paper on campus." And only one of those was for the "publicity stunt," which was notable. THF (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I can't see the Ft. Worth article, so it might be okay. Lots of mentions in terms of finding a conservative view on campus, but only mentions. Plus being on campus I've never seen anyone read it. I've picked it up a few times, but never made it very far in. The bake-sale did get coverage, but not sure that's exactly what makes something notable. So weak keep is based upon the passing mentions (esp. the bake sale) and the claimed coverage in the Ft. Worth paper. Hobit (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no third party sources attesting to its notability. Delete per WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I understand the arguments behind WP:OTHERSTUFF, but there are plenty of other examples of articles like this- see The Cavalier Daily as an example. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as precedent for inclusion on Wikipedia has been set and sources toward notability have been offered. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just added a link to a list of every time it has been mentioned in the New York Times. You can easily search for any major newspaper they claim it has been quoted in, and then look around the results to find something that would meet notability requirements. Please spend a few seconds Googling for information, before trying to delete something. Dream Focus 10:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AGF and go find those sources that were mentioned so that we have *something* besides the subject's own website to verify the existence of the subject and placate the deletionists. If this is a real school newspaper and WP:RS exist, then keep, period.Jwray (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Article itself is reasonably well-written and assertions of sourcing and notability have been presented. If the sources and notability don't migrate to the article so it's verifiable to all then a future AfD may be in order. -- Banjeboi 18:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly weak. "assertions of sourcing and notability have been presented" - what does this even mean? pablohablo. 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It means I've read the comments by others more familiar with the subject and assume in good faith their assessment of the sourcing and notability. I may feel differently if the article was poorly written or the other issues brought up here weren't addressed. -- Banjeboi 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. The issue with this article is not deletion but improvement. AfD is not a place for such discussions, instead, tag the article with improve, unref or so. Tone 16:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eero Aarnio[edit]
- Eero Aarnio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No major notability established. Article reads as a vanity piece with no reliable sources cited. seicer | talk | contribs 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Eero Aarnio is one of the most famous furniture designers of the 20th century. This article needs better sources, but a quick google search would have yielded at least that much information: please do some research before nominating things for deletion. T L Miles (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been up since 2004, pretty much in the same form. Can you care to take the time to add citations? Or shall I populate it with tags so that someone, on a rainy day, might find the time to source it? seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the sarcasm? The article has been around since 2004 and hasn't been improved. This automatically means that it should be deleted? As T L Miles correctly stated, a simple google search would have shown notability. And yes, the correct thing to do would have been to tag it for sources. That's what they are for. The fact that there are too few editors who work on art and design articles has nothing to do with notability in this case.freshacconci talktalk 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been up since 2004, pretty much in the same form. Can you care to take the time to add citations? Or shall I populate it with tags so that someone, on a rainy day, might find the time to source it? seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per T L Miles. I was shocked to see this nominated. The article may be poor but that does not mean the subject is not notable. And to indicate that it's a "vanity" piece, in addition to being something that shouldn't be used in an AfD discussion (nor is it a reason to delete in and of itself), is ludicrous. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I highly doubt that Aarnio wrote this or has contributed to this. He doesn't need to inflate his nonatbility with a Wikipedia article. I would like to see this become a speedy keep. freshacconci talktalk 16:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep. Owen× ☎ 15:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magnus Aarbakke[edit]
- Magnus Aarbakke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No major notability established outside of a Supreme Court Justice. seicer | talk | contribs 13:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Like national legislators, Supreme Court Justices must be, and are, inherently notable. This person has an entry in a paper encyclopedia, so it easily meets WP:V and WP:N. Punkmorten (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep (Speedy keep?). If this person was a supreme court justice in America I'm fairly sure this nomination would never have been made. As stated above Supreme Court Justices meet WP:POLITICIAN as "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges" and the fact that it's in a non-english speaking country is irrelevant. A stated above the article also meets WP:V and WP:N although more sources would be useful. Dpmuk (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 17:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trypophobia[edit]
- Trypophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. See http://www.geocities.com/holephobia/trypophobia.html for someone purporting to have invented this name in 2005. No evidence in Google Scholar for any actual phobia known by this term. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Likely hoax and borderline patent nonsense: Trypophobia is a serious fear of hole, which results in an all-over itchy feeling and general uneasyness. Google search seems to indicate a pattern of trolling: petitions to dictionaries to include the word, posts to answers.yahoo.com, attempts to insert the word (together with shock site images) in the World of Warcraft forums. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable nonsense Cardamon (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sayyed Aamir Ali[edit]
- Sayyed Aamir Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No major notability established. Being a "renowned" Educationist and writer with no major works does not establish notability. Further, "many" British Universities is just one, and it's for contact information. seicer | talk | contribs 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obviously not notable, does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No citations, no books, no news coverage; nothing that could be found online from the usual notability sources. The author means well, but needs to lean more about notability requirements before creating an article.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Society of the Seven[edit]
- The Society of the Seven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability is not established. Lacks reliable 3rd party references. Those given are to a wiki, message boards or are just plain unclear how they relate to this article. Google web, news, book, and scholar searches bring up nothing specific to this name and are made difficult because of entertainers and other groups using similar names. Rtphokie (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete either a hoax or spectacularly good at keeping secret. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any non-wiki source. Hobit (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A truly secret society, by definition, cannot be verifiable or notable, since if it is secret then reliable sources cannot exist for it. Phil Bridger (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although I wouldn't be surprised that this is a real group, wikipedia is interested in what is verifiably true only. Without reliable independent published sources this article's accuracy and notability really can't be established.Nrswanson (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mgr (film)[edit]
- Mgr (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete, there is no such film coming and this user is crystal-balling. There is no source that claims this film to be real. --Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and block page. The user seems unable to understand and had threatened action, as well as abusing another user, trying to avenge them for putting this film up for deletion. [14] Universal Hero (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If no such film is coming, then where do all the references come from? - Mgm|(talk) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the references state that it is offically confirmed that there is such a film under production. The sources only cite statements in the article that have absolutely no relation to the topic in question. --Eelam StyleZ (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mgm, the references are all irrelevant and have been copied from a series of articles and in no way prove that there is such a film. Thanx Universal Hero (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and salt. Block also the user who create the article. Junk Police (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T. Hanton[edit]
- T. Hanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable songwriter and wanna-be entertainment mogul. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Also fails WP:V—sole reference given is a dead link, and appears to be either made up or a networking part of the site, rather than news or that sort of thing. Google News Archive returns no related hits. Speedy deletion was declined. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, nothing indicating WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSIC, or WP:BIO. However, has anyone contacted the author asking for the full name of this person? The brief version "T." may be the reason for the lack of search results. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further research makes me believe this is a hoax article. Importantwarrior, the article's SPA creator, who appears to also edit from 128.122.9.168, added Hanton as a songwriter to the Diddy song "Tell Me" but BMI's database does not bear that claim out. Another edit by Importantwarrior makes it appear that Hanton's first name is Terrence. A search of the BMI and ASCAP databases turn up no T Hanton or Terrence Hanton. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as unverifiable. A search on ASCAP turns up two results, neither of which are a T. Hanton. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. No sources, so it fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Poking around a little more: the above IP (128.122.9.168) resolves to a public terminal at NYU. Searching "Terrence Hanton" + NYU turns up this LinkedIn profile. Someone who claims to work in marketing at Island Def Jam. And this is not the first time Hanton has been faked onto Wikipedia: this 2007 edit by another NYC IP added him as hired by Mary J. Blige as a "Promotional Manager" (a subsequent edit by the same IP changed it to "rumored"). "T. Hanton" was also added to the now-deleted List of Island Def Jam artists (which can be viewed here via NationMaster's mirror of the page), as signed to the non-existent Checkwriter/Def Jam label. At this point I would say this is, without a doubt, a hoax. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Might be a nice guy, but seriously, less than non-notable. Don't know that I would call it a "hoax" as much as some young guy trying to pump up his persona in the world of music entertainment, which is almost entirely hot air anyway. Proxy User (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Tigala. WP:BOLD redirect. looking over it, it is the exact same text in some sections, plausible misspelling (non-admin closure) Wigglesoinkswaddles 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THIGLAS[edit]
- THIGLAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced, unreferenced. Unable to find anything independent to back up the information in the article. CultureDrone (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably merge to Tigala, seems to be a misspelling thereof. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DGG (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Celtic Journey: The Ultimate Collection of Celtic Music[edit]
- Celtic Journey: The Ultimate Collection of Celtic Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Collection of Celtic folk songs by a non-notable artist (Bruce Huron). {{db-album}} was declined because it is a) "a collection of songs" and b) "has been around for oodles". Uh-huh. OK, a non-notable artist doing old folk songs on a cheapie budget label—there are "oodles" of sets like this, due to the fact that the label can find a no-name artist to perform the music for peanuts AND not have to pay publishing royalties because the songs are all traditional or public domain. In the article's defense, it HAS been here for ages but unless things have changed, that's not one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Oh, and other than minor tweaks, no one has added any content in the three years the article has existed—that doesn't speak highly of the likelihood of it ever becoming more than just a track listing. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing indicating WP:NALBUMS. And though not a valid criterion for establishing notability, searching for the title in quotes only gives 79 hits on Google. However, the user declining the speedy was correct - articles on albums are not speedy candidates, as explicitly pointed out in WP:CSD#A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Soul (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that only points out that CSD#A7 is not applicable to albums. WP:CSD#A9, on the other hand, is explicitly applicable to albums by non-notable artists, as this one is. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just love being wrong - that's the way to learn. Thanks for pointing A9 out to me! -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that only points out that CSD#A7 is not applicable to albums. WP:CSD#A9, on the other hand, is explicitly applicable to albums by non-notable artists, as this one is. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I dunno about the rest of the world, but certainly in the UK there are gazillions of production line Celtic/new age CDs recorded by unknown artists with generic covers and titles sold in new age/hippy-type shops, the gift shops at tourist attractions, and pound shops. I'd be surprised if any of them have ever been written about by anyone ever. Certainly it's hard to see how an album by a redlinked artist on a redlinked label isn't a speedy but hey ho -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I declined the speedy deletion. I tend to do so if an article has been around for a long time (as was the case here), and I don't know if the artist mentioned in the A9 criterion is meant to be identical with the producer of an album. Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also notified the creator of the article about this AfD. Lectonar (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Unsourced or poorly sourced BLP seicer | talk | contribs 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yaroslav Kislyakov[edit]
- Yaroslav Kislyakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Biography of a child-murderer that violates BLP policy. The article is poorly sourced and my various searches have failed to turn up the reliable sources necessary to demonstrate his notability. Only two news entries are used to support the Russian Wikipedia article, and they appear sensationalist in nature as well. WP:NOT#NEWS applies here. Themfromspace (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates BLP, also IMHO the murderer is not notable enough to satisfy WP:N Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep; normally, I'd argue for WP:ONEEVENT deletion, but the article states that much interest has been ongoing in Russian media, so I'll not call that here. As for the article being poorly sourced, well, I don't speak Russian, so I can't make that call - there is a source and if, indeed, that one source backs up everything in the article, then there are no WP:BLP problems. So I will try and find someone from the Russian WikiProject and have them look at the source and comment here. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've read the reference (a newspaper article from 2002) and it appears to be a textbook example of WP:ONEEVENT. It reports on the murder, the investigation, the confession and the verdict. No mention of media interest or any kind of lasting importance. We can't write about every juvenile felon in the world who got mentioned in a tabloid. --Cubbi (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What Cubbi said. ONEEVENT it is indeed (I've read the source article too).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:34, March 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I read the Russian reference as well, and this is definitely a good case of WP:BLP1E. Besides, there was no trial and no conviction, owing to his youth, so this may actually be a regular BLP problem as well. Off with it. -- Y not? 15:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unverifiable. Both sources cited by ru.wiki are yellow press, and there's not much more on the web. So even the name of the person is questionable. NVO (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, nom withdrawn. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to viruses[edit]
- Introduction to viruses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to viruses
This article is a dumbed down version of Virus, having virtually the same lede. It is a violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. We do not have Wikipedia articles called Introduction to Chemistry, Introduction to Calculus. I had placed a tag to transwiki this article to wikibooks, but I have been reverted. I think this article should be copied to wikibooks and its Wikipedia page should become a soft redirect to wikibooks. For instance, that site has books on wikibooks:Introduction to Philosophy and wikibooks:Introduction to Psychology. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Here's the text of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK:
"Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article."
That article doesn't instruct or teach. It merely presents the concepts in a less technical manner, much like the other articles in Category:Introductions. So, if we delete this, we shouldn't do so per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks for pointing me to that category. As far as I can tell it's governed by Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible#.22Introduction_to....22_articles, which says at the end:
“ |
You should start an "Introduction to..." article only if the answer to these questions is "no". |
” |
I had a look at M-theory and Introduction to M-theory for comparison— these articles have vastly different lede sections and also vastly different TOCs. This is not so much the case with Virus and Introduction to viruses, which have nearly identical lede sections so the Introduction to viruses appears to be more of a WP:CFORK than a true introduction. But a bad lede in an intro article is not a reason to delete, so I'm going to withdraw this nomination (once I figure out the procedure). Xasodfuih (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have a guideline for the creation of such articles: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible#"Introduction to..." articles and three featured examples, of which this is one. Colin°Talk 11:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Discussions wrt merging, redirecting, renaming etc. can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Police intelligence[edit]
- Police intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This longstanding article cites no sources, appears to be an essay, or promotional material, also entirely UK centric for a subject which if properly covered would have widely differing international aspects. Wnjr (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Intelligence (information gathering) or Criminal intelligence. Hmm, well, it's a notable enough concept, so there's no reason for deletion. I do agree that the article currently is highly problematic - and besides, almost nothing links to it. I don't really see why the article needs to be seperate. If it can be improved, with reliable sources and a worldwide focus, perhaps it merits its own article, but for now, just redirect it into something more appropriate. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Criminal intelligence. I agree with Lilac Soul that currently neither article is large enough to need to be split off from the other. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in some format. This is valuable information on UK policing, but its scope is inappropriate to the broad title. I would recommend renaming the article to a more specific title and using it as a subarticle of Intelligence-led policing, which is the best article I see on the topic -- criminal intelligence is not looking very good right now, and a merge there would completely overbalance it. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It could be merged with Criminal intelligence, but an AfD debate is not a proper place to debate merging.Biophys (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
International Conference on Climate Change[edit]
- International Conference on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable conference of global warming deniers in search of media attention. The group this centers on the NIPCC (a name deliberately designed to be confused with the Noble Prize winning IPCC) whose article was AFD'd and turned into a redirect last year. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as article creator. This page has plenty of sources to demonstrate notability and is not the same thing as what was previously AfD'd (not to mention that since that time the conference has happened again and received much more coverage). Pasted from what I wrote on Raul's talk page: The AfD that you cited (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) was about the NIPCC, which came out of the ICCC but is not the same thing. It was also a year ago and ended with no consensus and a "recommendation" to redirect. If you look at most of the non-keep arguments, they either claim that there is no notability or that there's no evidence that it's notable outside of the conference. This year's conference has been covered in many news outlets, as you can see here and in the large number of sources in the article, certainly enough to meet WP:N IMO. Current sources include The New York Times (twice), The Washington Post, The Canada Free Press, The Boston Globe, Radio Free Europe, Reason Magazine, The New Zealand Herald, The Independent, and about a dozen others. The other concern doesn't apply to this article because the conference clearly existed, was attended by numerous notable people in both science and politics, and was well-covered by sources. Oren0 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as the message at the top of last year's AFD makes clear, there was no consensus to delete the article. There was, IMO, a pretty clear consensus to redirect it, although it was unclear what to redirect it to (climate change denial, Fred Singer, SEPP, and the Heartland Institute were all suggested). As for the reasons, I'm seeing far more than a lack of notability outside the conference, such as:
- "may be to prone to POV problems" - Realkyhick
- "There is no evidence that the NIPCC even exists" - Kim D. Petersen
- "It does stink of a publicity stunt, and the name seems to be chosen to deliberately confuse " - Ioliver
- "a barely notable cheap trick to confuse people about who is speaking" - Dhartung
- So clearly the reasons go beyond the lack of any media attention. As for this year's conference, simply re-running the same conference with the same names does not make it any more notable than it was last year. Raul654 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite the contrary, running the same conference again and having many media outlets report on that does make it more notable. By the way, the previous tally was 5.5 keeps, 6.5 merges (one !vote was keep or merge), 1 delete, and 1 "move to form a subsection of 2008 International Conference on Climate Change". Obviously AfDs are not a vote, but that's far from a resounding consensus. I would also question whether some of the arguments you list are applicable to this article. The "does it exist" argument doesn't apply here, and the confusing name thing doesn't seem to me a valid reason to delete anything (that's what hatnotes are for). I also don't see why this article would be inherently prone to any more POV problems than, for example, the Kyoto Protocol article. Oren0 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that the name is merely confusing - it's specifically designed to confuse people. This goes towards the larger issue that this conference is simply a publicity stunt by the Heartland institute and its cadre of deniers. Wikipedia is not news. Maybe Wikinews would like an article on the conference, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite the contrary, running the same conference again and having many media outlets report on that does make it more notable. By the way, the previous tally was 5.5 keeps, 6.5 merges (one !vote was keep or merge), 1 delete, and 1 "move to form a subsection of 2008 International Conference on Climate Change". Obviously AfDs are not a vote, but that's far from a resounding consensus. I would also question whether some of the arguments you list are applicable to this article. The "does it exist" argument doesn't apply here, and the confusing name thing doesn't seem to me a valid reason to delete anything (that's what hatnotes are for). I also don't see why this article would be inherently prone to any more POV problems than, for example, the Kyoto Protocol article. Oren0 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plenty of independent, reliable sources, which is a key defining element of WP:GNG notability. If someone has concerns, as in the other AfD, about the actuality of the conference, establish this in the article, but for now, it seems to have garnered enough press publicity to be considered notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Soul (talk • contribs)
- Hmmm, perhaps if you scrolled down abit on WP:GNG and you'd notice WP:N#OBJ: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability"... As far as i can see, all the coverage is exactly such a "short burst". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Short burst? The Seattle Times article is from March 2, 2008; The Boston Globe article is from December 7, 2008. To mention just two. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs •count) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, perhaps if you scrolled down abit on WP:GNG and you'd notice WP:N#OBJ: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability"... As far as i can see, all the coverage is exactly such a "short burst". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the fact that this is even up for deletion is mind boggling. It would be nice to have more info on the conference though. Kagetto (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as in not delete). Passes WP:V with flying colors. -Atmoz (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep. Much as I wish this bunch of bozos would go away and admit their intellectual bankruptcy, they won't for a bit; and the article itself only weakly exaggerates their utter lack of credibility William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable per WP:NOT#NEWS. The conferences get short bursts of mention around the time when they are held, which is the inevitable result of press-releases. And in the time between them, only occasional mentions in Op-Ed's. Its basic astroturfing.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DGG (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prestwich CC FC[edit]
- Prestwich CC FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article was originally PROD'ed on the grounds that this is a Sunday league football team, not part of the English football league system and playing against pub teams and the like. PROD removed by article creator who stated "Club is moving to a Saturday league on the pyramid for the 2009/10 season" but this is crystal balling (the new season is still five months away) and there's no confirmation that the league they plan to join would be high enough up the league system to confer notability anyway (generally taken to be level 10) ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Bury Sunday League is several miles below the bar for notability - little more than pub teams. The fact that their record win is against the Hare & Hounds says it all. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sunday League teams are hardly notable. (And if they were to join the English football pyramid, they'd be waaaay below the 10th level (which I wouldn't have used as the barometer for notability - but that's another debate). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For info, the 10th level is generally taken as the cut-off point because that is the lowest level from which teams may enter the FA Cup..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Harrison Barnes[edit]
- A. Harrison Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NN entrepreneur. G-hits appear to be all press releases or promotional placements Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this where I respond? A conflict of interest as in do I work for or have a stake in these topics. No, do you want my ID and to call my boss? I feel offended I worked very hard to make these great (and naturally neutral). My meticulous, insomniac writings are being threatened and I'm being accused of advertising. Samuelmccarthy (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's a G-hit. There's not one press release and Conde Naste and Gawker (making fun of Hound.com and A Harrison Barnes) is not promotional. Samuelmccarthy (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "G-hit" is short for "Google hit" - Google search results, often used as an initial rough guide of notability.--94.196.126.123 (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. Simply being a successful entrepreneur is not a sufficient notability requirement. Taroaldo (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a successful entrepreneur, it's a person who's changed how we find jobs in our internet world. Samuelmccarthy (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third editor changed Hound.com to just a notability tag, which I will fix. Can you clear this one up already too, I am going to be making articles all the time, I don't want to be tarnished and he is notable for changing the very way people find employment. Samuelmccarthy (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. The Hound.Com article is also pretty shaky and will probably be deleted too if it can't be brought up to WP:WEB notability guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. A search on google shows that he's been name dropped a few times and used for reference purposes, but nothing has been written solely about him, which is what the notability guidelines require. Themfromspace (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable; no significant hits in Google News from independent sources. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just found a bunch of articles from independent sources about HIM by searching his full name "Andrew Harrison Barnes"!! Don't know why this didn't occur to me earlier. Samuelmccarthy (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NAvuu[edit]
- NAvuu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, no sources to back up the information presented here. Matt (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suspecting a hoax after reading she is a hottie and that she was born in a bucket full of water. And by the by, do you really suppose everyone in the Maldives listens to wonderful death metal by a band which returns zero Google hits? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as vandalism. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. A speedy as vandalism might be acceptable. Themfromspace (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#A7 (the claims made are untrue and based on the google hits it is unlikely that anyone except the author would argue, hence it would be WP:SNOW) Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Devsy award[edit]
- Devsy award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:GNG, and falls flat into WP:MADEUP. Didn't think A7 for web content applied, though. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable minority YouTube award. CultureDrone (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not discussed by independent sources and clearly fails WP:NFT. - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete considering it gets 7 google hits, which is downright pitiful for something on Youtube, I'd say this definitely qualifies as A7/non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of nationalist crimes[edit]
- List of nationalist crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No real criteria for inclusion. "Nationalist crimes" is rather ambiguous. Garden. 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An arbitrary and random selection of links.Biophys (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as random opinion-based laundry list subject to endless POV-warring. - Biruitorul Talk 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have relisted this old discussion as it was lost (never added to a log page). ascidian | talk-to-me 06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's impossible to determine objective inclusion criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Mgm. Unmanageable for the vast majority of readers. Ottre 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - a totally arbitrary list which will be subject to endless conflict whilst giving no information to readers. the wub "?!" 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Despite the title and the introduction, this list just seems to be a random collection of link to articles which the author thinks might have something to do with nationalism. I can't see any way of defining clear and objective inclusion criteria for a list such as this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a very bad jumble that requires explanations instead of a simple list. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With no criteria to determine inclusion in the list, this article is just original research. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DGG (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Illegal Success[edit]
- Illegal Success (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL as there is no evidence that this album has been announced officially, according to a Google search. The source given doesn't support the statements made in this article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a bad sign if the article starts off by saying "X is rumored to be...". Violates WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:N. A google news search shows its nonexistance in the news. Themfromspace (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News search? Hey, that's what I did too! :) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Themfromspace and nom Alpha 4615 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to artist's article since not much is known yet. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. Merge unnecessary as there's nothing verifiable in the article, redirect is pointless because even the title fails WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Now that consensus agrees that this album is nonexistent and thus this article is blatantly wrong, I'm tagging this per WP:CSD#G3 to see what the admins think. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very WP:CRYSTAL. Aubergine (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rajinder Kumar Kamboj[edit]
- Rajinder Kumar Kamboj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Aside from reading like a promo piece or resume, article fails WP:N. General search did not turn up information of significance. The references in the article include a directory listing from ZoomInfo, press release-type announcements of appointments to employment positions, and general patent information (anyone can apply for patents). Does not demonstrate notability. Taroaldo (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep -- but see comment below. Assuming we can substantiate the importance of the companys of which he was the senior researcher.. I can verify the patents, as European patents , using Scirus--it is not as easy as for the US to tell if they were granted. The article says academician--if this means member the the Indian Acad Sci, then he's unquestionably notable. The sources are not really that illuminating for what we need--I'm looking for a conventional cv. A proper search really should include Indian print sources, but there is no usable indexing. DGG (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep If this is kept the name should be changed to Rajender K. Kamboj as there's nothing that supports the use of "Rajinder" that can be found online. I think he just barely meets WP:PROF as his patents show that he's not an ordinary academic. Themfromspace (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried to look up whether Kamboj is listed by the Indian Academy of Sciences, but found the confusing situation that there seem to exist three different academies in India: the National Academy of Sciences, India, the Indian Academy of Sciences, and the Indian National Science Academy. Is there perhaps somebody here who can shine some light on this? Which is the "real" academy? Does membership in any of the three automatically lead to notability? --Crusio (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not convinced he's an academic at all, so I don't see why WP:PROF should be the relevant guideline. If it is, I think he fails it. Shouldn't we instead be looking at whether there are sufficiently many reliably-published secondary sources about him to pass WP:BIO? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The term academician can also be used as an honourary title. The subject is promoted as a "biotech executive". Once he had completed his education he immediately went into the corporate world. As noted in the comment above, WP:BIO should be the relevant guideline over WP:PROF. There is a significant biotech industry in my area and I could point to many biotech execs with doctorates and patents who still would not meet criteria for WP:BIO. Taroaldo (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment agree with David Eppstein, that if his publication record doesn't show a significant impact on the research of his peers that he ought then to be judged on WP:BIO. A quick ISI search for Kamboj RK turns up 53 papers, three cited over hundred times. I don't have time now to check whether these are by the same RK Kamboj. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lupin is a US$ 694 million pharmaceutical company; barely above midsized by American/global standards. By comparison, Merck’s sales are US$ 23 billion (Pfizer=$48B, Johnson&Johson=$63B). As a company representative, the subject’s news coverage is fairly limited, which I think is important to check because even small companies can generate a lot of media coverage. So I think that notability here has to be established based on WP:PROF criteria. I think that this citation impact may not be enough, since in the most widely cited papers he is neither the last or first author. I don’t think patents are a good basis for WP:PROF-notability assessment.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- commentlooking at the ISI results (& confirming in Scopus): The most cited ones -- with highest counts 280 (paper in Nature_, & 142 (paper in PNAS). are for him just as one of a team, but the highest one for him as Principal investigator is 49 citations, then 48, 33, 30. during this period he was Allelix Biopharmaceuticals, a medium size development company associated with Astra AB,, Eli Lilly, &, Hoechs. The size of a pharmaceutical company is not necessarily its importance--both small start ups & 3rd world companies are smaller than the US & European giants. Nor is working for such a firm necessarily less important than working in the academic world. I continue to think weak keep. (if the high citations were for his own work, it would be another matter- they were for the basic biology of the hippocampal GluR5 kainate receptor; his subsequent work was on drugs related to that, essentially spinoffs of that work. I do not see that it ever led to anything seriously profitable in a big way). Now , this is a problem we've had before: by the standards of India, he's a major scientist--by world standards, not so major. do we compensate for this in order to avoid ultural bias, or do we judge everyone by international rather than national standards ?DGG (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Based on the arguments and facts brought forward by Eric Yurken and DGG. I come down on the side of "delete", because my personal answer to DGG's question just above is that we should apply international standards, not national ones. I have two reasons for this, one of principle, one pragmatic. To start with the first, to me the English wiki is the "world wiki". Standards for inclusion of topics (whether bios or any other subject), should be homogeneous. Related to this is my second reason, that it would become very difficult to apply different standards to different countries, we would have to research and evaluate the national situation each time an article was created or came up for AfD. Adopting such a policy would lead to the fact that, say, a very obscure amateur botanist would become notable just because (s)he would hail from Liechtenstein and the Liechtensteiner Vaterland, which is a national newspaper over there, would perhaps once have devoted a paragraph to this person. Locally an important scientist (because the only one...), but not on a global scale. Of course this is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not very convinced by your arguments on global notability. Consider this case. Mukesh is a Malayalam film actor. His movies are not distributed globally and he is only a locally (inside Kerala, not even in the other part of India) notable person. He has not acted in any English movies and has not won any major international awards. I doubt whether he has received any international attention and media coverage. Thus on a global scale he may not be a notable person. Based on your arguments, it seems, he does not deserve a place in English wiki. Hope my extrapolation is not completely off the mark.
- PS: No offence to Mukesh is meant. Salih (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point. I guess I'm too "science focussed" here. But I still kind of feel that science, being what it is, is a more international undertaking than even the movie industry. Perhaps we should look at it this way: somebody (like your example Mukesh) can pass WP:BIO (based, for instance, on local news coverage). This can, of course, also apply to a scientist. However, in the absence of enough coverage to pass WP:BIO, all that is left to apply is WP:ACADEMIC. In those cases, we should apply international standards. How does that sound? --Crusio (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked because I can agree with the arguments of either position. Let me try this as a possible answer. ACADEMIC is more than one part . The progress of research is global, and researchers when being judged as such are judged by the standards of their community, which is their subject--worldwide. But with respect to education and administration it is otherwise. Non academic administrators are judged by the standards of their country--a national legislature is a national legislature, no matter the size of the nation. similarly, the president of a university. In this case, it would be his industrial position. There is only one subject which seems to be different, which is sport, which I would think international, but where memberships on purely national teams is considered notable. DGG (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To Crusio: What prompted me to comment was your (somewhat general) statement "Standards for inclusion of topics (whether bios or any other subject), should be homogeneous." I agree with you on the point that WP:ACADEMIC should be applied in the international context. DGG also make a point above. The issue is slightly complex. Anyway, I am neutral as far as the Kamboj's notability is concerned. Salih (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I'm with Crusio here. I think WP:ACADEMIC attempts to gauge the impact of an academic's professional work on the world of ideas, the global world of academic conduct. I'm not at peace with the idea that an academic's administrative responsibilities alone amount to notability via WP:PROF (though I know others disagree, and still others view administrative positions as being rewards for particularly influential research careers, and therefore indicative of them). I think if Kamboj is a significant administrator of a WP:CORP company, that it ought to be demonstrated via WP:BIO means. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: In about 30 out of a total of about 90 research papers (Google Scholar), R. Kamboj’s name appears first, but for rest of them, his name is not the last one. All these papers relate to Kamboj’s research career either at Australia or else at Allelix Pharmaceutical (1991-2003) and/or Xenon in B.C. Canada (2003-2008) as chief scientific officer/executive Vice president (Allelix-Canada) or Vice President (Xenon-Canada). In other words, his experience is creditable one from companies of international repute. Kamboj joined Lupin Limited/Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. only in Mid 2008. Thus, most of Kamboj’s research carreer so far relates to his research works in international companies. Kamboj he is indeed a scientist of international fame for which his research should be recognized. His ownership for over 40 patents (applied or issued) is also not a mean achievement. The fact that Dr Kamboj has left a XENON Inc of international fame and joined a smaller India based company Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc......does not reduce his stature as an international research scientist. May be Dr Kamboj has a bigger stake in mind for choosing Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc./Lupin Limted. Let's watch his contributions at Lupin before passing any adverse comments/judgement about this International Pharmaceutical scientist. I would suggest that the article be kept, but should be cleaned and improved by collecting further information about his research career as well as about his family background/early academic career. The comparison of Lupin's sales with those of Merck or Pfizer or Johnson&Johson is a stupid comparison. Had Merck, Pfizer or Johnson & Johson been always of their current size-sales? Had they never been through small and medium phases through their live?. Can one predict if tomorrow Lupin or some other Company of that ilk would not make Merck or Pfizer of tomorrow? For readers's information, Dr Kamboj's research work appears under several names variations like R.K. Kamboj, R Kamboj, Raj Kamboj, Rajender Kamboj, Rajender Kumar Kamboj, Rajender K Kamboj etc. Sze cavalry01 (talk)
- Weak delete I think the previous reviews have done great work digging up the subject's papers and patents, which are nothing to sneeze at. However, I still am !voting delete because of lack of any independent secondary sources that would allow us to write a biographical article. The only source we have of that sort is this press release by his employer, Lupin Pharmaceuticals. (by the way, the Indian background of the scientist is irrelevant in this case, since most of his contributions have been outside India and are of no special relevance to the country, unlike say, those of Verghese Kurien). Abecedare (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument given by Abecedare (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC) seems to be week itself. If one searches on Google schoolar, Google Books, on Google and Yahoo search engines, the notability about R. K. Kamboj is abundantly proved. Kamboj has abundantly contributed original stuff to pharmaceutical research as one can easily see by search hits on R.K Kamboj, Rajender Kamboj, Raj Kamboj, R Kamboj etc. It is true that no sufficient biographic information from sources than the press releases exists, but this is not a valid argument for deletion of the article. Moreover, as one can see, this article is a STUB only, thus it only gives bare minimum outlines on biography for this guy and it also provides scope for contributions from other editors/readers.
Therefore, once more I am in favor of keep.Sze cavalry01 (talk)[reply]
Strong Keep'Duplicate !vote . Dr R. K. Kamboj is sufficiently notable to warrant an in article for himself. Hello Dudy how are you??? Sze cavalry01 (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin - I have had to reformat this AfD twice to remove duplicate Keep votes and personal attacks from User:Sze cavalry01. I have now blocked this user until after the AfD is closed. Black Kite 17:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Azzareya Curtis[edit]
- Azzareya Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Credits are a few music videos and apparently some calendars, but there are no reliable sources to back this up or prove notability - its existing refs are sites like "hiphopgalaxy.com." Mbinebri talk ← 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article does mention TV appearances, which according to IMDB is something called "Wild 'N Out" and is apparently a background part or at least not a named role. And as sourcing goes, stuff like "hiphogalaxy.com" and "topsexywomen.com" just aren't going to cut it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in addition to the several significant roles in several notable music videos, this prolific glam model was the Cover Model on the 2005 Lovely Latin Ladies calendar by Mark Thompson. I have added the reference to the main article. Unionsoap (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about 99.9999% sure that a "2005 Lovely Latin Ladies calendar" is not considered a reliable source for encyclopedia purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Booty dancing in a music video = non-notable. Playing the singer's girlfriend in a music video... by booty dancing = non-notable. Being on the cover of a skanky calendar = non-notable. And lastly, having no reliable sources to cite = non-notable. Mbinebri talk ← 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as NN per my original prod nomination. Complete lack of reliable source third party coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Angel Taormina. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. even with just a few comments, consensus is clear to delete DGG (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mackenzie Pearce[edit]
- Mackenzie Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article has no 3rd party sources or references. All the content was written by User:Mpearce2005, so I believe it's an autobiography. Found NO news or book hits for her. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no information that doesn't link back to her blog, facebook page, or the website of her company which seems designed to sell her coaching program. There is also the obvious conflict of interest. Wperdue (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Delete. Finding no reliable source coverage of the subject, her company, or the theories and writings cited in the article. I have removed some uncited contentious material from the Biography section per WP:BLP. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I personally am not sure I agree, but the consensus was that the article was sufficiently substantial & sufficiently well sourced to be kept. DGG (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opening and closing sequences of The Prisoner[edit]
- Opening and closing sequences of The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As much as I like fiction articles, this one has no establishment of notability, and doesn't seem worthy of a separate article. I'd be okay with a merge, but I still think keeping this is entirely silly, and heck, I lean inclusionist on stuff like this. Wizardman 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really an encyclopedia article in that it just describes the sequences, doesn't tell us anything about why they are important, who cares about them, etc. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Prisoner: no evidence that the opening and closing sequences are independently notable enough to have an article of their own, butthis is valuable information in the context of the parent article. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per BaileypalBlue. If kept it really needs a cite for their iconic status, which shouldn't be too hard. Artw (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Merge (assuming it can be referenced). Even if iconic, opening and closing sequences are rarely a topic that's discussed widely enough to support an entire article. (I know of only one that could make the grade here) - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Prisoner. The subject does not possess the cultural notability to warrant a standalone article. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The opening sequence, at least, of the Prisoner is notable and has generated much discussion. See, e.g. [15] [16] [17] Sardar Postmodernism and the Other ISBN 0745307493 (pp 1 - 2) etc. JulesH (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My natural inclination is to merge articles like these into their parents, but JulesH has provided evidence of enough critical attention specifically to the opening sequence that it's potentially viable as a stand-alone article candidate. Therefore, the choice between keep and merge is a matter of editorial discretion better suited for the article talk pages, and this AfD should not preclude a decision to keep the article separate via a merge finding. Thus, I change my vote to keep. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at the very least simply merge it back into the parent article; deletion would not serve the encyclopedia. The references included seem to clearly articulate The Prisoner 's notability--whether this specific aspect of the show is notable is a matter for debate, but I tend to think, given its age and international influence, that it is. I've flagged this for rescue, because I don't have time myself to find and add sources on it. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Prisoner. If trimmed and copyedited appropriately, there would be not much left for a stand-alone article. (For reference, see Carnivàle#Opening_title_sequence, where the opening titles won an Emmy, and the article is an FA.) – sgeureka t•c 18:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Prisoner. Per above. --Sloane (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The prison has obvious notability. The article seems to have enough meat to justify existing on its own. I can't see any benefit to the encyclopedia from deletion. jbolden1517Talk 05:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep" A well-written article... As stated and verified, the opening (and closing) scenes of The Prisoner have a notariety in and of themselves. They were not typical, they were newsworthy beyond a certain fandom, and they were groundbreaking in that they brought an esoteric quality to Prime Time TV when they were broadcast. Rather than merge, they deserve to exist as a stand-alone entity at Wikipedia....Help edit the article to better inform our customer...--Buster7 (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per JulesH. Wouldn't necessarily preclude an eventual merge discussion within that forum, but for now keeping seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The series seems to have made quite an impression on people, and was quite popular in its time. Dream Focus 12:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove peacock terms. Well-referenced and notable. Jwray (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 by Nyttend. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Groves[edit]
- Lee Groves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Vanity article by SPA who removed the A7 tag placed on his page. Google and Google News searches do not produce the reliable sources required to confirm the claims in this unreferenced article. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted — Users aren't allowed to remove speedy tags from articles that they created, so I treated this as if Pastor Theo's tag were still present. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Chess (Bar-Zim)[edit]
- Chinese Chess (Bar-Zim) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable, unreferenced chess variant Tavix (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete. Doesn't merit a mention at Chess variants. Is also essentially an orphan. No mainspace articles link to it except a disambig page and the general list of chess topics, which lists all chess-related articles. Bubba73 (talk), 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After looking at what this is, I don't think it is a classical chess variant, or even "Chinese". Rather it is an American commercial board game from the 1950s by the Bar-Zim corporation, so WP:PRODUCT is the relevant guideline here. I cannot see any evidence that this game was a commercial success, or something which has been played in competition. The only Google hits I have found are ebay postings for Bar-Zim sets, and Wikipedia with its forks and mirrors. Although WP:PRODUCT suggests merging non-notable products with the company, I cannot see that the producer Bar-Zim has an article, nor am I sure it deserves one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not assessed in the article. SyG (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a niche article on a niche topic. 1/2 dozen editors wrote parts over 2 years so it so it serves a small group of people. jbolden1517Talk 05:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of those editors nominated it for deletion and another (me) added a "see also" item but voted for deletion. Bubba73 (talk), 05:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Nothing was done to the article after the initial editor except wikilinks and spelling corrections. Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete (with no redirect, as it seems implausible). Frank | talk 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Molecular and Cellular Biology at University of Minnesota[edit]
- Molecular and Cellular Biology at University of Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable residence hall TM 23:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rapid Delete -- but it is not a residence hall. it's the building where several departments are located. It is conceivable that one or more of the departments might be notable as academic departments, but that's another matter entirely The article was written back in 2005--amazing that this wasn't spotted until now. Jackson Hall, the connecting building to this one, has also been nominated below, & should be deleted also. DGG (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes amazing this has been around for so long. This seems to be the extent of information about the building on their own site. Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to University of Minnesota College of Biological Sciences where it is already mentioned. The nomination (and the article) is in error; this is not a residential hall but a department. TerriersFan (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notability (neither asserted nor that I could find). It's a building on a college campus. There are many colleges, each with many buildings containing science departments. I have a feeling there's precedent or wikiproject guidelines somewhere about this sort of thing but I don't know where. DMacks (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bifrost (band)[edit]
- Bifrost (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no assertion of notability here; the band fails WP:MUSIC. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable band. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -- Can easily pass notability criteria for WP:BAND. This is a notable band in the history of Danish hippie rock with eight albums and at least three hit songs. I've added this reference from Politiken newspaper as well as two from Denmark's journal of music MM. (There are actually 25 articles which mention the band in the MM music journal, see [18].) There is undoubtedly more good refs in Danish books. The article in the Danish Wiki has more info and this article just needs proper development. — CactusWriter | needles 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - Now the references have been added it passes WP:MUSIC. --Triwbe (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to meet WP:BAND and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Unless I am misreading, at least one of the references indicates several album releases on major labels. Rlendog (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is to retain, but a merge might be considered by editors on the appropriate talkpages Fritzpoll (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2009 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spring Branch Middle School (Hedwig Village, Texas)[edit]
- Spring Branch Middle School (Hedwig Village, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An unnotable middle school in Houston - fails to comply with WP:SCHOOL (even though this policy is not official) as it is a "middle school". Has own page while other middle schools in the school district and city aren't considered notable enough, even when this school has no outstanding specifications anyway. Merger with the article Spring Branch ISD mentioned months ago, ignored.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail to comply with WP:SCHOOL and can generally be seen as unnotable:
- Hunters Creek Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Memorial Middle School (Houston, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bunker Hill Elementary School (Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Frostwood Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Memorial Drive Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete all and redirect to their school district or town. I don't see any real asserted notability for them and every town has lots of schools (essentially the ideas of WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOL). DMacks (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Begrudging keep per asserted and supported claim of notability. I really don't think the notability of a single award 20 years ago is sufficient for a school especially at the elementary level (there are about 3400 Blue Ribbon schools selected during the 1982–2002 span and no evidence that there is maintained excellence even though it is a top-few-% group--same theory behind BLP1E), but if that's the bright-line consensus for school notability to have a stand-alone page, then this nom isn't the place to revisit that wider debate. DMacks (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - All of the schools won the National Blue Ribbon Award - They previously survived AFD for this reason. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Drive Elementary School WhisperToMe (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because of the award. (I should also mention, that I do not believe a school needs to retain its excellence after receiving the ribbon to remain notable. For one, "notability is not temporary", but it's also plain stupid to do so. We don't require other award winners to keep up their standards after receiving their award. The fact they received it is notable in itself -- Whether the Ribbon Award is notable is something that might require a separate discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe it's about time that we did discuss whether the Blue Ribbon Award is, in fact, notable. Out of SBISD's 35 elementary and middle schools, thirteen are Blue Ribbon recipients. Part of the reason why I nominated these articles for deletion is because these six schools had their own articles, while the other seven did not. Maybe we should instead create articles for SBISD's other seven Blue Ribbon Schools? I'm sorry I didn't notice the previous Memorial Drive AfD discussion - if the Blue Ribbon Award is notable, then these schools should also have articles: Spring Forest Middle School, Spring Oaks Middle School, Northbrook Middle School, Nottingham Elementary School (which has been created in the past but was deleted), Rummel Creek Elementary School, Spring Shadows Elementary School, and Wilchester Elementary School. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 12:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JuWiki, then nothing is stopping anybody from creating any of those articles :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because we can doesn't mean we must. However, having a bunch of very short articles about schools with single-point notability makes WP seem like a bunch of scattered directory entries...annotated entries, but still. So here's an editorial suggestion: merge all to an article about SBISD schools. Surely there's more to say about "the schools in this area" than just specific data about each one, just as there seems in many cases to be relatively stubby-little to say about each one alone? History? District issues? Funding? One highlightable thing isn't that some schools have won this award, but that over a third of the elem/middle schools in the whole district are Blue Ribbon. Let's focus on writing a useful and interesting content, not just cramming in every dry thing that is allowed. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - not only Blue Ribbon schools but independent news sources are available foe each. TerriersFan (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A useful article which is growing organically. Any middle school fed by a 1/2 dozen elementary schools is going to have reliable sources out there. jbolden1517Talk 05:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to the school district pages. I also think it would be useful to have something like List of Texas National Blue Ribbon Schools. For the most part, these articles do not have independent news sources. For the most part, they cite the school district websites (or other self-published sources), and possibly a few articles from the Houston Chronicle which mention the school itself only in passing. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, as the GNG requires. Karanacs (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
University of Minnesota Students Co-op[edit]
- University of Minnesota Students Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable student residence. No outside sources are provided and notability isn't asserted. TM 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Contrary to what the nomination states, there are assertions of notability. It claims to be one of the oldest student housing co-ops. But that is a rather nebulous claim, and there are no articles written about this. And the building is claimed to be historic being the second oldest in the neighbourhood. However, there are no reliable sources writing about this either. This building does not appear to be a registered historic place. A database search on the national register for fraternity in minneapolis minnesota turns up Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity House, located at 1129 University Ave. SE, which is not the address of this co-op. which is located at 1721 University Ave. SE. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Whpq's thorough rationale. Mbinebri talk ← 00:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clean up, reference, and Merge into University of Minnesota. Not enough for a stand-alone article.--It's me...Sallicio! 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable small student house. Merely being within a historic district is not notability: there needs to be a specific designation. DGG (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely random student house with no claim to notability in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. – sgeureka t•c 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diddl[edit]
- Diddl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources, orphaned, fails WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and, of course, improve). Notable comic character in Germany, especially in the 1990s. See [19]. See articles in other wikis and plenty of hits on Google news [20]. --Edcolins (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google News search brings up a single Washington Post article (reproduced in several places) which mentions Diddl in the headline, and then in two short paras at the end, and whole bunch of stuff in other languages. There appears to be no policy in place on using foreign language sources in the English Wikipedia. If Diddl's so notable, why is this article orphaned? Jonobennett (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a policy in place about using non-English sources and it is that they can be used if no equally good English language sources can be found. I can't understand why so many people question this. Why on earth should we limit the subjects that we cover based on what language sources are written in? Imagine what a Manx encyclopedia would look like if it restricted itself to articles on subjects that had been covered by reliable sources in Manx. That's obviously a ridiculous proposition, and the difference between that and an English encyclopedia only covering articles with reliable sources in English is only a matter of degree. And the blindingly obvious reason why some articles are orphaned is that nobody has linked them from other articles. What has that got to do with deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I missed that policy -- I was looking for it under WP:RS rather than WP:V. The article being orphaned is more than just a lack of links -- Diddl is not mentioned anywhere else in WP, which if it truly was notable it surely would have been. None of the sources cited in the page talk about Diddl in any great depth -- they're all passing mentions. This is a clear case of failing WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In case of you haven't noticed, I have added three new references, all in English. We could add plenty of sources in German and French, but that one alone must be sufficient: "It would be wrong to think that Austrians are much less family-oriented than Asians and Hispanics, hence do not buy things to please their children. In fact, there are numerous highly popular cartoon characters in the country, which appeal to customers by their cuteness. The best example is perhaps Diddl, a white cartoon mouse, together with its host of characters, that are found in almost every store, large or small." (emphasis added) [21] Still not convinced? --Edcolins (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by that reference, no. It's a single mention on page 9 of a 10-page academic paper, published in the Atlantic Economic Journal. Hardly "significant coverage", to quote WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "they're all passing mentions", have you read this one [22] and, in this source, "Diddl’s success is impressive. He’s already jumping around in 26 countries and speaks 16 different languages."? --Edcolins (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and that's from a brochure, designed to sell products associated with Diddl. Hardly independent. Notability is not about what commercial activity there has been around a fictional character, it's about how much significant coverage it has had in third-party, reliable sources. There really doesn't seem to have been any such coverage of Diddl. Jonobennett (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have two daughters. Each has about 3 Diddls, 8 Diddlinas ... None of their girlfriends has none! You can hardly find a store in Germany or Austria without a large corner of Diddles. Certainly always at least twice as large as all Disney stuff together. And that since at least 10 years. No question KEEP! --Swen 10:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think EdCollins and Phil Bridger have shown enough notability. It probably would be useful to add some of those foreign language references. Aleta Sing 04:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For reasons stated above. It sounds notable to me. Dream Focus 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep mascot character with a Hello Kitty-esque popularity in Germany, and is internationally recognisable as well. I remember US Toys R Us having Diddl stuff a few years ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, certainly. There are plenty of RS around. The one source on Der Spiegel from de:Diddle is a really good source to build an article from since it describes the 18 year history of the figures. --Amalthea 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boomtown Records[edit]
- Boomtown Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable record label, lacks significant 3rd party coverage. May have some notable artists but that doesn't necessarily translate here. Rtphokie (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while it meets the sprint of WP:MUSIC#C5, the huge lack of established notability with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:MUSIC#C5 applies to artists not labels.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 March 2009
- Duh, that's why I said the spirit of WP:music, and second, don't forget to sign your comments. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - the label has a significant number of notable bands on its rooster (past & present). A number of the label's releases have charted on the Australian singles and album charts. Dan arndt (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep with a few charting releases, the label itself is just barely notable. Some of the artists aren't though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment charting albums and singles do establish notability for the artists, but not necessarily the label. If this label is notable, it would have been covered in some reliable 3rd party source. I'm not finding any such coverage.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dan arndt. Also lots of edits over a sustained period indicate interest. jbolden1517Talk 05:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Football League Cup Semi-finals[edit]
- Football League Cup Semi-finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed PROD. Original reason for PROD was "Unlike the FA Cup semi-finals, there is nothing particularly notable about the semi-finals of the Football League Cup." – PeeJay 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 00:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i think this is going into directory of stats terratory. Very little in the article other than tables of results. --neon white talk 01:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. League cup semi-finals seem notable enough to me. If FA Cup semi-finals are deemed notable, then surely this should be too. Best to spend the energy finishing the page, than debating it. Nfitz (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but then I can't see the point of having an article about F.A. Cup semi-finals either. - fchd (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. Wikipedia isn't RSSSF. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is why we have articles per year and not per round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs)
- Keep These semis should be on the FA Cup semis are why not the league cup. Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the yearly league cup articles. Also this articles title should have "List of" at the beggining. BUC (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT#STATS, too statsy for a merge. Secret account 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all the information should be in the league cup year articles. If not it should be, being divided in such a way is a very poor form of presenting information. Govvy (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per fchd. I can't see the notability of the semifinals of a cup. --Carioca (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to University College London. MBisanz talk 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UCL Human Rights Review[edit]
- UCL Human Rights Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable student journal, lacks 3rd party references Rtphokie (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notability, sources etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chzz ► 15:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability, no sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why does Wikipedia want to delete this? There does not appear to be any substantive justification for it. (Note: there are pages on Wikipedia that are much more deserving of deletion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.56.196 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC) — 92.236.56.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Student law reviews can be notable, but specialty ones like this, especially ones published only annually, are not, in the absences of specific evidence for it. This one has no holdings on WorldCat and does not even appear to have an ISSN, which is usually a minimum standard for any periodical. What's more they've only published one issue, & its hard to be notable at that point. Yes, we have pages on a few equally unnotable student journals, and they should go also. DGG (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what little encyclopedic content there is to University College London. THF (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But clean up this reads like an ad. I think this topic is too important to delete and we'll want to keep for information purposes when it shows up as a reliable source. I think over time there will be good content. jbolden1517Talk 05:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability of periodical yet to be established. No ISSN. Trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harold L. Sirkin[edit]
- Harold L. Sirkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable consultant and author. He has not been the subject of published secondary source material. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Edcolins (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable per nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak Keep and Improve and Move to Hal Sirkin. The article is a mess, but I question whether anyone did the required search for sources.Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR: 466 Google News hits, 152 Google Books hits.THF (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I am not convinced. A person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The sources I have found cite some analysis or comments made by Harold L. Sirkin on various subjects. It is not surprising to see consultants being cited plenty of times, which is part of their job, so to speak. But no source is about Harold L. Sirkin. Regarding the WP:CREATIVE criteria:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - Amongst senior management consultants, what makes Harold L. Sirkin an important figure? Sofar I haven't found any answer.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - No evidence.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - No evidence.
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. - No evidence.
- --Edcolins (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced. A person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The sources I have found cite some analysis or comments made by Harold L. Sirkin on various subjects. It is not surprising to see consultants being cited plenty of times, which is part of their job, so to speak. But no source is about Harold L. Sirkin. Regarding the WP:CREATIVE criteria:
- Comment. The WP:CREATIVE criteria are disjunctive, not conjunctive. Per the cites I have identified, it is the case that The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. THF (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. They are disjunctive, but not to the point of removing some important words from the criterion: "The person has created a significant or well-known collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This is not the case IMHO. --Edcolins (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The WP:CREATIVE criteria are disjunctive, not conjunctive. Per the cites I have identified, it is the case that The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. THF (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those are very spurious numbers for Google News and Books hits. Firstly you need to put the name in quotes, giving 76 Google News hits, not 466, every one of which seems to be quoting the subject rather than writing about him. From Google books, if you put the subject's name in quotes and remove books where he is one of the authors there are 12 hits, not 152, and again none of them look as if they provide any significant coverage of the subject - they all seem to be passing mentions. I'm flabbergasted that such an arch-deletionist as THF should be arguing to keep an article based on such hand-waving. Please point to specific sources that support the case for notability, rather than pointing to numbers of hits that any professional self-publicist such as the article subject would be able to generate. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTE. Article has no third party sources.--Sloane (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suppose it's too much to ask Wikipedia to be consistent about these things, but I wonder where all these Delete !votes were in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Draper, a fellow far less notable than Sirkin. THF (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's too much. Different editors look at different articles and different discussions depending on their individual interests and time. That's the whole reason why WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. TJRC (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i gave you
twosix reviews of the two books, that were easily found using google, seems notable to me, even if a little cheerleaderish like Tom Peters pohick (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. The last four sources currently cited in the article [23][24][25][26] seem to be enough to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the 76 google news hits for "Hal Sirkin," I get 129 google news hits for "Harold L. Sirkin" and 91 for "Harold Sirkin." It's apparent from these sources that Sirkin is widely cited as an expert in business and management. The argument that these sources do not count because they are "quoting the subject rather than writing about him" is original: It's not in the notability guideline, nor should it be. Many notable people have not been the subject of biographical profiles: They are noted for their work, not their lives. Not all consultants are widely cited, but those that are belong in an encyclopedia. Sirkin is quoted in his professional capacity by BusinessWeek (2006), the Asia Times (2006), CNN (2007), Reuters (2008), Forbes (2008) -- and those are just some of the free links in the first two pages of results for "Hal Sirkin". Perhaps WP:CREATIVE doesn't apply to the notability of experts who are cited in the popular press such as pundits and consultants. WP:PROF comes closer, in recognizing that "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" then they satisfy the criteria for having made "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". But if neither of these guidelines applies, it's an indication of the incompleteness of the notability guidelines and an opportunity to improve and expand them. It's not a license to excise justifiable content. In any case, Sirkin is also cited by his peers (The Leader's Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative, Stephen Denning, 2005, ISBN 078797675X, p.258; Firing on All Cylinders, Jim Clemmer and Barry Sheehy, 1994, ISBN 0786303565, pp. 52-3; Hidden value: how great companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people, Charles A. O'Reilly and Jeffrey Pfeffer, 2000, ISBN 0875848982, pp. 30). Those are from the first page of results for "Harold Sirkin" on Google books. Keep this article. The readers of the many articles that cite Sirkin as an expert ought to be able to look him up in an encyclopedia and evaluate his credentials for themselves. -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would help if the entry didn't read as a glossy advertisement for Mr. Sirkin. If it was de-adverted, it's hard to tell how much content would remain. tedder (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Avery[edit]
- Tom Avery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What is it about motivational speakers? They seem to crop up with no references so often. If you can reference it then great. In general they remind me of Coleridge's Ancient Mariner poem regarding Slimy things that crawl with legs upon the slimy sea. Fails WP:BIO Kudos for being blown to the south pole under a kite, but that does not make one notable. IT just means that one has been on an adventure holiday. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep adequately notable [27], [28], [29]. JJL (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you think it's notable stick the citations in the article. Listing them only here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, for the purposes of this discussion it's just as valid to put them here as in the article. Notability is an attribute of an article subject, not of the current content of the article. Everyone is a volunteer here, so nobody is compelled to edit the article. If you want these sources in the article then it is your responsibilty to put them there - there is no on-demand editing service here. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you think it's notable stick the citations in the article. Listing them only here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. JJL's shown non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the nominator should have looked for before starting the AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson Hall[edit]
- Jackson Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable residence hall TM 23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rapid Delete Not a residence hall, just a routine academic building. -- "Hall" is a generic term for an American campus building. But totally undistinguished & unimportant. DGG (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rather undistinguished among University of Minnesota buildings architecturally. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)|[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reason to think this is Wiki-notable, especially with such trivial content. Mbinebri talk ← 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Non-notable building: WP is not a college-campus map. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no claim even of notability. Aleta Sing 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Blatant spam and a coatrack article referenced only to internal documents at an Internet investment firm. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defined risk strategy[edit]
- Defined risk strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unremarkable term, most probably a marketing term for Swan Investing. A search with ABI/Inform shows no academic use of the term (this includes almost all business and economic academic journals since 1971). I cannot understand how it functions based on the article, and the article seems to claim there is a free lunch somewhere in the investment tool, without stating how. All references and external links is solely marketing material made by Swan. Reads like a (well covered) advertisement for Swan. Arsenikk (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arsenikk (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom LetsdrinkTea 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:COAT - spam masquerading as a stub. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dentokan[edit]
- Dentokan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is very strange, it may well be a hoax. Certainly, it isn't backed up by any concrete sources. While I'm by no means an expert on martial arts (and if anyone is, please feel free to correct me!), I don't think it's notable. PROD removed by article creator, so came here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the arical Dentokan has sources, the refanes. i did not remove the PROD. i put it on the talk page like the PROD page said. i put more refances on the page so i moved it.Fld300b (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - mabye i did opps. i may have not save it to the take page. put back if you like.Fld300b (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Dentokan is practiced by a lot of people. There are 3 dojos in central Missouri alone. this Saturday. 10 people are competing in the Jefferson City tournament Dentokan is a martial art that should by in wikipedia and is notable.75.105.128.38 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Fld300b[reply]
- Comment - I fixed the spelling errors an put more about the competitions so don't delete this page.Fld300b (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I don't know that much about the martial arts either, but the subject doesn't have the necessary independent sources to establish notability and the article sounds a little too much like promotion for me. Mbinebri talk ← 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is currently nothing in this article to indicate that this school is any more notable than any other of many martial art schools around the world. Almost all of the references are to articles published by the school itself, and the only reference that does not fall into this category links to an unoccupied domain (http://www.goyukan.net/). The History section, which is probably the section that is most likely to justify this school's notability, is only one sentence. All of the other sections are generic, in that they could be written about many other martial art schools. If you are reading this and you are a primary contributor to the article, I would recommend: (1) put yourself in the position of someone who is knowledgeable about martial arts and ask what would set this school apart from the thousands of other karate schools that exist (you then need to put this information into the article); (2) remove most or all of the content that could be found in the Karate article (or karate-related articles that already exist); and (3) provide independent references (i.e., not just the school's own publications, although it would be perfectly valid to include them as some of the references). Trust this helps. Janggeom (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Google shows plenty of references from around the world, including this one from Liechtenstein. . . Rcawsey (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Janggeom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - i put more on the history.Fld300b (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I found this news ((http://www.vaterland.li/page/archiv/detail.cfm?id=26483&begriff1=organi&begriff2=&begriff3=)) article with Google about dentokan in gemany. It is German but you can Translate it with Google translate((http://translate.google.com/translate_t#)). this is a Solid external source. Fld300b (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 11:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Another Martial art school advert. --Nate1481 11:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity page for a nn newly created art. JJL (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added a part that has links to other dojos around the world that also do dentokan. When this article was put up for deletion it was for not haveing noteability and for being a possible hoax. those links should be as much as needed to show that it nether.Fld300b (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi football players abroad[edit]
- Iraqi football players abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Listcruft, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian Soccer players playing abroad Benefix (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was nominated for deletion before under the name of abroad iraqi players and the final answer was keep. Mussav (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mussav, I think you are referring to this prod[32], aren't you? It's all I can find in the history. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete And categorized. Matthew_hk tc 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article already nominated before and the final answer was keep. This article for the current Iraqi football players abroad, while the category include all times. Mussav (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mussav: I think your comment may be misleading. There is only a prod in the history as far as I can see[33], which was removed by you. There has been no deletion discussion as is happening now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per past consensus -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The category doesn't provide similar information. It just gives the names. This list also shares the country and team they play for. (see WP:CLN) - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Categorize Pure and utter trivial listcruft. If we have this, we will have a Heligoland players list. --Numyht (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. We've been down this before. What a waste of time discussing it again. Of course it's highly relevant.Tris2000 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Basque football players, which was closed as a delete. Bettia it's a puppet! 15:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - organised, discriminate; I see no reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless narrowed - a list of any Iraqi football player abroad is in fact indiscriminate. At least one of the players (the guy in Norway), probably more, is far from notable. Punkmorten (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia isn't a sports alamac, agree with Punkmorten as well as the list is indiscriminate. Secret account 14:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To me, this just seems like a list made for the sake of having a list (item 1 on WP:LISTCRUFT), and could require a lot of effort to keep up to date - it certainly would if this was a list of players from a country which regularly exports players. Best to nip this "List of players from Country X playing abroad" business in the bud. Bettia it's a puppet! 15:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't know if this type of information benefits Wikipedia in any way, as the players should have a place of birth on their page, and also - judging by what I have seen - has no sort of notability criteria (it includes some youth, academy and reserve players, even though there may be many more out there) referenced to one website that looks like it contains small amounts of information and is in another language so it may be harder to maintain on the English Wikipedia. DeMoN2009 14:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Raw foodism. MBisanz talk 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sproutarianism[edit]
- Sproutarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juicearianism, i.e. no sources, no notablity--Hq3473 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge into Raw foodism. Plenty of sources discussing this, e.g. Time Magazine, The Guardian (twice), plus articles on specialist sites like this one. Also book sources e.g. Braunstein Sprout Garden ISBN 1570670730, articles in the Vegetarian Times magazine (e.g. Dec 1988), etc. Sure, most of them are short, but they are there. JulesH (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge per the good research done by User:JulesH. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Raw foodism. Thanks to the research by JulesH the outcome is clearly going to be keep or merge, however since this has been relisted it's probably worth making a decision. The Time and Guardian articles clearly show the term exists but do not provide enough information to warrant a seperate article. Likewise the article on Rawfooddiettips is closer to recipe than an informative article on Sproutarianism (as well as being a less reliable source). Again from what I have seen of the book (ISBN 1570670730) it is essentially a recipe and guide book. So overall merge is probably appropriate. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Samhita Mukhopadhyay[edit]
- Samhita Mukhopadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
One more of these non-notable bloggers that have only been mentioned by other non-notable bloggers. Damiens.rf 16:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I looked at half of the refs and none of them support notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Samhita Mukhopadhyay is a prominent blogger. Feministing is a well-known and popular blog among young feminists. If you will look at my sources, she is profiled - directly and in-depth, about her and her views and not entirely her work at Feministing - by two different independent and reliable sources. AlterNet is an online publication with a solid editorial-review process. Nirali focuses on South Indians in the news in America. It also has an editorial board and staff, suggesting that its articles are reliable and fact-checked. Multiple independent sources confirm her notability, and she is widely cited as an authority by her feminist blogging peers, as required in WP:BIO. This article was properly cited and sourced, with articulated references that explained that the sources cited were independent and reliable. RMJ (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone is interested in looking at sources that show Mukhopadhyay's notability, please consider the following (linked in the article):
- Interviewed by AlterNet, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
- Interviewed by WireTap, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
- Interviewed by India Currents magazine, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
- Interviewed by Nirali magazine, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
- Interviewed by Houston Chronicle, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
- Publication in major periodicals, including The Nation and The American Prospect
- Work making Feministing a major source for feminist writing on the Internet
- I think all of the above clearly show that she is clearly notable under several criteria listed by WP:BIO :
- She is widely cited as an authority by her peers. (as evidenced by numerous interviews and presentations at major conventions).
- She is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (young feminist activism on the web is a new paradigm)
- She has created played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Feministing is a major source with a great deal of traffic that has been subject to multiple reviews by other writers.)
Again, I think that the case for her is pretty clear. Thanks. RMJ (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Apology: I recently engaged in meat puppeteering in this debate. I sincerely apologize for this serious oversight in judgment. I've attempted to rectify this error by striking my comments above and taking steps to retract my requests for help. I felt it was my responsibility to note my wrongful actions on the debate. Thank you. RMJ (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge I can't see a single indepdendent, reliable, biographical source about her. The India Currents interview seems best and the Nirali interview tolerable, but I can't see the earmarks of either being a reliable source. (Where is the ombudsman? Where are the corrections to prior errors? I can't find these.) What I do see is sources about Feministing.com. Both of the aforementioned items are primarily about feminesting in the first place. The identical Alternet and Wiretap piece are clearly about the blogsite, not about this blogger. (How much "independent editorial oversight" is there if they post the exact same thing by a single author anyway? The evidence leans toward zero.) Plus she blogs/writes for Wiretap, so it is not an independent source. The Austin Chronicle article is not about her, and the only coverage of her it gives us is "an editor for Feministing.com and a Web manager at the Oakland, Calif.-based Center for Media Justice. Her writing focuses on transnational feminisms, race, media justice and policy, pop culture, and music" - that is clearly not substantial coverage. Per WP:BIO1E, while her notability still stems from one activity, it is better to cover the activity than the person. So smerge to Feministing. When and if substantial biographical coverage of her emerges, then we can reconsider. But what is available today does not meet the test. GRBerry 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I was asked to take a look at this {{afd}}. Since I was asked to come here I won't state an opinion. But I will comment that I don't dismiss a reference that calls itself a "blog", or whose critics call it a "blog", just because it has been called a blog. First, a lot of things that are called blogs are not really blogs at all. Some newspapers pay their columnists to write online columns, and call them "blogs". Some online sites have editorial oversight, just like a printed publication. Since it is the editorial oversight that made printed publications more valuable than some kook rambling away in his or her basement, the online sites with editorial oversight shouldn't be dismissed as just a blog. When a person who has independent notability publishes some of their thoughts online, in a serious manner, those writings should generally be regarded as WP:RS. Some online publications generally resemble the blogs that are not regarded as reliable or remarkable -- except that they are regarded as reliable or remarkable. Ana Marie Cox, the original Wonkette would be one example. She went from publishing a blog that became widely quoted to a job in the MSM. Similarly, the talking dog blog is widely quoted because of the caliber of the guests he interviews, and the overall reasonableness of his well-researched comments. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Ironic how this online encyclopedia which is in essence, the bible of all blogs, has now begun to question the validity of a web persona that is defined by blogging. What is a substantial biographical reference? Should we check for passport id's and take our shoes off before we edit or post. This thread appears to belittle the subject and neglect the fact that the future surveyors should be the ones who decide what is valid or too common. Like every other good thing turned commercial, this site is just one more example of how the ability to garnish attention and notoriety allows the mission statement and principal to lose sight and disregard those that helped build its structural formality. I feel no compassion toward the content related to these articles so I can easily say I am not biased. If anything I think feminism weakens many prudent arguments for equality.
So delete a blogger because a user thinks their content is mundane or they haven't been published on a fortune 500 magazine site... not long thereafter we will see advertisements lining these pages and people will move to the next wiki type blog site. Don't for a moment think that the fame of the internet site is concrete or people are forgiving when you begin to punish the day laboring brick layers that built the building by not allowing them access into your now special gymnasium.
We are also supposed to be a news source correct? Are we judging what and who should be newsworthy now? If we are, I think it is evident what the future of wiki is. — Pdconway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Too much drama. Even Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's own standard. We don't want to be part of the self-validating cicle some bloggers created around themselves. --Damiens.rf 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, she's a prominent blogger. Wikipedia is not in a position to pass judgement. Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — Hilary T In Shoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- — Hilary T In Shoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Perhaps not, but we're certainly in a position to assess whether articles meet our policies, and if not, delete them. - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have power over your own tiny world, but it doesn't stop you being hypocrits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary T In Shoes (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do review WP:CIV (and English spelling). Anyway, there's nothing "hypocritical" about striving to apply WP:BIO across all articles. - Biruitorul Talk 22:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps not, but we're certainly in a position to assess whether articles meet our policies, and if not, delete them. - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She is a valuable voice in the feminist community and an influential blogger/writer among young, internet-savvy feminists. If one is a notable person in a specific community, is it necessary to have been profiled outside of that community? I think not.Alb0305 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Alb0305 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It is necessary to have been the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing to meet WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage by independent, non-blog publications. - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to History of the Jews in Aden. I'm redirecting this because it appears to be covered in at least one book. More coverage might be possible in other languages, but right now there's not sufficient context from a separate article. Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Al-farhi[edit]
- Al-farhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of notability. No reliable sources provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newdawgery[edit]
- Newdawgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A declined speedy and then a disputed prod. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this term seems obscure and not notable anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a dictionary. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the very definition of a dicitonary definition - Whpq (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Actually a hoax. Ottre 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Probably just nonsense, but at best is a dictionary definition. Aleta Sing 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Battle For Pennsylvania[edit]
- Battle For Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NEO and WP:N. An unsourced mess of original research and unattributed POV. There's no evidence that "Battle For Pennsylvania" is a notable name for this rivalry, nor is there any evidence that this is a rivalry of note. Mosmof (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As a lifelong Pennsylvanian and Phillies fan, I can say I've never heard of any such "battle". The lack of sourcing doesn't help either, and leads me to believe the article is whole lot of original research. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~50 seemingly relevant GHits. As many relevant hits for NHL - rather than NFL - rivalries. Of those remaining ones, very few come from credible sources. Generally limited to fantasy football/the blogosphere. The New Yorks Times, when talking about a game, does refer to it in passing (here):
The game is being framed by the local news media as a battle for Pennsylvania. We're always looking to cast these games as wars and battles. But I spent two days driving from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and didn't find any evidence of animosity. There were no Eagles hanging in effigy, no posters deriding Pittsburghers as morons.
...but only to deride the term. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, other similar articles have been brought up to a good standard (though their terms are more widespread). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Borgarde (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a real rivalry. Secret account 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm a Pirates fan, and I've never heard of this. The two teams haven't even been in the same division since the '90s, so they play only two series every year. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was a bit of a cheeky WP:IAR, but this had consensus last time, so I'm confused as to its relisting. Consensus was to delete first time, however going to harmlessly redirect per User:JJL. Esteffect (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also, per the highlighting of a user, protected the redirect from changes by new and unregistered users until the end of May (when filming would begin, the earliest possible point it is likely for the film to not fail WP:CRYSTAL, and thus an article be CSD criteria as recreation of deleted material). Esteffect (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sucker Punch (film)[edit]
- Sucker Punch (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, as principal photography has not begun —Kww(talk) 23:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability yet to be established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. Juanacho (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Zack_Snyder#Filmography; fails WP:NFF (pre-filming), but sourced, so rd to director . JJL (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.