Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Plotz
Several tiny reasons he might be notable, but I don't think any of them add up to anything. 1) Founded a club with 2000 members. 2) Once interviewed JRR Tolkien. 3) Is a scientist (but has, at my most generous counting, published 7 papers and gotten <20 citations). Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources and I dont think the other stuff is enough for notability Corpx (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no path to notabilitiy. Could be mentioned briefly in Tolkien Society of America, which could probably pass WP:ORG. [1] --Dhartung | Talk 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the information could be merged with various articles, but no separate article needed. Also seems to have been started by a single-purpose account with the same name (plotz): Special:Contributions/Cplotz. Probably contributed in good-faith at the time (November 2005). How do we credit the contributions if the information (once sourced) is merged into other articles (if needed)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep Full disclosure: I'm a lifetime Tolkien fan - I've sourced it a bit, trimmed the peacockery; his successor as Thain of the TSA was the much-better-known Edmund R. Meskys, who is long overdue for an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:BLP1E might apply as the only thing that is remotely notable is founding the Tolkien society. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rope jumping
Not notable Ratagonia (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable. Maybe should be a single-sentence comment in rock climbing or extreme sports, but not on its own. After a couple months, still this? And a self-referential See Also? Come on now... VigilancePrime (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This article does not meet wikipedia standards and is not encyclopedic. It is non-notable! Canyouhearmenow 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into rock climbing or extreme sports, per VigilancePrime. Has some slight notability but primarily because its main practitioner was killed doing it. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - jargon. BusterD (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Already deleted. Deleted by another user. Malinaccier (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Joseph Tillman
Apparent autobiography, questionable notability, G-hits reveal other attempts at self-promotion. Author and IPs repeatedly removing maintenance tags without improving article for over 24 hours. Accurizer (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Finngall talk 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - autobiography of an individual with no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N --Sc straker (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete some guy's resume. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete I am amazed that nobody used the term WP:Coatrack. But in the end the majority of the editors here said that the subject of the article has no sources that sufficiently establish his notability, just tangentially mentioning him in the normal way that persons with his local position are mentioned locally, and a DUI charge, which does not consitute notability. Precedent has shown that people who have local structures named after them are not necessarily considered notable in the wikipedia sense, nor are people who are charged with misdemeanor legal infractions. JERRY talk contribs 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hector J. Liendo
Not notable, subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone. Please Read Basic Criteria on the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page. Cheezwzl (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, He is a 16-year JP arrested for drunk driving. Is that common?Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN REWRITTEN SINCE THE EARLY DELETION RECOMMENDATIONS WERE PRESENTED. The JP now has a bridge named after him.Billy Hathorn (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Then write a letter to the editor of Laredo Morning Times and don't vote for him. You still haven't read notability guidelines. Some of your articles about Laredo celebrities and politicians are larger than historical figures, and you teach at a University?? Where did you get your degree, at a Degree/Diploma Mill?? Read your talk page (Billy Hathorn talk page) Apparently this is a problem. Cheezwzl (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, well referenced facts and seems notable. Also, very uncivil comment above, Cheezwzl. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:It was meant to sting.....but...Referenced, yes, but only from Laredo Morning Times. Where are the other references as suggested in the Notability criteria, and look at the flood of other stuff he puts up there. I love the fact that he makes pages, I wish I could write all day too, but his entries are usually about about un-notable individuals, or he changes quotes to personal opinions.Cheezwzl (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- "he changes quotes to personal opinions"
Where and when? NOT TRUE. Is there any case other than Judge Roy Bean where a JP would be "notable"?Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- yes, John Fielding. There's more to the world than small-town America. DGG (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The Laredo Morning Times is a reliable source, and the fact that local officials are not automatically notable does not exclude the possibility that notability can be established for some of them. --Eastmain (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. He's just a justice of the peace, not even close to satisfying WP:BIO. So he got charged with DUI, him and hundreds of thousands of other people. If you're going to try to use that as a reason, then WP:BLP1E trumps that without even breaking into a sweat. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- New information added. Please recheck.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The article tells us he was one of " three elected officials in Webb County charged with driving while intoxicated between 2006 and 2007." This is not notability, for him or the others. The rest of the article seems, in fact, to be about another local JP also arrested for DWI, and general information about the extent of the jurisdiction of JPs in Texas, which seems to be mainly truancy cases.
- delete I mean, c'mon. He's a minor political offical (about as local as they can get) who got a DUI charge? Serious WP:NOTNEWS among other concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- miserably fails WP:BIO. Rigby27 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'd agree with that statement. We do have multiple independent reliable sources that discuss him. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The only source that discusses him biographically is the Webb County site and briefly in the Laredo Morning Times. All other sources only are election articles or DWI articles. The media coverage received by him would be similar to a lot of local representatives in other areas, and they do not satisfy WP:BIO. Why should a DUI make him notable? Rigby27 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'd agree with that statement. We do have multiple independent reliable sources that discuss him. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Clarityfiend, JoshuaZ Bellhalla (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - he is essentially a news story. No interest outside of local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- New information added on Feb. 13.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Kudos to Billy Hathorn for doing a great job of referencing and expanding the article. I don't see how a county justice of the peace is inherently notable, even with having problems with drunk driving. Royalbroil 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - certainly gets coverage, per guidelines, which explicitly allow local politicians that get news coverage. --Leifern (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. He is so prominent that even with a drunk driving conviction, he gets a bridge named after him. That is NOTABILITY in itself. Some JP's in TX develop little kingdoms and become entrenched for years.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict; added after closing was factored)
- Keep but trim; he seems notable enough, but there's no real need to go into the qualifications for being a JP in Texas in the article. The repeated focus on his drink driving is also a little unsettling, and should be re-assessed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Spebi 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Floryshe
This is nothing more than a dicdef plus original research with no evidence that it can ever be anything but a definition. Per Talk:Floryshe it was already transwikied although it only shows here and not as a standalone wiktionary link, so I'm not sure what that means. Regardless of wiktionary's content guidelines on keeping it, it doesn't appear to fit the guidelines here. The merger tag that's been on it since June 2007 is a proposed merger to a card trick, so I don't think that was a researched link at the time. Travellingcari (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. JJL (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Association for Renaissance Martial Arts per above reasons.Freepsbane (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] John Harvard (film)
Mention of a student film in a campus newspaper doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. ZimZalaBim talk 22:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's allow time for improvements to the article, and not delete in haste. An off-campus review or other credentials would be desirable. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this undergraduate production.DGG (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Normally I would agree with Hertz, but this has been here for months and isn't looking any better, the Google books is not a reference and should be removed and the other one doesn't make it notable.--The Dominator (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I would be inclined to keep this if there had been significant evidence of recent improvement, but without this the notability issue seems quite prominent. Wexcan Talk 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fucktard
Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Unnecessary disambiguation page that makes Wikipedia look stupid, to be totally honest, which we'd be better without. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:NEO. Jd027chat 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and WP:NOT#DICT. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete -- unless we develop a fucktardpedia. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'd also recommend salting this title.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete fairly non-notable portmanteau neologism I'd have thought. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There are articles in Wikipedia that go much farther than this one towards making this encyclopeida "look stupid." But I can't find much support for keeping the article. A search of Google News archive [2] shows dozens of articles in alternative press such as Village Voice which assert that many national leaders are fucktards, but they do not discuss the term itself. Google scholar [3] likewise came up with only a smattering of uses. Edison (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, Encyclopedia Britannica would probably not have an entry for "fucktard", and with good reason. I tend towards inclusionism, but this, I believe, is worthless in an encyclopedia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- And I'm almost certain that Jimbo would agree with me on this point.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Already listed in Wiktionary at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fucktard --Eastmain (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO and article is stupidly self-referential (not that that goes towards deletion, just annoys me). JuJube (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jonah House
Non-notable community. Jmlk17 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Philip Berrigan. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as the community is a separate entity from Philip Berrigan, the community is currently active, very notable to the Catholic Worker Movement community, very notable in the "peace community", religious "faith based" anti-war activism communities. It was also the location from which many Plowshares Movement actions were organized and planned, resources obtained from Jonah House and where persons involved in Plowshares actions went after release. Thank you rkmlai (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep clear independent notability.DGG (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep significant, non-trivial coverage including the Washington Post and NY Times. Travellingcari (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Easily notable and meriting of an article on its own. 2005 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Can be built upon. Canyouhearmenow 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Standing Down
This is a 2009 film: IMDB calls it an "In Development project". Delete per WP:NFF "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles" and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete per nom. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely WP:NFF, speculation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, online or print.--The Dominator (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus -- Y not? 03:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Aquatic Volleyball
When I dip into this incredible 12k byte slab of dense text it seems to be just the rules of the game. No assertion of notability. Even if it were notable, the best thing is rub-it-out-and-start-again. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. "Dense" is being nice. "Unreadable" is more apt. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it's a topic that doens't appear to be otherwise covered. I'm surprised that there isn't an article already about this, particularly after the broken nose scene in Meet the Parents. Folks, let's not make fun of a new contributor. Wikipedia is intended to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and no matter how excellent you think your own writing skills may be, we are always refining our talents. I'll volunteer to do the cleanup, but I would encourage AVAH20 to give it a shot first. If "denseman" or "unreadable guy" don't think you're as good as they are, who cares? Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wikibooks or wikisource, and replace with a stub. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- keep and tag for cleanup (or prod). I've run across worse. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment perhaps I'm missing something but why on earth would you propose keep in the afd and then suggest prodding the article? Seems contradictory. I'm not disagreeing with a cleanup tag, but I don't see the connection to your other idea Travellingcari (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I find evidence for sales of a pool volleyball and classes in aquatics but what I don't find is RS coverage of its notability. It was played in a film and some people apparently convert their pools for use as a court, but I'd think a sport that has a 'championship' (per the link in the article) would have some coverage. Unless it's under another name? Travellingcari (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be a legitimate sport, so what's the problem? It needs a cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be notable enough.TheNextOne (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep- the subject and the article are two different things. The subject is sufficiently notable. The article is dense but that is not a criterion for deletion. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)- Merge into Volleyball variations and leave as redirect to that article. As I thought of how to rewrite it all I could come up with was a short paragraph saying that it is like volleyball except played in a pool. The rules are essentially the same - and references indicate that it's usually played for fun without official rules. The one EL to an "official" site is broken. I don't see enough to make a full article, but it's worth keeping as a section in the Variations article. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, the writing is denser than the core of a black hole, but it seems to be a notable pasttime. Kudos to those who have volunteered to assist in cleaning this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the author is very good at using a lot of words to say very little:
-
A duration is an amount of time or a particular time interval. For example, an event in the common sense has a duration greater than zero (but not very long), but in certain specialized senses (such as in the theory of relativity), a duration of zero. A stopwatch is a timepiece designed to measure the amount of time elapsed from a particular time when activated to when the piece is deactivated. The stopwatch is typically designed to start at the press of the top button and stop by pressing the button a second time to display the elapsed time. A press of the second button then resets the stopwatch to zero. The second button is also used to record split times or lap times. When the split time button is pressed while the watch is running, the display freezes, but the watch mechanism continues running to record total elapsed time. Pressing the split button a second time allows the watch to resume display of total time.
- Somehow I suspect that the author was laughing when he wrote the article and is now laughing at how seriously we are discussing his contribution. :) Sbowers3 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge; action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Black Necromancy
Written like a fan site. Plus, it does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Delete Metal Head (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, For consistency, I am also tagging and adding below related page on here.Tikiwont (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC) - White Necromancy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Delete both They have no context outside of the game. Yngvarr 10:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- merge both into necromancy, per http://books.google.com/books?id=50rZlhHCW20C&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=%22Black+Necromancy%22+%22white+necromancy%22&source=web&ots=Bdg2ekTVgy&sig=aLIiU-HE0txfxIWixANINKDxKyc#PPA129,M1
- There is not enough to make two articles out of them, but they could be mentioned on necromancy. I see no problem in keeping a redirect from the current pages. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge both into Necromancy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Both nominated articles explicitly refer to "the context of the Arcanum fantasy role-playing game", so I' suggest to clarify / confirm whether you see indeed mergbale content or if you merely eventually want to have a redirect.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge but into the article on the game, not the general one of Necromancy. The context of the description is the role of the concept in the game, not the subject in general. Clearly not enough for an independent article.DGG (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into article Arcanum (role-playing game). Don't merge into article necromancy, as that refers primarily to the concept in general (including in-the-real-world) as opposed to the concept in a particular RPG. --SJK (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Street puppet
Internet video series that does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Carom (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not seem to be written encyclopedically, and does not state the notability of the subject in question. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 22:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete fan cruft. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete just another ephemeral YouTube pseudo-fad. JuJube (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted as blatant ad and copyvio. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Project Payday
Promotional/advertisement, also may not meet notability criteria. Carom (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete-- blatant advertising (CSD G11) -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 22:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G11, looks like blatant advertising to me. By the way , what's up with the different header here (discussion, undelete, etc.)? Is this a new feature that I wasn't told about? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Michael Holigan's Your New House. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Holigan
Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. The show Your New House is notable but its host is not notable enough to have a standalone article on WP. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Michael Holigan's Your New House. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect per the above if the show is automatically notable. That entry itself seems to be on life support. Travellingcari (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Another AfD, for School House Comix, was tacked onto the bottom of this page. I have removed it, since the article in question was deleted by User:JForget anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Playing With Matches (CSI: NY episode)
A non notable TV episode. Just an infobox and plot reprise. Pollytyred (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, that episode is not on aired yet, so nobody will know the synopsis for the episode. Wait until the episode aired, or after February 6, 2008. If there's still no improvement on the article, it can be deleted. I've no objection on that.
- Delete per WP:EPISODE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge, when arb com lets us. DGG (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wait until arbcom is over, although I'd recommend redirecting because of WP:EPISODE and no established notability through real-world content (the one or two sentences in the lead don't really count, as that could be mentioned in the LoE or even the show's main article). – sgeureka t•c 11:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Sgeureka. JuJube (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Correct venue would have been WP:RFD. EJF (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] O'Connor Township, Ontario
Unused and unlikely to be used redirect vıdıoman 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete {{db-self}} placed on page. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not so fast!. This was an article with content before the nominator blanked it out. If the O'Connor and O'Connor Township are the same place, merge. The town calls itself O'Connor Township on its website, and the this page has non-trivial edit history. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Restore deleted info. Or else delete every other article about small towns. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all articles about small towns--even villages--as we have always done. We might conceivably decide to change it, but that would need a much wider discussion than just here, as it's one of the really firm practices, upheld by SNOW in every afd where it is questioned.DGG (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If O'Connor township and O'Connor Ontario are the same places, it should be marged after discussion on talk pages. If not, this township warrants an article as per long standing practice. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Need to clear something up - this page was already merged! This was an unused redirect page. I submitted it to the wrong deletion cycle. Sorry. O'Connor Township, Ontario and O'Connor, Ontario are the same thing. vıdıoman 23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as a usable redirect. If these are different places, restore the separate article as well. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep O'Connor, Ontario is technically a township and it is not at all unreasonable to have a redirect from O'Connor Township, Ontario. In any case, shouldn't this be on WP:Redirects for discussion rather than AfD? older ≠ wiser 02:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as redirect. Useful redirect and preserves author history required for GFDL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect - go forth and merge, my sons! -- Y not? 03:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Voice of change
No evidence of notability; nothing of substance here that couldn't be incorporated into British National Party provided adequate references from reliable, secondary sources are added. Waggers (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and possibly redirect if seen to be relevant to the article as a whole. Otherwise delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to British National Party. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to British National Party. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete -- Y not? 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Historical exhibitions concerning Oceania
Contested prod. The only main contributor, User:Researchcooperative, possibly has a conflict of interest. Based on their contributions[4], they created their account for the sole purpose of making this page. It used to have an advert tag, but it was removed without explanation [5]. I wish I could say what it was accused of advertising, but the link on User:Researchcooperative is kinda broken. The article also used to have a signature[6]. The article sat around with some statements in the first person plural for 11 months (not true anymore (no thanks to me) but it might make the author look like a spammer, which might make the article seem like spam).
I have a hunch the article has some deeper problems (my 'spammer' argument is pretty heinous), but can't back up that hunch. I can't imagine it achieving good article status, or even fitting in with the 'manual of style', really. --Haikon 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Essentially, this article is a list of insufficiently notable museum exhibitions. Any relevant and encyclopedic material should have instead been added to the articles for the museums themselves (Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Auckland War Memorial Museum, and Bernice P. Bishop Museum). — Satori Son 14:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete per Satori Son - the content could possibly be merged as suggested.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The individual exhibitions dont have to be notable --thats the point of a combination article. There are undoubtedly articles though on each, most museum exhibitions get reviewed. Do we really want to give information at each museum article about the hundreds of exhibitions it has held? An article does not have to be capable of being a GA, that's not a reason for deletion. Neither is being written by someone without COI, or even a SPA. I removed the ad tag when I removed the stuff that looked a little like spam. DGG (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with everything you say except "The individual exhibitions dont have to be notable." I personally do not believe Wikipedia should have list articles of non-notable events or exhibitions. (Also, I did not mean to say that all of this information should be merged into the relevant museum articles, only that some of the info could be so merged if it was relevant and encyclopedic.) — Satori Son 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, or possibly move appropriate content to Te Maori and expand that -- international traveling exhibitions are often notable. The remainder is not notable and somewhat OR/POV (I'm sure that museum curators outside of Oceania have as much pride in their ability to put together good exhibitions). Individual museums in Oceania that are notable should have their own articles, not a hodgepodge article defending how good they are as a group. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete who the heck is ever gonna look it up? •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- "it's useless" is a bad an argument as "it's useful". We can have arcane articles not having size limits. I think the nature of this article is as a combination article to avoid having articles on individual non-notable conferences--as there is fairly general agreement that it would be a very unusual single conference that would warrant a separate article--almost all the existing conference articles are, correctly, for notable conference series. I think this is a reasonable way of doing things when doing them as a series is not applicable, and others can and should be added. DGG (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete per arguments offered by User:Dhartung above. There is also a POV issue here, why just these three exhibitions? What makes an exhibition "historical" enough for inclusion, and what content does it have to have to "concern Oceania"? Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jay Thomas (rugby league)
This person is semi-professional and doesn't play for a national side. There was a prod and I thought I'd take it to an AfD as he's at the top level of rugby league in the US. There has been some debate on one of his fellow players (who plays at an international level). JASpencer (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete not-notable. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The other article I mentioned was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Kosbob. JASpencer (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 12:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as notable athlete playing in National League. That's top level so satisfies WP:BIO criteria for athletes. No need to play International. Does a premier league Gridiron player need to play International? Sting au Buzz Me... 12:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the WP:BIO criteria asks for fully proffesional players, not semi-proffesional. Secretalt (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, has played in the top level of the sport in the United States. Professional or semi-professional is not relevant here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sam Harcus
Declined speedy A7 nomination. Local politician with no notability outside his own area. Borderline verifiability but nothing indicates lasting or widespread notability. - Revolving Bugbear 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the creator has asked for some time (on Talk:Sam Harcus) to find some evidence of the subject meeting notability criteria. Hut 8.5 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- That was in response to a speedy deletion request, which I declined. - Revolving Bugbear 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, one of 21 councillors for an area comprising 20,000 souls. I have my doubts about an executive at that level. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as insufficiently notable. This person has not yet been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 23:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete not notable. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comments - Please see Ben MacDui's assessment below.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. I, for one, am still not convinced. Of course I have no objection to recreation later if Mr. Harcus is the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources at some point. — Satori Son 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comments - Please see Ben MacDui's assessment below.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Based on the original sentence or two in the article, 'delete' it would have been. However Harcus is also well-known in Scotland as an advocate for sustainable communities and renewable energy. I have provided a significant upgrade and respectfully request that the above reviewers take a second look. NB I was not the creator of the article, but I saw a link being made to it and decided to try and rescue it from speedy delete. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 09:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I wish wikipedians would do their homework before jumping to conclusions. Well known in Scotland for his involvement in renewable energy. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable councillor. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. My experience of Biographies of living persons is scant, but let me say this. Being an Orkeny Islands councillor is by and of itself, I quite agree, not notable. If being an advocate for renewable energy and sustainable communities in Scotland is not notable, then it is about time it was. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by "it is about time it was"? Should people give attention to advocates of sustainable living? Probably. But this is a discussion on whether they do. - Revolving Bugbear 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. My experience of Biographies of living persons is scant, but let me say this. Being an Orkeny Islands councillor is by and of itself, I quite agree, not notable. If being an advocate for renewable energy and sustainable communities in Scotland is not notable, then it is about time it was. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - as a local councillor, he does not meet rquirements for WP:BIO. Even with Ben's additional research, I don't see Sam Harcus meeting the notability requirement as an activist. Where are the reliable sources to establish the notability? He's verifiable, but not everything that can be verified is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I suspect there is an "Orkney movement" at work here, trying to raise the profile of the islands' non-notable residents. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sichel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Je sais! (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eh? I may edit a lot of Orcadian articles, however, I've never been to the Orkneys myself. Nearest I've been is Caithness. Sam Harcus is notable for the reasons Ben MacDui outlines. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete some local councillors are notable, but not this person (yet). Insufficient secondary sources to show notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Connaught Square, Thunder Bay
An unused redirect vıdıoman 21:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- ...why don't you just place {{db-self}} on the page? It qualifies for CSD. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7, author requests deletion, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did not know that this qualifies for db-self and did not know the code for speedy delete. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks. vıdıoman 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Object D0
Tried prod, author deleted without explanation. WP:HOAX, period. "Object D0" returns only results related to mathematics; adding in any other unique terms (e.g. "tito" or "yugoslavia") returns nothing. With foreign language spelling, appears to no longer be a hoax, as a Google search reveals 4 results for "Objekat D-0". Still not notable. Gromlakh (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a problem because you can rename the article to "Objekat D-0 Konjic", it is located at Konjic, Bosnia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamo (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. We should ask the author to cite reliable sources since I can't read the language - and if the author (or anyone else) cannot provide them, then I'd be in favour of a delete per WP:V.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Probably sourceable using more common search terms like "Tito+bunker". It is rumored to be the model for a bunker that Yugoslavian engineers built for Saddam Hussein, for instance.[7] --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment Rumor, rumor and more rumor is all that this article is. Speculative content needs editing and references are sorely lacking. An interesting enough subject, I admit I find it intriguing, but without secondary sources, DeleteBeeblbrox (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your all missing the biggest possible source. I forgot his name, but he was the only bosnian member to work in that object. Bostel filmed a documentary and he was featured in it and they were allowed to film in the object. They confirmed everything said in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamo (talk • contribs) 00:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, vague recollections about a documentary are not a reliable source. Jfire (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Granted, the whole point of secret military installations is that there's not a great deal of sources of information about them, but there are not enough sources to indicate that this particular facility is or was notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy close (non-admin closure), wrong venue. Take this to WP:RfD. EJF (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Centennial Park, Thunder Bay
Unnecessary redirect. Nothing links to this other than a bot generated list and a vandalism warning on an IP page. vıdıoman 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- {{db-self}} is appropriate here. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close for wrong venue. Redirects should go to WP:Redirects for discussion, not AfD. Anyhow the redirect appears to come from a page move. Looks like a plausible alternate name to me. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete -- Y not? 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Matrix (cyberpunk)
AFDing this article because it offers a definition, and does not fit WP:NEO. This should go in Wiktionary instead. <3 bunny 20:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete with some amount of irony at it not fitting WP:NEO. JuJube (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (I'm the creator, so take my vote with a pinch of salt). The term is at least 19 years old, so I would not call it a neologism. It offers a definition, because it is a astub. I could elaborate on the advent of the Matrix meme from most cyberpunk books or movies if that makes your day. Instead of instantly deleting give some time to other people to add on it, no?
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 20:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC) - Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Sure, some books have called cyberspace the (or a) "Matrix", since well before the films, but it isn't a definable concept -- certainly not one that's definably different or separate from cyberspace. If there are sources, add something about this to that article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't not delete per above arguments. Article is borderline nonsense followed by poorly supported list. Philwelch (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, a dicdef attached to an "In Popular Culture" section. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No verified information to merge. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Come Together (Victoria Beckham album)
- Strong Delete - Another article about an unreleased Victoria Beckham album which is poorly written and is unsourced. This article is very similar to this article here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Open+Your+Eyes+%28Victoria+Beckham+album%29 which has been deleted six times and protected from recreation. I think this article should also be deleted and protected from recreation. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 00:27, 01 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Victoria Beckham#Discography until notability is established for seperate article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep --JForget 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pedro Delgado (footballer)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. Did he ever play? Do sources confirm this? I searched his name and found only one thing out, the name Pedro Delgado is a common name. I never found any notable facts about the footballer. Undeath (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The Carrick Rangers website lists a player with that name, but they're not a Premiership team, so he hasn't played at the highest level in his sport. Therefore he fails WP:BIO. I'll change my vote if I'm wrong about the level of his club. Pburka (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional keep. he has apparently played at higher levels [8] [9] so if this can be developed and the article improved then keep, although if it cannot be done then delete. Keresaspa (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - assuming the links found by Keresaspa are accurate, and he's played in Copa Libertadores, he's certainly notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here are some other sources that indicate notability: He played in Intertoto with Dungannon as seen here. And he appears in a scoresheet for Deportivo Táchira Fútbol Club from RSSSF right here.
- Also, people don't necessarily have to play in the premiership to be notable. It depends on how many divisions of football are professional in a country. But, in this case, these things all combined, I'd say he's definitely notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Article satisfies WP:BIO since he has played for Tachira in the Venezuelan professional league. Jogurney (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional keep. If he has played for Tachira (which I could not yet confirm). All I find is the Vinotinto article linked above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexf (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, This link shows that he did play for Tachira in the Copa Libertadores, on February 22, 2001 indicating that he has played at the highest possible level of club football in South America. King of the NorthEast 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
[edit] Sacred Goose
The result was speedy delete. Transparent hoax. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
PROD removed by IP without explanation, so here we are: This is a fairly obvious hoax. —Travistalk 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete complete and utter shit. JuJube (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lets just snowball this one to Speedy Deletion.We don't need crap like this and we don't need people who anonymously remove legitimate tags without engaging in debate. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted (per WP:CSD#g12,was a blatant copyright infringement) by LaraLove. Non-admin closure. AngelOfSadness talk 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Natalia Kruchkevych & Mykhailo Sydorenko
- Natalia Kruchkevych & Mykhailo Sydorenko (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
unsourced, possibly self advertising, see here Jazzing up text with HTML at the admin's noticeboard Momusufan
- Strong Delete- unsourced, uncategorized, advertising, unnotable... perfect WP:SNOW example for deletion. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, second paragraph onwards is a blantant copyvio of this. AngelOfSadness talk 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see the notability here, seems very spammy. The article makes several claims that are not backed up by reliable, independent sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge into Walsh, Ontario. JERRY talk contribs 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Donnybrook Fair
A non-notable fair that reads like a promotional ad. There are some sources, but none of them actually prove the fairs notability. Fails WP:N. It could also possibly be merged with Walsh, Ontario. -- Scorpion0422 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Walsh, Ontario to provide a deeper background on the town's colorful past, present, and future. GVnayR (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment. A user looking up "Donnybrook Fair" would probably be better served by an article about the Irish one, discontinued in 1855. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Walsh, Ontario. Wexcan Talk 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Interesting, but not notable enough on its own. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Info.com
Delete someone blanked the page, ignoring process, but this article is sourced only to its own website and seems nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The generic name makes it difficult to find third-party sources, and since none are provided, it fails WP:V and WP:N and should thus be deleted.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The partnerships that are vaguely alluded to in the article constitute enough of a notability assertion to avoid speedy deletion, but since there are no sources and no hint of how deep these partnership goes, the article should not be kept.Keep Reliable source was added. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)- Comment. Some media references are listed at http://info.com/media_comments If these are confirmed, they would demonstrate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I added references from PC World and PC Magazine. --Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, per reliable sources added to the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "vaccine video"
Contested prod, non-notable neologism. The only references that are worth anything do not mention the term once. Roleplayer (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. all the references are to YouTube and blogs. This article was used as a reference, but the term "vaccine video" doesn't appear once Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This is my first attempt at a wiki page but I do think the criticisms are a bit unfair. I was primarily focused on explaining what a vaccine video is in the context of viral videos and viral marketing. Hence it's true that some of the articles do not mention "vaccine video" specifically but these articles are not being cited for that purpose and I do think they accurately support the propositions for which they are being cited. I actually went Wikipedia to find the term "vaccine video" because it's been used a lot in discussions about unsuccessful viral videos and I was surprised to find no definition at all. While I understand it is a newer term, I think it's a mistake to ignore it altogether. I've gone back and cited a couple of examples of its use by viral marketing companies and in blogs. Mmcfly55 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep With the two NYT examples it meets the sourcing requirement, but there should ideally be a better source for t he actual term. DGG (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The two NYT examples don't actually mention the term once. It mentions a description of the term, but not the term persay. Doc Strange (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Neologism with no independent reliable sources to back up its existence. The NYT article, as noted above, does not use the term. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- neologism -- not enough serious coverage, and not enough serious meaning, at this stage. If the term becomes widespread (unlikely), article can be created in a few years or whatever. But not now. Also, the whole things comes much too close to being original research. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, protologism without reliable sources. At best a sentence or two in viral video. It's an attempted viral video that doesn't go viral, that's all. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Breaks Geogre's law too. Reywas92Talk 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, it hasn't "caught on" enough to not be a neologism. -- Atamachat 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete A1 no context. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reading List
I can't think of a suitable speedy tag for this, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was REdirect to Webkinz. Black Kite 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Webkinz Trading Cards
This article shows no notability for the cards. No reliable sources exist for the cards. Perhaps a merge is needed to Webkinz but I see nothing really worth merging. Metros (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- There are references in the article. For example, [10]. Yes, the cards haven't won any awards, but many other article's subjects haven't won awards either. Imagine how small Wikipedia would be if only award winning subjects were in it? It is a popular trading card game for the 6-13 year old age group, as seen here [11]. Wikipedia has many other pages for trading cards. Go to this page List of collectible card games and you can see there are at least one hundred collectible card games already with their own pages in Wikipedia. Epass (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per above. JJL (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Simple redirect or simple delete -- but not merge: absolutely nothing worth merging. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. See talk page for details.JERRY talk contribs 03:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pirani Ameena Begum
Prod was removed without reason. Apparently, the only claim for notability of this person was that she was married to somebody who may have been notable and that she published a collection of poems, most of which are now lost. No sources are provided. Given the apparent lack of notability I propose to delete this article. Crusio (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- To Crusio I added references about her personal publications: Women's Seclusion in the East, by Amina Begum Inayat Khan. "The Sufi" magazine No. 3 Vol. I, Sept. 1915 and Poems from Thy Rosary of a Hundred Beads, a collection of poems written by 'Sharda, Pirani Ameena Begum Ora-Ray Inayat Khan'. "Caravanseari" magazine (Canada) November 1988 pp.. 31-34 I know about other her publications during 1930-1960 but now I don't have precise data. Sergey Moskalev talk 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The creator of this article left a note on my talk page and the article's discussion page, I copy it here (edited for layout) with my response as it pertains to the deletion discussion:
-
- About Pirani Amina Begum article deletion: According to a dictionary, "notable" can refer to one of two general concepts:
- "Notable" can mean "worthy of note". A "note" is a written record, so notable means "worthy of written records".
- "Notable can refer to the concept of being important, significant, famous, unique, etc.
- Of these two definitions, only the first is in line with Wikipedia policy and practice.
- [[12]] Sergey Moskalev (talk 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- reply: Dear Sergey, thank you for the dictionary definitions of "notability". Unfortunately, notability has its own, special meaning onWikipedia. I suggest you read the policy article on notability. I see that you have added some references to the article, but they still don't seem to establish notability of Pirani Ameena Begum, only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter. By the way, this discussion should better be placed at the AfD page and I will copy your comments and my reply there. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not correct to say that Wikipedia uses a different, special definition of notable; WP:Notability mentions the "worthy of notice" definition in the second sentence. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:15 2008 February 3 (UTC)
-
- Keep Definitely notable/worthy of note. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:15 2008 February 3 (UTC)
-
- Question. Thanks for your opinion, D. Trebbien. However, it might be useful if you could give your reasons on why you think this person is notable? If you would have any additional references, that would be great, because the article currently only cites references that are only tangently related to the subject. --Crusio (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't much, admittedly, but the sentence "Hazrat Inayat Khan often said that without Ameena Begum's loving and precious help he would never have been able to bring the Sufi Message to the Western world." leads me to think that she was important in spreading Sufi.
- I don't know very much about Sufi, but its article is rather long, so it probably has a wide following. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:55 2008 February 3 (UTC)
- To me that phrase just suggests that she was a loving and supportive wife of a notable person. But that doesn't seem to infer notability by itself.--Crusio (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can see that; it doesn't say.
- Here is another line: "Amina Begum was one of the first female Sufi Sheikh". It is fairly rare in some Islamic cultures for women to be respected figures (I am not saying I like this, of course). « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:28 2008 February 3 (UTC)
- Delete. Recent efforts to improve the article have been helpful. However, the references seem to refer to her as a devoted wife who assisted her more famous relatives in doing their jobs. She does not seem to be regarded as a creative person in her own right. (No published work by her seems to have survived). She was a person who earned respect, and stories about her can be found at various self-published web sites that unfortunately don't count as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited, or given to you by your spouse or children. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- What about the part in which it was stated that she was one of the "first female Sufi Sheikh"s? « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:16 2008 February 4 (UTC)
- That's one of the claims that is given with no source. Someone who has the books might be able to check it out for us. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- (No published work by her seems to have survived). We add references and sources of her published works 1915 and 1988 Sergey Moskalev (talk 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's one of the claims that is given with no source. Someone who has the books might be able to check it out for us. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Sergey Moskalev made an edit with the edit summary: I decide removing the "dated prod" notice. Reason - this article will be expand and more new materials will be added to it. To be tolerant to other culture only strengthen spirit of Wikipedia « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:22 2008 February 4 (UTC)
-
- I put the AfD template back. It must have been a mixup. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep appears to have played a sufficiently important historic role. "She's only the wife of ..." should probably get specified as an inherently sexist inappropriate argument. Spouses can play a central role in things,and she apparently did. It would be better to have a more accessibvle source for that, however.DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think the comment on this being a sexist argument is completely unwarranted, please WP:AGF! If the genders had been opposite, I would still nominate this for deletion. Being the spouse of somebody notable (whether husband or wife) does not confer notability, unless the person himself/herself was notable for other rezasons than being a spouse. In the present case, I don't think any evidence of indpendent notability has been provided. --Crusio (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do assume good faith towards this particular nomination, no doubt about it, and I apologize if I implied otherwise--I think our recurrent attitude to spouses of notable figures is the problem--we tend to not look hard enough for their individual accomplishments. It's the general historic social attitude not limited to WP that "oh, she's just someone's wife" that is sexist. DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see that user Crusio, who nominate this article for deletion, produce not only sexist arguments, but allow to himself offensive remarks like: "only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter". If this "(perhaps)" relate to Noor Inayat Khan who was - GC, MBE, British Special Operations Executive agent in World War II of Indian origin and the first female radio operator to be sent into occupied France to aid the French Résistance, so this remark for my opinion have bitter taste of racism. Sergey Moskalev (talk) 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- This discussion is starting to degrade. DGG, apologies accepted, I see what you mean. Sergey, I really don't see where in any comment I said anything that could be construed as racism. Please let's stick to the topic, which is the notability of the subect of this article, Pirani Ameena Begum, not that of any of her relatives. --Crusio (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I see that user Crusio, who nominate this article for deletion, produce not only sexist arguments, but allow to himself offensive remarks like: "only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter". If this "(perhaps)" relate to Noor Inayat Khan who was - GC, MBE, British Special Operations Executive agent in World War II of Indian origin and the first female radio operator to be sent into occupied France to aid the French Résistance, so this remark for my opinion have bitter taste of racism. Sergey Moskalev (talk) 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Sergey that cultural differences are part of the issue. Allow for newby editor to source and write article so subject is more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.27.148 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'd like to note that many subjects, such as albums, do not have titles but have valid articles about them; the "no title" argument alone is worthless. This article does not provide any reliable sources to back up its claims, and so WP:CRYSTAL applies. Spebi 08:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tommy february6's third studio album
- Tommy february6's third studio album (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
No Sources, Nothing on official site stating a new album release Momusufan (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No title, no article. WP:CRYSTAL --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Doc Strange (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment just so we don't go spreading mis(dis?)information around, nothing in WP:CRYSTAL states that there can't be an article if there's no title. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spebi 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Omer Inayat
This article was tagged for speedy deletion but apparently somebody thinks the person is notable. I will only yield to this with some second opinions. As far as I see, he is not so notable that he must be included in Wikipedia. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - the notability asserted is insufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. GBT/C 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the article asserts notability, which is the criteria to stay at the speedy deletion level. That doesn't mean that the admin declining speedy thinks that the article is notable. GBT/C 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Oh... I understand now. Either way, I aim to get it deleted here since it is not notable. Thanks for the information, I really did not understand that until now. (I feel really stupid.) Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - as what they say above and the reason I nominated it for deletion, nobody has heard about Omer Inayat, nobody is coming to Wikipedia to look him up, nor is there enough information or references to write an accurate article on him (which would violate WP:BLP). Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - We just need to remember that if this article gets deleted we need to delete the redirect. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Fixed. Tikiwont (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Medeleni
This is an odd one. A disambiguation page, where none of the articles it's trying to dismabiguate exist. According to the Manual of style, red links should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link. This is not the case, however removing the offending links would leave an empty page. The dab page itself is also orphaned. Therefore delete. Tivedshambo (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep we'd just have to create it later anyway. - Francis Tyers · 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment - A dab page shouldn't contain links to articles that might be created later. If the articles do appear, then it can be recreated. Tivedshambo (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Francis Tyers above. Just because they are red links doesn't mean the subjects of the articles are not notable - per WP:OUTCOMES all villages are notable. Instead of deletion, we should create substubs on the villages. Seriously.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - disambiguation is a navigation aid. But in this case, there is nothing to navigate because all the target articles do not exist. --- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, while discouraged by the Manual, once there such pages aren't really worth deleting, since the entries are about real places, and it may indeed aid navigation helping interested editors to see that the articles are missing and where exactly to create them, so I unpiped the links. As 'See also', I also added a novel called La Medeleni, a book by Romanian novelist Ionel Teodoreanu. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep instead of arguing, I just created the three stubs for the villages. I hope someone will follow up with the infobox & coordinates. DGG (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edward Cullen (Twilight)
This seems to fail the proposed standards of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The entire article is a massive plot summary. The only non-plot related materials are the first sentence and the movie portrayal section. Nothing here suggests that this character is notable outside the book series. Metros (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There are eight other major characters in this book series with individual articles, so how about creating a Major characters in Twilight article and merging (and greatly trimming) all the character articles into it? Since there are five books and an upcoming film, there is not a single existing article where all the characters' biographies can be summarized. Bláthnaid 11:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that the page should be deleted. It's very useful for re-reading what had happened in the first three books (when Edward is concerned), so that, when the fourth book (supposedly called, "Breaking Dawn") comes out, the reader can remember the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella.swan87 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - I recommend trimming then merging this article along with any other character bios that may have been created. For example, have a look at Troy series character description page - while I'm sure fans of the series could easily have written individual articles about the characters (and compared real life similarities etc. etc.) the small character biographies in this summary page are more than sufficient for readers to get a general idea of the series' characters. As a lot of effort has evidently been put into this article (and it appears to be reasonably well-written for Wikipedia) I am not in favour of wiping it, but rather condensing it and other character pages on the subject into a more Wiki-friendly form. SMC (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the article, perhaps, to suggest this character is independently notable, but the AfD rules do ask that nominators first search outside of Wikipedia for evidence of notablity. Given that every single teenaged girl I've met in the past six months who's learned I've read the books has asked me if I'm pro-Edward or not, I suspect this, of all the series' characters, is in fact notable -- just unnoticed by adults (who unlike Harry Potter, haven't been reading these wildly bestselling books). That said, I think opening a merge discussion for all the characters into a list is in order, and if nothing comes of it (either a merge or an improvement) bringing this back to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. This is an article that would seem to justify the worst fears of the fiction deletionists.--that people will write page by page descriptions of every plot detail that happen in a fiction, and do it not just in a plot description, but once again through the viewpoint of each of the characters. Yet the characters in important books need to be adequately described, and in a series or even in a single really important book the continuing characters need a good deal of description--so great, that there will almost always be a need for a separate article on a major character--purely on grounds of practicality and summary style. (and a adequate section of a combination article for each of the minor characters) The way to do it, of course, is to write a good article of a reasonable size, with some reference to just where in the book the events occur, and with attention to the development of the character during the book or series, and with references to whatever criticism and reviews there are. This article will need both--the reduction of the plot elements, and adding of the others. In general this can be done starting even with absurd articles like this, by cutting and supplementing. I'd start, but even the cutting would be much better done by someone who has at least heard of the books before reading this AfD. Some can be done just by copy editing, so to show that I will work when I say work should be done, I made a start at making some of the wording more concise. DGG (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Nothing worth keeping, no real-world notability demonstrated whatsoever. After removing all the in-universe
cruftprose from the article, absolutely nothing would remain. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC) - Arbcom currently does not allow the deletion of characters, but this article is pretty bad as DGG already stated. I recommend to cover this character in a character list like Bláthnaid suggested, but I am not sure whether this should be happening through delete&startnew or majortrim&merge. – sgeureka t•c 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- if its not upfor deletion anymore then why does it say that it is? --KaidenShiba 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaidenShiba (talk • contribs)
-
-
- it is not clear how far the episodes and characters injunction applies--whether only to video episodes, or to all similar articles; it is also not clear whether it applies to consensus discussions in an open forum like this one. The prudent course seems to be to keep the discussions in abeyance until the decision, so we do not have to face the prospect of redoing things. Personally, I doubt they will think it their role to offer us the sort of guidance on actual article inclusion policy that would disrupt any reasonable consensus. DGG (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.It has been suggested that relevant content is merged into the main Cold fusion article; a review of this timeline, however, shows that the first two sections contain mostly unsourced materials which are of no verified significance in the historic timeline of cold fusion, effectively making the page border on POV-fork. The third section has some noteworthy information regarding the international conferences in respect of the subject; some consider them notable events that merit keeping a record of, I agree; this info would have worth merging into the main article if it did not already exist somewhere else. Anyway, given that International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, a page that is linked from Cold fusion and already covers said information, can be found taking a life on its own (for some time now), I conclude that this timeline has no other useful [1] materials that can be merged; ergo, it can safely be deleted. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- ^ by "useful" I mean "verified" and "significant"
[edit] Timeline of cold fusion
Unnecessary fork of cold fusion. The key events are already in that article, and much of this is padding (e.g. an entry for every year's "international conference" of CF advocates). Guy (Help!) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete per nom + POV fork. Bm gub (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and merge relevant content to cold fusion article--Conjoiner (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into cold fusion 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Cold fusion. —SlamDiego←T 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Cold fusion, converting to prose. Maybe retain a short timeline for the key events of 1987-89. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- PLEASE NOTE. This page has been relisted in an effort to get a better consensus. I made an honest error in closing this page with the wrong consensus decision. The above discussion did not match my initial closing decision of "delete".(See history). Please accept my apology and continue on with the debate that I am now abstaining from. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - reasonable to merge to Cold fusion. --Daddy.twins (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Cold fusion. JERRY talk contribs 17:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fuse to Cold mergion. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Cold fusion. JJL (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strongest Delete per nom, useless POV fork of the most ridiculous kind. Absolutely silly. Really, listing all those "conferences" -- it's not just padding, it's not just POV pushing (although it is all that, of course), it's simply absolute absurdity. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I still advocate deletion. As far as I can tell, anything of any value is already in cold fusion. There is nothing more to merge, without reintroducing cruft and POV pushing into that article. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or merge as a section, retaining the content. Whatever one may think of the likelihood of this science, the subject is highly notable and the conferences remain important. This serves asa useful historical summary. Its moreappropriate than trying to do an article on the conference series.DGG (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are thousands (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) of conference series organized all over the world in all kinds of sciences and disciplines. We don't have articles on every single one of them. Why should we have one in this extremely non-mainstream subject? This is POV pushing. We are being gamed. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the subject is notable. Which is why nobody's nominating the subject for deletion. This timeline, however, exists primarily to present as much fringe material as possible in a rebuttal-free context. As far as the outside world is concerned, the real timeline of CF begins with Pons and Fleischhmann and ends... well, with Pons and Fleischmann looking very silly, some weeks later. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly the article exists in an attempt to be rebuttal-free, but entries can be challenged for lack of notability. Perhaps you could swing consensus here or with some future nomination by making the case that there are no entries here that would be worth mention in any Wikipedia article, or at least that there are so few such entries, that they do not merit a separate article. And, while the article abides, its effect might be quite the opposite of what you fear, were some interested editors to ensure that the article only listed conferences of note. —SlamDiego←T 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Even ordinary conferences are not significant events. It is my understanding that the more recent cold fusion conferences are by invitation only, and that only proponents of cold fusion are invited. Listing such conferences as "significant events" makes this article a POV fork. There is no need to formally merge; the number of actually significant events in this timeline that are not already in the cold fusion article is small (in the range of 0 to 3) and they could easily be edited in if there were a consensus to do so. Cardamon (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as a POV fork. The only content here that's not in the main cold fusion article appears to be crankery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. For the benefit of those discussing subpages and referencing a help page on meta, please read WP:SUBPAGE. JERRY talk contribs 05:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] UEFA Cup 2006-07 knockout stage
- UEFA Cup 2006-07 knockout stage (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to UEFA Cup 2006-07 --Daddy.twins (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This article goes into much more detail than the main article. If the two articles were to be merged, the main article would become much too big. – PeeJay 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Length of article doesn't justify a separate root entry for one stage, in my opinion. I think creating a subpage, if possible, would be reasonable under UEFA Cup 2006-07/Knockout Stage --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, the subpage is applied on the user pages, wikipedia pages... but not article pages. Raymond Giggs 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -
That's entirely unfortunate. I guess I would stick with the original Merge opinion, then. I think it makes more sense to keep subcomponents with their parent. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Found this about subpages Help:Link#Subpage_feature and maybe it could apply. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -
- Comment - Well, the subpage is applied on the user pages, wikipedia pages... but not article pages. Raymond Giggs 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Contradiction. First Round is counted into the proper round - again. If you not need the first round article means that proper rounds' article - detailed result - are not needed to be detailed. Raymond Giggs 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't understand a bloody thing you're saying. Where does it say on UEFA.com that the First Round is a "proper round", and what does that have to do with it being notable? – PeeJay 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - Sorry... communication fault. My fault. Sorry. (According to Deryck Chan, my communication skills is very low-ranked - regardless in English or Chinese. LOL) I was meant that the scores in the first round would be counted into the scorer table. That means first round is compulsory for every teams - including the reigning champions, if Sevilla FC have not to be participate in the CL group stage. Raymond Giggs 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't understand a bloody thing you're saying. Where does it say on UEFA.com that the First Round is a "proper round", and what does that have to do with it being notable? – PeeJay 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Length of article doesn't justify a separate root entry for one stage, in my opinion. I think creating a subpage, if possible, would be reasonable under UEFA Cup 2006-07/Knockout Stage --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This article probably shouldn't have been created before the games started, but now it's here I don't see any reason to delete. There will be extensive coverage of these games so WP:N will be satisfied. Given that individual American wresting matches are deemed notable (wrongly, IMO), a round of a popular soccer competition seems to pass WP:N with flying colours. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The only real question is whether there should be more detail.DGG (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Again nothing wrong with this article, it contains all notable information, the article shouldn't be merged. That would make the main article much too big. Fine the way it is. Govvy (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per 07-08 entry. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge The urge to make detailed articles about every tiny detail of every ball that has been kicked in the last couple of years is pure recentism, and wikipedia is not an almanac of what's happening in the football news. Enough is enough. One article for the season's UEFA cup competition should suffice. Robotforaday (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] UEFA Cup 2007-08 knockout stage
- UEFA Cup 2007-08 knockout stage (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to UEFA Cup 2007-08 --Daddy.twins (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This article will go into more detail than the main article will. To put the information from this article into the main article would make the main article too big. – PeeJay 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - After I studied on the AfD of first round article, I found out that most of the people said that the first round is not notable. Then I sum out that the detailed result of the whole competition is not applicable. You are avoiding my question. Raymond Giggs 18:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think that making an article too long justifies having a separate entry for one particular stage. The content could still be merged to UEFA Cup 2007-08 or created as a subpage under UEFA Cup 2007-08/Knockout Stage. This would help to maintain good organization, as well. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Why on earth would anyone request this article be deleted. I can see the point of the First round article being deleted beacuse it added no further information but in this article the matches have not even took place yet, but after they have there will be far more detail on this page. Darryl.matheson (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - What I want to do is making the detailed result into the article, but seems nobody supported me. Sorry to be rude but I want to say you are least qualified to say those words. I have stated that I would like to make the detailed result into the article and requesting for help but nobody give me any support! Definitely nobody! Raymond Giggs 18:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The only real question is whether there should be more detail.DGG (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Again nothing wrong with this article, it contains all notable information, the article shouldn't be merged. That would make the main article much too big. Fine the way it is. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it seems the nominator has a case of taking his bat home. Totally the wrong reasons for nominating an AfD. Peanut4 (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep While I can understand (somewhat) the reason the nominator wants to put this article up for deletion, it still sounds ridiculous. The knockout stage of the UEFA Cup is no less notable than the knockout stage for, say, the UEFA Champions League. In fact, I think they're of equal footing with regard to notability. Miss kat (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] UEFA Cup 2007-08 group stage
Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to UEFA Cup 2007-08 --Daddy.twins (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This article goes into much more detail than the main article. If the two articles were merged, the main article would become much too big, hence why they were split. – PeeJay 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Contradiction. First Round is counted into the proper round - again. If you not need the first round article means that proper rounds' article - detailed result - are not needed to be detailed. Raymond Giggs 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - I can't understand a bloody thing you're saying. Where does it say on UEFA.com that the First Round is a "proper round", and what does that have to do with it being notable? – PeeJay 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - Sorry... communication fault. My fault. Sorry. (According to Deryck Chan, my communication skills is very low-ranked - regardless in English or Chinese. LOL) I was meant that the scores in the first round would be counted into the scorer table. That means first round is compulsory for every teams - including the reigning champions, if Sevilla FC have not to be participate in the CL group stage. Raymond Giggs 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - I can't understand a bloody thing you're saying. Where does it say on UEFA.com that the First Round is a "proper round", and what does that have to do with it being notable? – PeeJay 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Contradiction. First Round is counted into the proper round - again. If you not need the first round article means that proper rounds' article - detailed result - are not needed to be detailed. Raymond Giggs 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You wrote "Totally not notable."? I beg to differ on that first point!! Govvy (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Contrasting UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup please. The champion of CL could participate into the FIFA Club World Cup, and gloried with a "European Champion" title. Those two honor are totally blessed. UEFA Cup could not achieve those things, however. Raymond Giggs 19:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please work on your English. It hurts my eyes. Anyway, yes the UEFA Cup is less notable than the Champions League, but it's still the second biggest club football competition in Europe. Get off your high horse and stop being such a baby because your article got justly deleted. – PeeJay 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply All goals go into the players statistics on the UEFA database. The article is fine, it's not a bad article at all. All information is correct, it helps to have that bit in it's own article as to not main the main article to big. So I really don't know what you are playing at here. Govvy (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - Ask those people who prevented me working on the first round article. Raymond Giggs 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply But that article was silly, it was a repeat of this one, now you want to remove this one? To me it's like your trying to act some revenge or something... Govvy (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - I wondered how silly is it? I stated that I want to make detailed result because it is a compulsory round for every teams, but all people ignored me. I decided to put on AfD after considering all of your responses. All of you seems don't want to make detailed result for every compulsory rounds. Raymond Giggs 12:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply But that article was silly, it was a repeat of this one, now you want to remove this one? To me it's like your trying to act some revenge or something... Govvy (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - Ask those people who prevented me working on the first round article. Raymond Giggs 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Contrasting UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup please. The champion of CL could participate into the FIFA Club World Cup, and gloried with a "European Champion" title. Those two honor are totally blessed. UEFA Cup could not achieve those things, however. Raymond Giggs 19:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The only real question is whether there should be more detail. Merging into the main article would make it too large, and that is an acceptable reason for creation of subarticles. DGG (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand the logic behind the nominator, Nothing wrong with this article, it contains all notable information, the article shouldn't be merged. That would make the main article much too big. Fine the way it is. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - I also don't know the logic behind the nominator who put on the AfD of first round and the contributor who suggested deleting the first round article too. Raymond Giggs 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the article should be left the way it is, it provides good detail that is not found in the main article and if merged would make the main article much too large to be useful. If a change were truly needed I would rather see the main article be a smaller summary article for all rounds of competition and the subarticles used for more detailed information. Mookey42 14:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge The urge to make detailed articles about every tiny detail of every ball that is kicked is pure recentism, and wikipedia is not an almanac of what's happening in the football news. Enough is enough. One article for the season's UEFA cup competition should suffice. Robotforaday (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager
- Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
Attempted copy-and-paste merge of Plymouth Voyager and Chrysler Voyager. There is no question that these two articles should be merged, but only through the normal merging process. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, the title Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager is inappropriate because it is too long. The title should be Plymouth Voyager with a redirect from Chrysler Voyager --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per above. This should be speedy deleted --Antonio Lopez (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, except maybe under criterion G6. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- true--Antonio Lopez (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, except maybe under criterion G6. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, but probably speediable (G6). —Travistalk 21:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Improper, sloppy merger without consensus attempted or attained. I do not necessarily agree with Blanchardb that there's "no question" the articles should be merged; there are cogent arguments for and against such a merger, and Blanchardb's recommendations regarding a combined article's title and redirects is US-centric and not necessarily optimal. However, those are questions to be discussed on the talk page of Plymouth Voyager and/or Chrysler Voyager (and/or Dodge Caravan). —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, wrong way to go about merger (which I don't think is warranted, the Plymouth brand had a long history before it was folded into Chrysler). --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:GFDL copyright violation to merge content without the histories that gives attribution to the original contributors. This is a derivative work. Suggest rolling everything back before the disruption and following the proper merge proposal and implementation procedures if merger is approved. --NrDg 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I noticed that the source articles are now back to their original state and nothing links to the subject article. We can let the 5 day AfD timer play out and ignore this article until it is deleted.--NrDg 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Editors should continue the discussions to improve and/ or merge the article on the article talkpage and/or be WP:BOLD. JERRY talk contribs 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tornadocane
I'm proposing this article's deletion because a similar article, landphoon, was deleted in August despite having seven unique sources, while this term has exactly one. In short, it's not encyclopedaic since one person appears to have made up the term in 1999, it does not exist in the glossary of meteorology, and (unlike landphoon) no one else I know has ever used the term (I'm a meteorologist). Thegreatdr (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The term is unofficial, and per the deletion of landphoon. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral :I did some editing on that article yesterday to transform it from a single event article to a more general one describing the process and adding the 2003 case. I saw that it was not related to many other articles but I was not aware that anybody was contemplating removing it. Personally, I don't care one way or another about the removal but I would not have lost time on editing if I had known. However, I want to make the point that since there was info in the deleted article called landphoon, it seems to me that there might be enough material in combining the two articles to make an encyclopedic article OR transfert the info into the tornado, supercell or Mesoscale Convective System articles. Even if the terms are not "widely known", the feature is interesting. Pierre cb (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - Into supercell. The article mentions that it is most closely related to a supercell. The information would be best suited there. Jd027chat 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - with tornado , otherwise delete --B.C say what ? 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This article is about two specific rare cases, similar to tornado outbreak articles. It is related strongly to a supercell, but this article is about the event, not a meterological phenomenon. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Even when it is unofficial, this term refers to a specific and rare kind of storm system, which is not properly described just by the term supercell. This is a recently discovered and not yet well researched event, so, it explains why it does not appear in the official glossary of meteorology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.10.248 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep- per arguments of 196.40.10.248. Also, the term has wide spread usage when googled.Rigby27 (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the term is not found in the professional literature. Wikipedia is not a repository of things you made up one day. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FantasyLiterature.net
Nonnotable Web site, less than a year old. Only 45 discrete ghits, all message boards, directories, and the like. No apparent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not that it has much to do with the reasons for deletion given above, but I thought I'd point out that the username of the article's author, Kahooper, suggests an identity with Katherine Hooper, the creator of the Web site in question. Deor (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Copied from the discussion page (sorry): I authored the topic FantasyLiterature.net and I'm the owner of the website. Until about a month ago, we were on the top page (and usually the top spot after Wikipedia) for all related searches. We received most of our hits from Google. Unfortunately, I submitted a sitemap to Google that somehow knocked us completely off for about 3 weeks. We are finally back in the index, but have not yet reestablished our top page position. Since your main complaint seems to be that we are "unnotable" due to lack of Google hits, I wanted to explain that. I'm not sure if there is a way to prove what our position on Google was a month ago. I now have Google analytics tracking the page, but I set that up after the sitemap problem. I have a Sitemeter account, but it is the free version and does not track beyond the last 100 visitors, I believe. If you know of a way to determine our Google hits before we had this problem, I encourage you to research that, or tell me how to so that I can direct you to the source. Thank you for your consideration. Kahooper (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper 2/9/08
New comments: Yes, I am the author of the article AND the website.
- Delete. Blatant advertising for a non-notable website, and a very clear conflict of interests. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I think it's possible you misunderstood the intent of the other editor. Google hits and ranking do not establish notability. I believe the other editor was noting that there was insufficient secondary information publicly available listed on a searchsite like Google to even begin a proper determination of notability. If you can establish that this website meets wikipedia guidelines like WP:N Notability, WP:RS Reliable Sources, and WP:V Verifiability, then consensus on the value of the article could change. Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete Let's be reasonable. Sufficient hits & ranking do establish notability in any common-sense way; notability is a guideline, and intended to be interpreted flexible. The question is whether this is sufficiently high ranking, and nothing is demonstrated to that effect.DGG (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment I think that hits & ranking, of themselves, do not establish notability. It's important to determine the nature and quality of hits & ranking. A website could easily have a good whitehat (or blackhat) SEO/SEM strategy that includes multiple crosslinks with other websites (maybe even their own) which would increase their hitcounts and ranking. However, having several first page Google listings or hundreds of hits still says nothing about the notability of the website itself, only that they did sufficient footwork in their advertising and marketing campaign to increase their search engine visibility. --Daddy.twins (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak KeepWarrior4321talkContribs 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Hits & Ranking do not establish notability. 'WIKI CLEANUP is in the need here, not deletion.
- Keep Accurate description of the site, as opposed to "blatant advertising" and technical difficulties which have affected its ranking should be taken into consideration. Author was honest and did not attempt to hide her identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.46.200 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) — 72.38.46.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- Comment - 1) Accurate website description. 2) Technical difficulties submitting a sitemap to Google. 3) Google hits and/or ranking. 4) Author's honesty and identity. Summary - None of these establish the notability of the website or address the issues with reliable sources. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. How or why is this site notable? Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trample
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. D. Monack | talk 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. It does seem to be a notable activity in the BDSM subculture. Perhaps somehow merge this article with BDSM? The reason I don't vote keep is because the article is too much of a spam trap and is not worth the effort of keeping spam free. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply and Delete Even if it is notable in BDSM subculture, it should still be in wiktionary. -ReuvenkT C 22:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not at all knowledgable about the subject matter but I don't think it's inconceivable that the subject could develop into an encyclopedic article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply and Delete Even if it is notable in BDSM subculture, it should still be in wiktionary. -ReuvenkT C 22:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete Quite possibly notable, but it needs some kind of sources. Print is OK too--there should be enough magazie references. DGG (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, seems a dicdef at the moment. Could possibly be turned into a decent article on the BDSM practice in the future, but deleting the article now won't make that any harder. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge. User:DGG has kindly offered his services for this outcome. JERRY talk contribs 02:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Martiniano Ferreira Botelho
No reliable source concerning this article. I couldn't find the book mentionned in the Bibliography. On the OCLC database as well as in Google Books, Martiniano Ferreira Botelho is unknown. SalomonCeb (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalomonCeb (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
:Keep - Had you bothered to click on the interwiki link to the Portuguese article, you would see three references right there. This might be worth withdrawing. matt91486 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Additionally, sorry if my phrasing sounded a little harsh. It wasn't intentional. I can see the purpose of the nomination once I look at the history (I was looking just at the articles themselves before, not looking into the history, that's me being sloppy, sorry), but there are references that seem to show that Martiniano is somewhat notable. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please User:SolomonCeb you may want to delete other articles of mine but please let me contribute peacefully. Please check with more care and let me work please. I am a reliable contributor defending allways wikipedia principles, learning also with some mistakes and above all constructing. Don't do this please. Regards Carlos Botelho (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Mr Botelho, Thank you for adding some references to the article. The problem, unfortunately, remains unchanged, for example, if I check the ISBN 9729813701 you mentionned, answer of the OCLC database is No book related to this ISBN. Please, understand that to validate this article, we need some written references which can be accessed by our readers. Best regards. SalomonCeb (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unless references to reliable sources are added to demonstrate verifiability and notability it should be deleted. For more explanations, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Botelho. --Copiste (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep See please that book exists and see again the external link i post in the article. Check this link please [13]
Regards Carlos Botelho (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The book by him is just a doctoral thesis; it was apparently all he published. The other references are local biographical dictionaries, which are typically not very selective. I think he is a local figure, not notable, just like the many local notables in the US whose articles get deleted with regularity. His house was turned into a municipal museum i House of the County in the town of Vila Pouca de Aguiar -- population 15,000. We should probably delete that article on the museum also, as we would a similar small town museum in the US or UK. I am a consistent advocate for covering all countries to the same degree of comprehensiveness.
- Delete/Merge Although the book is a thesis, he was the first to study the "Pedras Salgadas mineral water" and their medical properties. I agree entirely with the merge of both articles and it would benefit the Vila Pouca de Aguiar article. The result might be bether for sure. Best regards and thank you for your help DGG Carlos Botelho (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Definitely a notable as a local figure, but it makes more sense to me to include him in the town/village article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ben Macleod
Despite assertions, it would appear that this actor is merley the voice actor for the video game of Harry Potter. However this is still not a speedy WP:CSD#A7 due to assertion of notability (speedy declined twice by myself). However Notability seems pretty weak, so recommend delete Pedro : Chat 14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet the notability guideline at Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I put it up for speedy the second time around after changing the fact about his appearance being in the videogame, not the movie. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and salt the earth and I'll tell you why: This title had been speedied once before and recreated by the same user. I put a speedy back on it and was reverted by a user who claimed that "notability was established." So, I Googled the guy, found the IMDb and cleaned it up a bit. That site was unclear that this fellow was simply in the videogame and not the movie. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus (default keep). Merging can be decided by interested editors elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 02:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ang Kabanalbanalan
Non notable radio program by a non notable Church. It's an adveristement Dft56 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus. EJF (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge if the denomination's article is kept (it is also up for AfD). If the denomination is deleted, this article should be also. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. The nominator seems to have a vendetta against this church. Refer to my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus. Starczamora (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus
- Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
Non notable church. It's an advertisement Dft56 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - quite clearly notable, and easily meets WP:ORG. Also is a fairly large denomination compared to say the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster for example. Several secondary sources are included. Could you please explain how it's an advertisement? Article however clearly needs some cleanup, and a lot of the middle section appears somewhat irrelevant. This link contains information more relevant to the church's doctrine.EJF (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but Edit - the denomination is notable enough to warrant its own entry. However, much of the mid section is blatent proselytism and should be edited out. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A 30,000 member denomination is fairly substantial. I agree, however, that the sections about the Covenant of Agape, Faithful Entry into the Church, Forgiveness, etc., need to be edited, since it appears that these are the author's own synthesis of the church beliefs, rather than something sourced to statements by the church itself. Okay, where's the Second most Holy Church located? Mandsford (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The nominator is merely singling out every article related to this church. I smell WP:BIAS and WP:POINT. Starczamora (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CINTAX
Non-notable, unreferenced, self-promotion Lumberjake (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete
writtensounds like an advertisement. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC) - Keep. I wrote it for informative purpose and have no reason to 'promote' or 'advertise' it. 2000 google hits for widespread of CINTAX in the context of taxes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -I could go either way. Weak keep or weak delete. I have not heard of it from the side of Taxation but I'm not that familiar with International Tax Preparation, not sure how it falls under the Software area. Morphh (talk) 1:06, 04 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I used this software while I was studying in the USA, and I think it is well-known within its niche (international students and scholars). Whether this has been enough to catch the attention of relevant secondary sources to establish notability, I don't know, but it seems possible. --Itub (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salix alba (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I did a Google search to see what's out there. I find a lot of colleges with pages telling non-residents how to use CINTAX to file their US tax returns, but I can't find any commentary/news coverage of the product. However, I'll grant that the breadth of coverage, plus the fact that some major schools have pages about it, is enough to verify that it exists and is notable as described. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, obviously. Inhabited places are notable, as described by all participants in this discussion. The topic of moving or renaming the article to follow convention or whatever is a subject for discussions elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oru na Nneude
Wholly non-notable village. Asserts no major importance. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note the author of this article is currently blocked from editing for 3 months for vandalism. Gwernol 14:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Article is terrible in every way, but the subject would appear easily large enough to be notable. It must have a population of several thousands. Nominator does not understand the relevant policies, I'm afraid - his link goes to the non-adopted "Notability (schools)"! Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, that was my mistake; as a user with 11,000+ edits, I am quite keen on policies; SCL was linked to not only Places and Transportation but to Schools, which I corrected the error. A village of "several thousands" -- can this be verified or at least acknowledged outside of WP? A general search engine query proves fruitless. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The FallingRain entry has this listed under population "Approximate population for 7 km radius from this point: 63873". Note: this does not mean the village itself is that big, it may just be near a large metropolitan area but it is certainly close to something large, if not large itself. Also the article Ahiara mentions it as being one of the "ten scepters of Ahiara" so if it could be improved it would be nice to have an article on each one. I don't know if this meets the notability requirements and I'm not sure whether to keep it or not, just pointing out what I have noticed. -AndrewBuck (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Aren't villages and such generally accepted to be notable regardless? PC78 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all and move to Oru na Nneunde, Nigeria. Didn't you know? Every frickin' village on the planet is considered inherently notable. I didn't make the rules. Mandsford (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- No reason whatsoever to move this article, since there are no others with the same title. PC78 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yeah, no reason other than so that people know where it's located. Most of us aren't human gazeteers. That's the convention even on places like Los Angeles, California. Meet me at the restaurant in Oru na Nneunde and I'll buy you a beer. Mandsford (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Keep all. The alternate spelling Oru na Lude (Oru and Lude), seems more common. Perhaps Oru na Lude is more appropriate. I've added references. Unfortunately, we're going to come across this problem more and more often: towns and villages with nothing a search engine will find. (Fortunately this isn't the case here). Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very surprised an editor with 11,000 edits thinks that villages are deletion material. They aren't, per long standing precedent. Perhaps it was the creator's vandalism? Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- With no assertion of notability, outside of population, and no other verifiable sources, then the article is nothing more than a very poorly constructed stub. If someone wants to recreate it in the future, they have the tools available to do so. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Oru na Nneude, village whose existence is verified. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have we stopped considering all villages inherently notable? If not, keep. If so, please say where such a decision was made. The reasoning for this exception to Wikipedia:Notability is debatable, but, as long as its in place, there's no reason for inconsistency in coverage. The article is better off than when you nominated it, Seicer; take another look. Picaroon (t) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- One would say it's better off as a result of being nominated, because more people have paid a visit to Oru na Nneude just to find out what it was. For those of you who couldn't care less, it's a city in the West African nation of Nigeria. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's sad that it takes an AFD for people to care about an article. What investment has been made to the articles is only minimal though. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agreed; deletion nominations aren't exactly supposed to be article improvement drives (deletion is for when improvement seems unlikely to work). But without more sources, what more can be done to it? It's formatted/organized about right. I find that articles related to the southeast are often in this condition; Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani subjects are generally better off than Igbo ones, but only because there are less articles to take care of, and less inexperienced users to deal with. Picaroon (t) 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- True, and one of the primary contributors is just a ranting lunatic, and there seems to be a lack of editors in that particular region. I can't find anything regarding it, outside of what's posted, through a wide-scope database search at our university. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus (default keep); merge discussions can occur elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Salvador C. Payawal
Non notable in the Philippines Dft56 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge if Kabanalbanalang Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus is kept; otherwise, delete. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. As per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus. I smell something fishy on the nominator. Starczamora (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete under criterion A7 for failing to assert notability. —C.Fred (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Teofilo D. Ora
Not notable enough for Wikipedia Dft56 (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per A7 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Golem Relictus
Article on an unreleased video game that fails to assert notability per WP:N and sources only to website. The article's creator evidently has a substantial conflict of interest, given that the username corresponds to that one of the two game designers. Lacking substantiation of real world notability through reliable secondary sourcing, this article does not meet the guidelines at WP:N. I had originally tagged this for WP:PROD, but prior CSD was contested by creator. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because it explores a fictional concept related to the above and to another unreleased game:
- Vendensetsu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- add also Another Story, same author, same "series" of NN blatant advertising - superβεεcat 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both as nn. No WP:RS so fails WP:V policy. Sting au Buzz Me... 13:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete both unremarkable company, and blatant advertising. Obvious COI/Advertising, as there are 0 ghits other than homepage. - superβεεcat 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to N.W.A. and the Posse. And a sidenote, that this is one of the least civil debates I have witnessed to date. If it was within the remit of AfD, there would also be some user blocks in my closing. JERRY talk contribs 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Krazy Dee
Non-notable musician/rapper. The only verifiable information I can find is that he co-wrote 1 early non-hit NWA song ("Panic Zone") and provided back-up vocals on The D.O.C.'s first album. Aside from some non-notable solo releases, that's it. He claims to have been a member of NWA but none of their biographies mention him; it seems more like he was a fringe associate rather than a member or true collaborator. Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
DeleteRedirect to N.W.A. and the Posse. I couldn't find much about him, although he does seem to have been involved in the early days of NWA - the album listed in the article appears to be by a different artist called Kazy D from Texas. --Michig (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)- Any notability comes from working with NWA - there's not a lot to say about him it seems, so best to mention him in the NWA article (if it can be sourced) and change this to a redirect.--Michig (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Right you are about the Kazy D record (I've removed it). Not sure how reliable that askmen.com reference is, the content seems to have been taken straight from Krazy Dee's MySpace page, or even the Wikipedia entry itself (the Ghetto Godz bit is the tip-off). I'd really like to see something from a better source (as you said). Precious Roy (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just noticed that Wikipedia is listed as a source at the end of the askmen.com article—that makes it unreliable, so I've removed that content from the article. Precious Roy (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- 'Comment - The album is Krazy Dee's not Krazy D. Just look at All Music Guide to understand what I'm saying. --Flesh-n-Bone 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The album is by Kazy D wit da 187 Klick - different guy I think - some guy from Texas - doesn't look like Krazy Dee on the sleeve -see here.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - A cover is not a source. Even I can make such shit and make it a source. Who knows if it's not photoshopped.--Flesh-n-Bone 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The album is by Kazy D wit da 187 Klick - different guy I think - some guy from Texas - doesn't look like Krazy Dee on the sleeve -see here.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Right you are about the Kazy D record (I've removed it). Not sure how reliable that askmen.com reference is, the content seems to have been taken straight from Krazy Dee's MySpace page, or even the Wikipedia entry itself (the Ghetto Godz bit is the tip-off). I'd really like to see something from a better source (as you said). Precious Roy (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - How the hell is he non-notable... OMG, is this deletion fo' real. He was with (as you made fun) an associate and posse member. That alone will put him notable. He also appears in the music video for Straight Outta Compton which is extremely notable. If he is non-notable let's nominate N.W.A for deletion too? Right? He has also an All Music Guide page. Not notable enough? He has also been signed before to Ruthless Records a extremely notable rap label. He dropped a solo album (per AMG) named "A Letter from tha Grave" in 1995. Huh? Still non-notable. Every one is non-notable as you seem to say. I am about to cry to see that your editing same articles I do. *tears* And what has life come to? Are you ignorant to West Coast rap or what. Because next is to AFD an article like N.W.A. Hell if he is non-notable tell me who is notable? ROFL @ it comes from same person who thought Lil Eazy is just a little kid with a mic and is completely non-notable. God... --Flesh-n-Bone 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. For notability he needs to pass WP:MUSIC - he doesn't have enough releases or enough coverage to pass. Allmusic have an empty entry for him - they haven't even bothered with a biography for him - and the link appears to be to a different artist's album. If you think he passes WP:MUSIC somehow, please provide some evidence. If nobody else has written about him, he doesn't merit an article here.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:MUSIC says "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." N.W.A is notable, he has credit for it and that one passes it. I will try to show more reasons. Also a side-note he has appeared on "Real Muthaphuckkin G's" music video by Eazy-E. --Flesh-n-Bone 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment He co-wrote "Panic Zone", the flipside of the "Dopeman" single. Definitely not a "notable composition". And if appearing in a music video made one notable, think of all the anonymous booty dancers who'd have articles here. Precious Roy (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Krazy Dee is an official musician, not an annonym. Panic Zone is notable enough to give him credit. This nomination is WP:Crystal at finest. --Flesh-n-Bone 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You have no idea what WP:CRYSTAL is, do you? Can you explain how it applies to this nomination? Precious Roy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Krazy Dee is an official musician, not an annonym. Panic Zone is notable enough to give him credit. This nomination is WP:Crystal at finest. --Flesh-n-Bone 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment He co-wrote "Panic Zone", the flipside of the "Dopeman" single. Definitely not a "notable composition". And if appearing in a music video made one notable, think of all the anonymous booty dancers who'd have articles here. Precious Roy (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:MUSIC says "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." N.W.A is notable, he has credit for it and that one passes it. I will try to show more reasons. Also a side-note he has appeared on "Real Muthaphuckkin G's" music video by Eazy-E. --Flesh-n-Bone 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. For notability he needs to pass WP:MUSIC - he doesn't have enough releases or enough coverage to pass. Allmusic have an empty entry for him - they haven't even bothered with a biography for him - and the link appears to be to a different artist's album. If you think he passes WP:MUSIC somehow, please provide some evidence. If nobody else has written about him, he doesn't merit an article here.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:MUSIC. The article claims notability.Tasc0 It's a zero! 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)- Comment Not sure what part of WP:MUSIC is met by "claim[ing] notability". I like how FnB called you over here and you put up the {{notaballot}} tag. Nice touch. Precious Roy (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It claims he was a member of the rap group N.W.A, which is notable. And are you assuming bad faith? I don't appreciate your tone. Tasc0 It's a zero! 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've removed that claim—the askmen.com article lists Wikipedia as one of the sources for the article, making it unreliable. It pains me that you don't appreciate my "tone"; I was merely pointing out the irony of your actions—no bad faith assumed or implied. Precious Roy (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you remove the source, because sourced or unsourced it's a claim of notability. I've been in a similar situation like this one before. Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Claiming notability is a reason for denying a speedy deletion, which this is not. In an AfD you actually have to show that the person is notable. Since the claim was supported by an unreliable source, removing it from the article was a valid action. If anyone can come up with 1 reliable source that says he really was a full member of NWA I'll change my opinion from delete to keep. Precious Roy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you nominated the article saying it is not notable, so I thought it should be a keep per your nomination. If the source is not reliable, that's a different story. Tasc0 It's a zero! 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Claiming notability is a reason for denying a speedy deletion, which this is not. In an AfD you actually have to show that the person is notable. Since the claim was supported by an unreliable source, removing it from the article was a valid action. If anyone can come up with 1 reliable source that says he really was a full member of NWA I'll change my opinion from delete to keep. Precious Roy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you remove the source, because sourced or unsourced it's a claim of notability. I've been in a similar situation like this one before. Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've removed that claim—the askmen.com article lists Wikipedia as one of the sources for the article, making it unreliable. It pains me that you don't appreciate my "tone"; I was merely pointing out the irony of your actions—no bad faith assumed or implied. Precious Roy (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- On a side note, don't even talk abt me. --Flesh-n-Bone 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You asked Tasco to come here and I pointed it out. So what? Precious Roy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment' I have retired as an editor in wiki and do whatever, but that's prolly my last edit/comment: Don't mention me, I don't give a fuck if you "pointed out" something or whatever. Don't mention my name; I don't accept it meanwhile. Do a research on your knowledge your probably the most biased person I've seen on earth. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Blah blah blah WP:CIVIL, blah blah WP:NPA blah blah, etc., etc. If I'm the most biased person you've ever seen then you've led a pretty sheltered life. (Please let me know what my bias is; I'm dying to know.) I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't accept it meanwhile"; perhaps you can use the time you used to spend on Wikipedia to study the English language. Expressing yourself clearly is a valuable skill—with time and effort, some day that skill could be yours. Precious Roy (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- My English language is good enough. I don't accept you talk about me. I wanted to add something in the end when said "meanwhile" but decided to not. PS: WP:CIVIL can D.M.D. CYA, I ain't wasting time with you! --Flesh-n-Bone 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Good enough? "I don't accept you talk about me"—what the hell does that even mean??! If you're leaving, just go already. Later, gangsta! Precious Roy (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- My English language is good enough. I don't accept you talk about me. I wanted to add something in the end when said "meanwhile" but decided to not. PS: WP:CIVIL can D.M.D. CYA, I ain't wasting time with you! --Flesh-n-Bone 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Blah blah blah WP:CIVIL, blah blah WP:NPA blah blah, etc., etc. If I'm the most biased person you've ever seen then you've led a pretty sheltered life. (Please let me know what my bias is; I'm dying to know.) I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't accept it meanwhile"; perhaps you can use the time you used to spend on Wikipedia to study the English language. Expressing yourself clearly is a valuable skill—with time and effort, some day that skill could be yours. Precious Roy (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment' I have retired as an editor in wiki and do whatever, but that's prolly my last edit/comment: Don't mention me, I don't give a fuck if you "pointed out" something or whatever. Don't mention my name; I don't accept it meanwhile. Do a research on your knowledge your probably the most biased person I've seen on earth. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You asked Tasco to come here and I pointed it out. So what? Precious Roy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It claims he was a member of the rap group N.W.A, which is notable. And are you assuming bad faith? I don't appreciate your tone. Tasc0 It's a zero! 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure what part of WP:MUSIC is met by "claim[ing] notability". I like how FnB called you over here and you put up the {{notaballot}} tag. Nice touch. Precious Roy (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question Just wondering why, when NWA has had books written about them and in-depth profiles in major magazines like Rolling Stone and The Source, Krazy Dee is not mentioned in any of them; he only appears in online bios of questionable reliability. Is there a conspiracy to keep him out of the history of the group? I'm not trying to be a smartass here—I really want to know why the editors who are sure that he was a member of the group (for two years!) think this is. At the very least, you'd think he'd get mentioned in Jerry Heller's book. Precious Roy (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - He's been alongside N.W.A if that's not notable then who is? AND HAVE YOU REALLY READ THRU' EVERY BOOK ABOUT THE GROUP? If so, LMAO! --Flesh-n-Bone 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - The article should be kept, Krazy Dee was a member of N.W.A in the N.W.A and the Posse. Read "Dr. Dre: The Biography", that book confirms it.Same As It Ever Was (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What page is that on? Because I just looked here and he's not listed in the index, and if you search the word "Krazy" there's only one instance and it's "Krazy Glue" not Krazy Dee. And N.W.A and the Posse is a compilation album—you're not implying that everyone on that record was in NWA, are you? Precious Roy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree with suggestions to redirect—he co-wrote 1 song so he deserves to be mentioned in the group's article? Precious Roy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect, unless someone can provide any indication that more verifiable content is out there. I suspect that what's there now is very close to the limit of what this article could ever say while meeting Wikipedia policies (I know what's there now isn't cited, and is therefore not currently meeting Wikipedia policies, but I'm guessing a citation could probably be found for the current content, but little else). Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge per Tuf-Kat. Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect, seems to have been at best a fringe associate of NWA. Maybe put a brief mention of him in their article if anything verifiable can be found on him. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Z.O
Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - almost a year old and still no indication of notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, would appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. WjBscribe 04:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control
- National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
Article already exists here The Missing Piece (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as no need for two articles on same subject. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. If any info is missing at the target, merge it. This could have been easily done without taking it to AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect per Gene. I agree, a simple suggestion to the author would have been easier than the deletion process. A rename should reflect that this is the equivalent of the FDA in Nigeria Mandsford (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jeremy Kosbob
Is playing for the united states rugbly league team a claim to notability? it's national but also amateur so I'm not quite sure. JASpencer (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that playing in the national team makes you notable, even if it's the national team of a country not noted for its ability to play the game. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Keep - yes premier league player so passes WP:BIO. Although these Rugby League teams are described as "semi" professional, even if part amateur these guys are still top level and probably notable for the fact that they play a non traditional U.S. game? This might become a test case. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 13:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - national team appearance should confer notability. matt91486 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've launched a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Thomas (rugby league). He plays for the New York Knights but not for an international team. JASpencer (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spebi 08:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Southwest Broadcasting Network
A school television network, the notability is not made clear here. JASpencer (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nn school TV network from nn (middle) school. No WP:RS so fails WP:V. Sting au Buzz Me... 13:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable school newscast, borders on an A7 speedy. A grand total of zero Yahoo hits and zero Google hits. Blueboy96 14:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above. If the group is "making videos" rather than transmitting, how is it "broadcasting"? And if it's only at one school, how is it a "network"? Deor (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Personal health information
Completely context-less, but not short enough to meet speedy (I think?) superβεεcat 09:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- What is context-less? All information is correct and is added for use by people thinking about developing/using PHRs. Ujjwalt (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've read it and have no idea what it's about / for. It doesn't seem to meet WP:N. - superβεεcat 09:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for how-to manuals. --Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, it's a how-to. Not appropriate for an encyclopædia. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as Wikipedia not how to guide WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sting au Buzz Me... 13:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge, aggressively condensed, into “Personal health record”. Wikipedia is not a personal advisor on how to arrange one's affairs. —SlamDiego←T 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Author Agrees on Delete, agreed that its not appropriate for Wiki, which is about "What is..." and not "How to...". 203.78.213.32 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Ujjwalt
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yonas Michael
- Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established, basically an over-blown vanity article. WWGB (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, has failed to make an impact as either a filmmaker or a musician, so it seems. I hope he does better as a novelist, but until then he is not sufficiently notable. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete - no reliable sources to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed due to Arbitration Committee injunction. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 24 Hour Propane People
- (View AfD)
- 24 Hour Propane People (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Aisle 8A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Bill of Sales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Bill, Bulk and the Body Buddies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Non-notable King Of The Hill episode articles consisting of plot summaries, infoboxes, and quote sections. No secondary sources demonstrate notability outside the show itself. This is relisted; previous nomination included 40 episodes (after 40 contested prods), and was closed as "no consensus" solely because closing editor considered the nomination too unwieldy in size to form a consensus, despite Keep votes consisting of bad faith accusations against the nominator and unsubstantiated claims of notability, and despite a similar nomination closing as Delete all.
There is no content to merge, as the existing episode list already contains brief plot summaries appropriate to a list. Redirecting is unnecessary since none of these article titles are likely search terms. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep in deference to the on-going arbitration case. Wait until that's decided before doing something like this. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 11:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, I agree 100% with the deletion rationale, but there is an injunction. Hopefully the ArbCom will deal with this promptly and we can get back to business as usual. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Speedy Keep. Due to ArbCom's injunction that articles on episodes must not be deleted, it's the only way I can vote. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Take the original to DRV. A new discussion is only going to cause an uproar due to the injunction, but the discussion that we had before established a clear consensus anyway. Just take the last nom to WP:DRV. ➪HiDrNick! 16:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, because a recent decision to retain or delete it on Wikipedia has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List_of_Nokia_products#Nokia_1xxx_series_.E2.80.93_Ultrabasic_series. As User:Mikeblas says, Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalogue. No Keep votes give any rationale for doing so.Black Kite 16:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nokia 1200
Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced and reads like an advertisement. Too few substantial independent third-party references exist to support a wikipedia article that is itself not a review or a advert. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone directory. Mikeblas (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it does read a bit like an advertisement yes but all that needs is a bit of editing. Wikipedia is a mobile phone directory.--Him and a dog 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Nope; Wikipedia is not a mobile phone directory. Please see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - The only slight - very slight - claim to notability I could find is that "The Nokia 1200, 1208 and 1650 will be the first models to feature text alerts that will automatically remind users to turn off their chargers when the phone's battery has been fully replenished." - [[14]] - I have no idea of the history of phone notability, however looking at WP:NOT#DIR and even trying to rein in my deletionist tendencies I can't see this phone being notable. Springnuts (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- redirect to List of Nokia products Travellingcari (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I have added a citation to demonstrate notability and the possibility that this stub can be improved. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Notable mobile phone. Snowman (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep See {{Nokia phones}}. We have quite a few articles like this one. -ReuvenkT C 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The only ref which is not the manufacturer's site is the news article which says it reminds the user to turn off the charger. This one independent ref does not satisfy notability. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is not very persuasive. In time, perhaps other nonnotable cellphone article will have their turn at AFD. Edison (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Update I have added more references, so your comments are no longer relevant. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't say no longer relevant, especially since two sources are hardly independent as they come from a "Nokia Museum". My original redirect vote still stands. Travellingcari (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Joseph Ercole
I don't think "Treasurer of the United States Merchant Marine Academy Employees Association" passes WP:N/WP:BIO and there doesn't appear to be any RS coverage of the man as the hits are, with two possible exceptions, for others with the same name. Filtering ghits for relevancy returns one non-wiki/mirror, a mention of his attendance at an event Travellingcari (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, this is close to giving WP:BIO passage to local shop stewards. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, appears to be a minor union official. While such work is very important, it doesn't in and of itself make you notable. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete - position is not notable, and there are no reliable sources to say otherwise -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cindy Emch
Non-notable individual. Appears to have been created and largely edited by subject. Most of the links provided are to work. The only references available appear to be trivial coverage in papers for hosting or being affiliated with events. Only other references appear to be as a source for a masters paper. Nothing that adequately covers subject for a biographical article. Searches (Google, Books, Scholar, News) -Optigan13 (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete poet with no significant publications. DGG (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the only coverage of any significance I could find was this, but she isn't the subject of the article, and there isn't anything else. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - complacent autobiography. We may be mistaken thinking that there's no material available to construct a valid article (though I doubt it) but deleting this version of it is a no-brainer. Pichpich (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Kept. I have read though the comments below and looked through the article. Although Rick Boychuk has never rose above the office of a city councillor (sidenote: Realkyhick...we use genderless titles in Canada so its councillor and not councilman or councilwoman), he has received extensive coverage in a notable newspaper: the Winnipeg Free Press — the oldest newspaper in Western Canada. As that is the case, my decision is to keep the article. (closed by User:Nat)
[edit] Rick Boychuk
Non-notable politician. Never rose above office of city councilman. Fails WP:N. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please wait until I've finished the article? I'd obviously prefer that it kept in any event, but would ask that that this vote be deferred on procedural grounds until I've finished writing the piece. CJCurrie (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Article looks pretty much finished. But if I see any sort of notability established I will happily modify my !vote. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Provisional Delete, does not seem notable at present. However, if CJCurrie can provide additional cited claims of notability, then please disregard this vote. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Weak keep
article doesn't make it clear so I'm not certain it's the same person but he might be the editor of Canadian Geographic 2nd source, which appears notable. My !vote could go either way pending clarification on whether this is the same person. Travellingcari (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)confirmed not the same person but retaining keep, he seems to meet WP:BIO per the material added since this nomination was made. Travellingcari (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment I'm pretty sure they're different. The editor has been so since 1995 and lives in Ottawa from what I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment thanks I wasn't sure and kept getting bumped down by pay gates so I couldn't verify or not in either direction. Travellingcari (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The neat thing about the RB at CG is that he answers emails. So I just sent him one to find out for sure. :) Franamax (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, not many politicians answer e-mails. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for tracking down the confirmation, or confirmation of not -- would that be unconfirmation? as it may be ;) Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what the wiki-speak is, maybe !confirmed? Anyway, hurray for the Rick Boychuk at the incomparable Canadian Geographic, let's all head over there and improve the article! Franamax (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's guidelines on notability permit the inclusion of articles on municipal politicians who have received extensive coverage in secondary sources. The precise wording designates as notable "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Boychuk satisfies this criteria, and (in my view) the article should be kept accordingly. (I'm still not finished, btw, and I should clarify that there are several more sources than those currently included in the article.) CJCurrie (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Virtually every city council member in every city in North America gets mentioned by his local newspaper at least every couple of weeks. What makes Boychuk rise above other of his level of office? Nothing that you've asserted so far. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Defer Am I reading the history right? AfD within three minutes? How about a two-week interlude, if it's not (much) better then, I'll gladly vote to delete. But three minutes to establish notability? C'mon... Franamax (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Quick update: I don't currently have the time to make an extended case for keeping this article. I'd like to reinerate my request that this decision be deferred for now. CJCurrie (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- You have five days. So your request is rejected. Punkmorten (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to satify WP:BIO: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep City councilman from a major Canadian city ... it would seem that precedent dictates a keep, since we have articles on city councilmen from other major American and Canadian cities. Let's give CJCurrie a chance to improve this--then I'll gladly change to keep. Blueboy96 14:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. The other articles should also stand on their own merits, or else they should be here in AfD as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Point of clarification (wow, slipping back into high school debate days) ... my view is that mayors and city councilmen of major cities are notable on paper. Let's see some more sources, and I'll gladly change to keep. Blueboy96 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely agree on mayors, but not necessarily on council members, unless they've made a name for themselves running for higher office (or, more often, getting trouble somehow). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Point of clarification (wow, slipping back into high school debate days) ... my view is that mayors and city councilmen of major cities are notable on paper. Let's see some more sources, and I'll gladly change to keep. Blueboy96 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep For me the sources in the article are easily significant press coverage so meets WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- What we've got here is an article with 20 media references and a pretty substantial summary of his political activities, for a city councillor in a city large and important enough that the common precedent in favour of big-city councillors can be applied here. So it satisfies WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V, and survives the admittedly non-definitive but still highly persuasive WP:OUTCOMES test — and WP:N, at its core, says only that an article needs to meet WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V, not that a person needs to have achieved a certain specific quantifiable amount of fame. So I fail to see the problem here. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:N guideline that it have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject thus making it an article capable of meeting the inclusion policies of Verifiable and NPOV. It was also nominated out of recommended procedure as per WP:AFD#Before nominating an AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. City councillor of a major city. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete with no prejudice against recreation if/ when reliable sources can be located to susbtantiate assertions of notability. JERRY talk contribs 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yaar Mohammad
Non notable and totally Unreferenced both references are from a forum talk page written by the author.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Don't even know if it's real. Should have been a speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep if someone finds sources--it should be in the published histories of the period, though it would probably take a library, not the web, to find them. It asserted importance, though, so it could not possibly be a speedy. Asserting someone is commander in chief of a national army is clearly asserting notability, and if it can be shown from any reference source that he held that position, he';s notable beyond any question. Tipu was certainly real enough, and so was his army. It fought the British for years. DGG (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] English Roman Catholic parish histories
- English Roman Catholic parish histories (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
The summary of this article is unsourced Department of Redundancy Department because there is already a wonderful article about the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, which covers the history quite well. This article has a summary and then oodles upon oodles of external links to the parishes themselves with little-no content. The text that is there, London, for example is wholly unsourced. WP is not a collection of links, which was also noted on the talk page almost two years ago Travellingcari (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially a link directory for the histories of various Catholic parishes in England. As noted above, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 07:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Keep It is a good list by regions. Snowman (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, but it's a list of external links, not categorized content, which directly violates WP:NOT section that I linked above. Travellingcari (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete listfarm. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the article is just a link farm -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as a link farm. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kayla Huntington (Desperate Housewives)
Kayla Huntington (Desperate Housewives) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) No real world context, fails WP:FICT.--The Dominator (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--The Dominator (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, fictional character not notable outside of their own fictional universe. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Redirect to List of Desperate Housewives characters per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Mayfair. That AfD redirected "Kayla Huntington". Note: the author has also broken at least one other redirect from that AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly, but isn't this only a proposed decision? And there's only four supporters where there should be seven for a decision to be accepted? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Didn't read the small print, was looking at the overall description. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Begrudged Speedy Keep per Col. Warden. JuJube (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Colonel Warden, though under normal circumstances, I'd pursue deletion with the article having nothing but in-universe information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep at least for the duration of the arbitration case as per the injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep due to an ArbCom injunction. Though normally I would vote to delete. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per arbcom injunction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Adam Mayfair
Adam Mayfair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Non-notable fictional character that hasn't been covered by reliable secondary sources and has no real world context. Fails WP:FICT.--The Dominator (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--The Dominator (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, fictional character not notable outside of their own fictional universe. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Restore redirect to List of Desperate Housewives characters. This page was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Mayfair. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Begrudged Speedy Keep per Col. Warden. JuJube (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete by C.Fred. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PeaceNYC
This article appears to be a report copied from elsewhere. It does not appear fit to be an encyclopedia entry. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Alert to administrators: Please cancel this AfD; the article was speedy deleted (for blatant advertising) by another user as I made this entry. Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stan J
Disputed PROD. Non-notable musical artist. WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Vanispamcruft, yo! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete, vanity article written by the subject. --CliffC (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Shadows of P'Jem
A non-notable TV episode, has been tagged for references for over 5 months. Article is just a an indepth plot reprise with no real world notability. Pollytyred (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely no citations. --DerRichter (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid deletion argument presented. Lack of references is not a valid reason to delete as we'd be deleting articles by the bucket fulls. Cburnett (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Isn't there a centralised policy on episodes by now? If there isn't then Keep. I don't see why we should disappoint the 60% of our readership that's Trekkies. (Sorry, Trekkers.) Relata refero (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Are you going to tag every episode for deletion? Every Trek episode has an entry. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, an unremarkable episode of the series with no wide notability. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Keep Part of a coordinated series of articles with nearly a hundred items, concerning a series that ran on UPN for four years; it is part of the coverage of a larger entity, a television series, that is collectively notable. I would suggest, however, that a consideration of the entire set of articles in light of Wikipedia's Television episodes guidelines is in order, in particular, the subsection What a page should contain. I argue that as a class these articles are worthy of improvement and should be improved. Cherry-picking individual articles of the set for deletion only serves to make the overall presentation incomplete. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Begrudged Speedy Keep per Col. Warden. JuJube (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep anyway. I've added a rating, sourced from the official site, and further info on significance for plot development in later seasons. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Although the article may have been lacking when it was originally nominated, this one has enough sources and "real world" information (such as the critical reception of the episode, and its role in the continuity of the series) to meet the low threshhold of notability for a TV episode. I'm glad to see a crackdown on TV episode articles, which had gotten way out of hand; I'm a strong beleiver in the idea that most such articles should stay up only for awhile, then taken down again after an editor has learned from the experience, especially since the deleted articles will resurface in the future. However, there are circumstances in which an episode can be notable, and this one passes. Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep at least for the duration of the arbitration case as per the injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Davewild has this exactly right-- the article stays for the duration of the arbitration case, meaning that a ruling on "keep" or "delete" should be made after that process finishes. I'm not sure that anyone was made aware of the "halt to activities" until Colonel Warden brought it to our attention, so don't worry, nominator... your "violation" will not be punished (sounds pretty scary though, doesn't it?). Rather than a speedy keep, I think that ultimately, this will be relisted (along with all the comments made here) after a decision is made. Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Aside from the arbcom injunction, Star Trek episodes are inherently notable and to pick and choose which Star Trek episodes to keep requires WP:NPOV violation. My speedy keep opinion stands regardless of Arbcom decision. 23skidoo (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fusion (Enterprise)
A non-notable TV episode, has been tagged for excessive plot length for over 7 months. Article is just an indepth plot reprise with no real world notability. Pollytyred (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#OR and WP:EPISODES. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, cancelling out one of the unqualified keep comments that will undoubtedly follow. User:Dorftrottel 15:27, February 2, 2008
-
- Comment Dude, its consensus, not a vote. Plus your comments makes inclusionists seem like idiots. Zidel333 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's ostensibly a discussion, but in fact it's a vote. And people who like to keep each and every shit just because it's Star Wars or Star Trek are idiots. User:Dorftrottel 23:38, February 2, 2008
- Comment Dude, its consensus, not a vote. Plus your comments makes inclusionists seem like idiots. Zidel333 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Memory Alpha is a great place for in-depth Star Trek episode guides. Wikipedia is not. --Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 06:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, an unremarkable episode of the series with no wide notability. WP:PLOT and all that. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Keep - Are you going to tag every episode for deletion? Every Trek episode has an entry. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - not to mention the 200 or so Doctor Who articles, etc. Yup, depending how Arbcom rules I expect an orgy of AFDs. At which point I pretty much plan to resign as a contributor. 23skidoo (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable enough for an article of itself. A short synopsis should have been provided in a large article for the series' run, or some similar strategy. And the only argument for keeping I can see being used here is that other crap exists. SMC (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Begrudged Speedy Keep per Col. Warden. JuJube (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep anyway. I've added a rating, sourced from the official site, and a note on its significance for plot development in a later season. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the plot synopsis is way too long, with its "Then what happened?" approach that crowds out discussion of the significance of the episode. I imagine that more sources can be found to show the reaction to the episode, which was one of the (many) ways that Berman and Braga departed from the premise of the original series and its successors. In this case, it broke the "All Vulcans are logical and emotionless" rule, which some fans thought was a good development, and others thought was heresy. Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep at least for the duration of the arbitration case as per the injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per the above-stated injunction. (aeropagitica) 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment Although I'm in favor of keeping, an injunction doesn't mean an automatic keep, pending later renomination. It means that a decision on this should be made later. That being the case, I think that this is something that would need to be "relisted for further debate" (along with all these comments) once the injunction is lifted. To my knowledge, the halt to activities has only recently been communicated to other editors as part of the AfD process. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Aside from the arbcom injunction, Star Trek episodes are inherently notable and to pick and choose which Star Trek episodes to keep requires WP:NPOV violation. My speedy keep opinion stands regardless of Arbcom decision. 23skidoo (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Ragging; merge already completed by others. JERRY talk contribs 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of people who have died because of ragging
Seven or so deaths is unfortunate, but with 9 million people comitting suicide annually, very many due to bullying, singling just these few for an article seems non-notable. Attributing a single cause to these suicides is simplistic and appears to be non-neutral, original research. Ros0709 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because it just lists two alleged and aparrently unproven allegations, and has no place in an encyclopedia. These articles appear to fall foul of WP:SOAP.
- Comment. Haven't people died as a result of hazing at universities in the United States as well? --Eastmain (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Major issue in India; the Supreme Court has pronounced on it following one of the deaths; The Indian Institutes of Technology have faced particular scrutiny. Relata refero (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Agreed there is plenty of coverage for ragging, but that exists as an article in itself and is not affected by this AfD. Ros0709 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, I meant there's been coverage of those specific deaths, which were pivotal in the debate. `Relata refero (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The list of people in this article died or comitted suicide where ragging was sometimes at best proposed as a factor. However, it is disingenious to suggest it was the only cause and thus the article is biased and misleading. Ros0709 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Content issue. Can be sorted out in internal wording. Relata refero (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep providing that evidence is reliable. Article is India-based at present but could be expanded. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the topic is notable and appears consistent with other Lists of people by cause of death. If the cause of a particular death is doubted, its sources should be discussed on the list's talk page. The Transhumanist 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this AfD closes as keep we should add this to that list. You are, IMO, correct that it fits well with this list. Ros0709 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The topic as is isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not news nor an indescriminate list of facts. Simple lists of people who have a particular trait in common but are otherwise not notable is not encyclopedic subject matter. The lists of people by cause of death articles pointed to by User:The Transhumanist above are useful indices of articles in Wikipedia, they aren't simple lists of all people who have died by a particular means. The issue of ragging is an encyclopedic subject and has an article. The larger themes and the impact on society (including an appropriate overview of the press furor in India) should be handled in that article. -- SiobhanHansa 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge - The topic is not notable. Ragging itself seems to be notable, especially in India, but not a list of deaths where ragging was named or suspected of contributing to the personal decision to take their own life (or in the single exception, the life of another). In one instance, the parents "suspected" ragging. In the homicide, after being repeatedly spurned by the victim, the "ragger" cornered the victim and in front of horrified girls and boys, hacked her with a butcher’s knife.[1] That cause of death doesn't fit the Indian Supreme Court's definition that ragging "has the effect of causing or generating a sense of shame or embarrassment". I'm sure the Ragging Act has loads of verbiage that can be used quite handily for all sorts of offensive behavior. Why would a prosecutor stop at murder if they can pile on other politically loaded charges that would upset the vocal masses if they got overturned? Someone else mentioned the Lists of people by cause of death and I think the big difference between those lists and this one is that members of those lists have their own articles where each individual's notability can be established and debated. These people have no notability beyond the nature of their deaths. --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- weak keep per per Transhumanist or merge to the main article on Ragging. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Another editor has already merged this into ragging. That should be undone if this nom. closes as keep. Ros0709 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Solo Apple J
Delete unsourced drink article, fails WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A3 (no content). Only says it's a drink and who it's made by. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 08:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, the only references to it that I can find online are various product directories and the like. WP:N. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:N, lack of WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - regardless of WP:N, I'd have thought that Wiki coverage of the drink would be best done as a section in the manufacturer's article, and then can be broken out of there if need be. FlagSteward (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Doar Family
Delete as per WP:NOTE; also unreferenced. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Unsure about this one, but at the moment it fails WP:V and so I would be more in favour of a delete unless anyone can improve this with reliable sources.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy I started trying to rescue this as a surname article, but really it's not, and its own declared source is stated to be private. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep; if someone works with the new user, I think it can be rescued and a valuable new user gained in the process. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, a quick Google search shows that the family certainly existed and the claims in the article seem to be plausible. As an aside, I think that Wikipedia could really use more articles on notable families and geneologies. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Keep I think such articles make sense fairly generally. In this case certainly, given the family ownership of places on the national register--places which would each unquestionably justify an individual article. Even their family cemetery is on the register. DGG (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was this is a duplicate argh. shoy 05:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Efi holden
Contested prod, so here we go. Prod reason was WP:NOT A Car Maintenance Guide, and I agree completely. shoy 05:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, per reasons explained below. Rudget. 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Efi holden
WP:NOT a Howto Guide Q T C 05:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, from the article: "THIS IS NOT A HOW-TO GUIDE". Well, could have fooled me. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete. IS an how-to guide. Also short on context. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, author may want to look at WikiHow, a site that does accept articles like this. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, should have been a speedy. How-to guides are for WikiHow as mentioned before. SMC (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arcane series
Apparently contested prod (author deleted template without any explanation). This is non-notable web content/game. The only mention of notability from reliable, third-party sources is a passing mention in a NYT article that's about something completely different. About all that's in the article is an unreferenced discussion of the characters in the game. Gromlakh (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Not certain if gamezone qualifies as a reliable source, but the article on that page gives "significant coverage" Corpx (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak abstain --PseudoChron (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, not every thing NYT mentions is notable. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete GameZone's fine as a reliable source, but the information within the interview is garnish rather than a meal. The NY Times article is literally a passing mention of no use and nothing else is coming out of google. Fails WP:WEB due to lack of non-trivial sources. Someoneanother 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Article name and content/ quality issues should be handled by editors as they deem appropriate. JERRY talk contribs 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 3D's
Term not notable, but cant figure out a CSD criteria for it. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP A google search for "Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning", with quotations results in 116 exact matches.
A google advanced search for kitanai, kiken, and kitsui, for results with all three terms (often in different sequences) results in 2700 matches.
This term is well documented in common usage, contains meaning beyond its strict definition and adds substantive information to other Wikipedia pages.
Repeatedly describing work as being of low social standing is simplified with a method for this defined work.
The generated call for deletion appears to be from an automated application running an algorithm for dictionary or encyclopedic terms, based on this it is likely this term easily qualifies for inclusion and the tag for review no longer necessary.
Please retain this Wikipedia page and thank you for the opportunity to explain the page's importance. Granite07 (talk)
Delete, as this article has nothing worth saving.However the topic may be notable and could qualify for an article (under a better title) or perhaps be a subsection of another article. A search for "dirty dangerous demeaning 3D" yields quite a few useful hits, mostly referring to immigrant labourers. Pburka (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)STRONG KEEPA rewrite incorporating concepts presented, in a more acceptable context is a good idea. On the page, there are now three sources of article content, a web source, conference source and journal source. Suggest referencing someone with background in research on this topic to write revised article. Absent knowledgeable source, collaboration between blue-collar workers and encyclopedic academics could prove useful. Granite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Please don't !vote twice. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment I would just state for the record that I for one read "Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning", and was just a little disappointed that the article was about laborers... -- RoninBK T C 03:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No reliable sources for nn slang term. A different title, better cites and it could be a keeper. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)- Change to neutral in view of work done on article. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- What sort of characteristics are you looking for in sources? Any suggestions for title change?Granite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Attestation of the term 3D in a book (dictionary preferably, but not necessarily), television documentary, newspaper or magazine article or two. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- What sort of characteristics are you looking for in sources? Any suggestions for title change?Granite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Name Change This should settle the discussion. The term 3D job has already been accepted by Wikipedia Wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/3D_job
Thank you to everyone for their inputGranite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The name should remain 3D's since the job is not what the focus is but what the 3D's are. I agree that additional text is necessary to place more focus on what dirty, dangerous and demeaning (difficult) is. As this is Wikipedia, someone with the right qualifications will add this material.Granite07 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. While I believe that this topic could indeed be notable (with a renamed article), none of the sources I see here can be verified to use the term as discussed in the article. The PDF source (from JR EAST Technical Review) doesn't use the term at all, so far as I can see, and I can't evaluate the other sources. Further, the reference to Television shows that document jobs of this nature (Dirty jobs, et al) might be synthesis or WP:OR, as it's unsupported by sources and seems to describe what the production of a particular series might imply. I'm neutral about deletion, but there are some significant issues to resolve if the article is indeed to be kept. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- JR EAST Technical Review, pp 32 subsection 4 128.12.169.7 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Made changes suggested by: Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων, UltraExactZZ and RoninBK.
1) Book Reference (dictionary) - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/3D_job
2) Expanded scope of article beyond laborers
3) Journal Article defining exact term "3D's" (accessible without proxy service) - [15]
4) Could not find use of term in television documentary (other than already cited), did find use in review of a movie [16]
hopefully this addresses everones concerns and allows this article to be removed from AfDs.
Thank You Granite07 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - if deleted, the title would be a very sensible redirect to The 3Ds. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but rename, please, and clean up the poor writing. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per WP:NEO - I dont see articles about the term, not ones that use it. Corpx (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment good point, this indicates there is a need for a Wikipedia article. The term is widely used, commonly understood and well defined, yet very little literature exists about the term. 128.12.170.194 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a common misunderstanding. Wikipedia is not the place to create literature about a topic. That would be WP:Original research. If the term's not already widely used in the relevant literature, it's not notable and therefore doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- That’s well understood, but thank you for clarifying anyways. The term is widely used in relevant literature; the issue is that there is not very much relevant literature.128.12.169.7 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a common misunderstanding. Wikipedia is not the place to create literature about a topic. That would be WP:Original research. If the term's not already widely used in the relevant literature, it's not notable and therefore doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment good point, this indicates there is a need for a Wikipedia article. The term is widely used, commonly understood and well defined, yet very little literature exists about the term. 128.12.170.194 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The title 'neologism' might be slightly misleading; it's had very widespread use in the academic literature on labo(u)r migration since the early-1990s (it's difficult to pull out ref's to 3D's that refer to labour migration, but there are a lot), and refers to a well documented, well defined concept. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I've tidied the article and added some more refs. It was a mess, and completely ignored international labour migration. It's now in a much better state to build on. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Your changes are very good and highlight an important aspect of migrant labor that was absent. The page 3D is about voluntarily foregoing personal safety, working conditions and social status for a living wage not about exploited workforces and religious or cultural enslaving of a population segment. Low wages are a function of surplus labor not working conditions. Some work that is not dangerous or necessarly dirty is likely to have low wages due to its open availability to the widest possible labor segment.128.12.169.7 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Asked for a mediator to help determine if we can gain consensus before continued rounds of editing followed by deleting whole sections of the page, there is room for both views on the same page, or maybe there should be an article written to address low wage immigrant labor issues. Granite07 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Your changes are very good and highlight an important aspect of migrant labor that was absent. The page 3D is about voluntarily foregoing personal safety, working conditions and social status for a living wage not about exploited workforces and religious or cultural enslaving of a population segment. Low wages are a function of surplus labor not working conditions. Some work that is not dangerous or necessarly dirty is likely to have low wages due to its open availability to the widest possible labor segment.128.12.169.7 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure we have the best title yet but the topic is certainly notable. I added this reference which cites many more sources: The Worst Jobs in History. See the entry on fuller, for example, to understand how easy we have it now. But there are many parts of the world which still work in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I've never heard of this 3D's before. I know the Japanese uses the term 3K to refer to the same thing, so the deletion is probably unnecessary. Renaming might help. -- Taku (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There seems to be some confusion about 3D, this is an American Neologism derived from Asian concept. Generally refers to American blue-collar unionized workforce. We may need a second page to address other uses of the term.Granite07 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. This article is about the concept "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding" not "dirty", "dangerous", and "demanding" jobs. The great majority of uses of the term (both academic and non-academic) refer to migrant workers, and of these the large majority refer to Asia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, that is exactly correct "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding", thank you for pointing this out. You are also correct about the "great majority of uses of the term". This term has a specific connotation as an American neologism specific to an occupation that embodies all three of these conditions. 3D work results in higher pay without requirements for education or special skills, this is the true defining nature. As you have pointed out, internationally this definition is also true for migrant workers looking for higher pay. Granite07 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. This article is about the concept "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding" not "dirty", "dangerous", and "demanding" jobs. The great majority of uses of the term (both academic and non-academic) refer to migrant workers, and of these the large majority refer to Asia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Intercision
This article is an in-universe repetition of the plot of the His Dark Materials trilogy articles, which cover this in greater detail. There is no assertion of notability independent of the books themselves, so this should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Completely in-universe and violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. The most this topic needs is a brief mention in the plot summaries in His Dark Materials, but that doesn't merit merging this whole article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: If deleted, Template:His Dark Materials will need to be edited to remove the redlink. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as I see no real world coverage for this term Corpx (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- keep A number of independent reliable sources discuss this. For example [17], and [18] links to an article in Children‘s Literature in Education which discusses this and compares it to castration. Also, the book His Dark Materials Illuminated: Critical Essays on Philip Pullman's Trilogy, which is a collection of scholarly essays on His Dark Materials has a number of essays that discuss this. There are likely more examples, I only found these from a quick set of google searches. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Random832 05:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- keep major plot element in very notable series, discussed in the academic literature. For even those who don't like this sort of article in general, it does meet WP:N. Corpx, do you accept that is has real world coverage? DGG (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G11. TalkIslander 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Exilant
Company appears to fail WP:CORP due to no reliable coverage apart from press releases. Therefore, nothing from which to expand the current listing, which is nothing more than a company directory. Travellingcari (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, advertising. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete: This isn't an entry, it's a business card. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as advert, and so tagged. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - Appears to be a hoax - unacceptable on Wikipedia. Rudget. 16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dizzle, Jim
Non-notable self-published author Corvus cornixtalk 04:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Stinks of a hoax, so tagged. Blueboy96 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Further research on Google leads to the conclusion that there is no such person. Corvus cornixtalk 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Hoax, no ghits. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete likely hoax; web link in refs. doesn't work so also unsourced. JJL (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Non notable, probably hoax entry. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete hoax. A total of one relevant ghit and it's to this Wikipedia entry. Therefore, it's a hoax Doc Strange (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Electrical wiring (United States)
- Electrical wiring (United States) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
This is a completely unreferenced how-to article. It mentions the 2002 edition of the NEC, while the current edition of the NEC is 2008. Some information in the article was correct in 2002, and is incorrect after the release of the 2008 NEC. While this could be fixed, I think this article is mostly how-to. Worse, since Wikipedia is unreliable, and this article in particular is so long, broad, and completely unsourced, it should be removed. Electrical wiring is something left to a licensed expert. If done incorrectly, it can result in property damage or loss, and in injury or the loss of life. Mikeblas (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.Blueboy96 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article is not a "how to" guide - it is more a "how it is done" article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above. I too am concerned about the possibility of someone electrocuting themselves by attempting to follow the advice of this article, and the subsequent legal liability that the site could face. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete I agree with the above points. How-to guides don't belong on wikipedia, especially ones over matters as potentially dangerous as these. --AbJ32 (Drop me a line) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- More Comment - Household wiring is hardly the most dangerous topic described on the Wikipedia. My goodness, there are articles about gunpowder and nuclear bombs and anal sex and jump starting a car and LSD and methamphetamines...won't someone please think of the children? Now I know why so many people encourage "Pokemon" and "Trekkie" articles on the Wikipedia...the little darlings can't hurt themselves (aside from becoming obese). And, believe me, household wiring is not particularly difficult and is legal for homeonwners to do in many jurisdictions. If this is a how-to guide, then so is anal sex. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --- Is this a how-to site? Zero (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep/merge The main article is Electrical wiring. Wikipedia is not censored and it is absurd to suppress information on this topic on the grounds of safety. I have added a citation to demonstrate the ease with which one can add references. If the NYT has no qualms about discussing the subject, neither should we. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment, firstly, it's a how-to, which makes it deletable to start with. Secondly, are you not concerned about the possibility of someone seriously injuring or killing themselves? Doing electrical wiring work is not as simple as assembling furniture from IKEA or building a spice rack, especially if you're not a licenced professional (as you are likely to be if you're looking for information on doing your own wiring at Wikipedia). Even if this information were correct, which I'm not sure it is, based on the nominator's statement, we'd need a big disclaimer at the top advising that we take no responsibility, etc etc. It's not censorship to suggest that we turf this article out, it's basic responsibility to our readers. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
-
- It doesn't seem to be a how-to. It is just a general discussion of the topic. Wikipedia contains many such discussions, such as explosives, brain surgery and heroin. Your fears are excessive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, we certainly wouldn't place a big disclaimer at the top; see, e.g., WP:NDT and Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Joe 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the Colonel. If this is a how-to page than so is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendicectomy If you start worrying about people suing because they incorectly used information from this electrical wiring article then you might as well just shut Wiki down. Slhumph (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. The differences between the appendectomy page and the wiring page are profound. The important is that this page offers prescriptive advice, but the appendectomy page doesn't. The wiring page says that certain equipment isn't required, when it is; the appendectomy page (wisely!) doesn't advise what equipment is required when performing an appendectomy. I'm not sure the appendectomy article is correct, but information in the wiring article is simply wrong: there are many cases where a 12 AWG wire is too thin to carry 20 amps, even if this article says otherwise. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this is a how-to guide, not an encyclopedic article. Also, I'm unconvinced that we should have 100+ articles detailing the wiring protocols for each country. Addhoc (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - can be easily rewritten out of how-to format. It would be of continuing interest to some users to compare andcontrast the different wiring methods in the US, UK, and elsewhere in the world - I only wish we had more contributors from other areas who could write authoritatively about their national wiring practices with an eye to comparing them to other countries (and explanations of the reasons for the differences). I' mastonished again that lists of elf-kings get articles while this is even considered for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - So make this more encyclopedic. There is a huge problem with people not understanding this subject, and it costs lives. It is something that deserves to be present to educate. jaknouse (talk)
- Keep. I do DIY electrical and I have several how-to books and magazine articles that I use. This is not a how-to guide -- it doesn't tell you what tools to use, it doesn't tell you how to tie off a pigtail, it doesn't tell you how to use an electrical tester to determine whether you've done the job correctly. It simply lists a number of US-specific standards. That is encyclopedic and certainly notable. I scoff at the idea that this is suddenly the one subject that we censor. --Dhartung | Talk 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question. This article is "how-to" because it tells DIY'ers like yourself what equipment or parts are used for certain jobs -- and fails at doing so at a subject that has immense risk. One subject? There are many other articles which are up for deletion. Censor? After peeling away your grandiose rhetoric, I can't figure out why you've voted "keep". -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I fail to see why I have earned a sarcastic personal attack. Sorry, but I can't figure out why you're voting delete, as you have explained some personal opinions but not under policy. Show me what policies are violated. What information would you have in an article on US electrical wiring? --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Sorry you feel that way; what was it that you found to be a personal attack? Meanwhile, The article contains perscriptive (rather than instructive) how-to information. The article contains original research. The article is almost completely unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The part where you referred to "grandiose rhetoric" when I was citing policy was not appreciated. Original research and unreferenced are not the same thing, and it does make reference to the 2002 NEC, which certainly sounds like a reference to me. Not all references are in the form of properly formatted footnotes, even if they ultimately should be. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Sorry you feel that way; what was it that you found to be a personal attack? Meanwhile, The article contains perscriptive (rather than instructive) how-to information. The article contains original research. The article is almost completely unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I fail to see why I have earned a sarcastic personal attack. Sorry, but I can't figure out why you're voting delete, as you have explained some personal opinions but not under policy. Show me what policies are violated. What information would you have in an article on US electrical wiring? --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question. This article is "how-to" because it tells DIY'ers like yourself what equipment or parts are used for certain jobs -- and fails at doing so at a subject that has immense risk. One subject? There are many other articles which are up for deletion. Censor? After peeling away your grandiose rhetoric, I can't figure out why you've voted "keep". -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article certainly needs work and updating, but it is not a "how-to article." It has a caveat, and must continue to have one, stating that it is not a substitute for the actual electrical code, the explanatory books which reveal what the obscure committee-written code book actually means, and handbooks for the novice or homeowner. Shortcuts or mistakes in wiring kill people and destroy property. A good comparison would be to what respected paper encyclopedias have to say about the topic. Edison (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I don't see a caveat in this article. In fact, I see the opposite; for example, the article claims to provide information about wiring practices in the US. Fact is, in the US, local authorities (states, counties, and cities) can override or ammened the so-called National Electric Code at will. That is, what someone reads here as being applicable to their wiring project because they're in the US might not actually apply because the authorities having jurisdiction has overridden the code. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A highly appropriate start to an article. Needs to be rewritten and much expanded, as it is presently the barest summary of a complex topic. It is not even now, and never was, in how to do it format--anyone who thinks it is, should just take a look at the real books that are--and take another look at the article. DGG (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Your inappropriate and unwelcomed advice aside, this artilce is a how-to. While it's not a step-by-step how-to, it offers perscriptive advice. For example, it recommends using certain devices in certain circumstances, or sizes of wire for certain loads. In both of these cases, the advice it offers is somewhere between wrong and incomplete. Indeed, there is a difference between the content of this article and a how-to book on wiring -- the h offer similar altruisms, but provide enough context that the advice can be safely understood and applied. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup per DGG. Even if household electrical wiring was rocket science (which, contrary to popular belief, it isn't), we would still try to cover it in the greatest possible detail, without making paranoid disclaimers or replacing select passages of text with "ask your electrician/attorney/physician/guru for further information". As far as injury and loss of life go, "electrical error" is trivial compared to "medical error" or "driver error" (leading causes), but that's not terribly relevant. — CharlotteWebb 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - lack of sources is an area of concern, but not a grounds for deletion. Also, as mentioned above, Wikipedia is not censored. Jd027chat 14:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It may be just me, but that article doesn't seem like a how-to article at all. It's a great start to an informative article. Jd027chat 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Article needs serious work before it can be considered encyclopedic. -- RoninBK T C 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If we deleted every article that needed serious work, there would be millions fewer articles in the Wikipedia. I, for one, want to put more effort into researching the topic, adding references, and writing text. I have access to many relevant refernces and a little expertise in the area (though I would much prefer some American contributors here). And like many articles at this stage a couple of hours work on the article now will have immense benefits in improving the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not trying to turn this into an inclusionist/deletionist argument. But the problem here is that in its current form, this article is something that Wikipedia
consensushas determined should not be included in an encyclopedia. The serious work I am talking about is in turning it into something that is encyclopedic. If its improved by the end of this AfD, fine. But even with your current improvements, you've still got a long way to go. -- RoninBK T C 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)- As of a couple of minutes ago the "consensus" is not at all clear to me - 7:5 "keep", not that we're voting or anything. I would greatly appreciate your specific recommendations to make the content more encyclopdiac. It's certainly verifiable, and when I can get my books from the office I can plug in more references. I get frustrated with Wikipedia often - stuff like fanboy epsiode guides to cable tv cartoon shows get exhaustively documented, but real-world important topics get sketchy attention. It's part of the expert retention problem, I suppose. Sometimes the Wikipedia "consensus" is set by noisy fanboys. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I misspoke when I referred to "consensus" in the vague sense, I was not specifically referring to the consensus of this AfD. What I was referring to is Wikipedia policy, (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), that demands that Wikipedia is not to be used as a manual, guidebook, or textbook. The consensus I referred to is the overall consensus that directs the Wikipedia project.
Now, I'm not trying to discourage you from trying to improve the article. We've got a few days of AfD debate, and if you feel that you can figuratively change lead into gold by the end of it, be my guest. I'm just highly skeptical of the chances, that's all. -- RoninBK T C 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)- What you're saying is that the article is a manual or how-to guide. I agree there's consensus that should not be in Wikipedia, but WP:NOT describes those as "instructions, advice ... or suggestions". I just don't see that in the article at hand. There are a few bits where it maybe goes beyond "the code says" or strays into specifications rather than core ideas. Again, that's editing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I misspoke when I referred to "consensus" in the vague sense, I was not specifically referring to the consensus of this AfD. What I was referring to is Wikipedia policy, (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), that demands that Wikipedia is not to be used as a manual, guidebook, or textbook. The consensus I referred to is the overall consensus that directs the Wikipedia project.
- As of a couple of minutes ago the "consensus" is not at all clear to me - 7:5 "keep", not that we're voting or anything. I would greatly appreciate your specific recommendations to make the content more encyclopdiac. It's certainly verifiable, and when I can get my books from the office I can plug in more references. I get frustrated with Wikipedia often - stuff like fanboy epsiode guides to cable tv cartoon shows get exhaustively documented, but real-world important topics get sketchy attention. It's part of the expert retention problem, I suppose. Sometimes the Wikipedia "consensus" is set by noisy fanboys. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not trying to turn this into an inclusionist/deletionist argument. But the problem here is that in its current form, this article is something that Wikipedia
- Comment. Giving information about a particular trade or giving information that is then misused resulting in injury are not reasons for deleting an article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment Ronin, if you think this is a how to manual, just try to do something using it as your working guide. Don't actually connect the current, though.DGG (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Notability is clearly given. Google Scholar has 6k hits on "electrical wiring" "united states" cable (mostly patents). Nominator wrongly argues per WP:PROBLEM. Also, per WP:CENSOR and WP:NDA, I don't the think a safety argument holds. -- Lea (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and about the how-to problem: Feel free to remove any parts written in how-to style. (There will still be plenty of encyclopedic content left, as far as I can see.) -- Lea (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a how-to, but a description of conventions and regulations for electrical wiring in the US. Inaccuracies and such can be fixed by editing, without having to delete the article. --Itub (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep . The nominator is arguing that the subject of this article is so inherently dangerous that it must not be be in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is imperfect. By the that logic, we should delete most articles in Category:Diseases since they generally give diagnostic and treatment information. More generally we should shut the project down because the world doesn't need unreliable information. I believe Wikipedia grows better through incremental improvement. This article needs work, but that is not a basis for deletion.--agr (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not a how-to. As for the nominator's other points, Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially dangerous content. Spacepotato (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful information but better writing should be used to address concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.27.148 (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Notability verified by refs. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chelsea Bernasconi
Why speedy was declined on this I'll never know... enough said. Dougie WII (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment My guess, declined for this line "At age 13 she won a Gold medal in the World Junior Wushu Championships in Kuala Lumpur last August 2007 in the spear division." May not be enough for WP:BIO though. Officially neutral.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. I don't know if the subject is notable enough to warrant an article, but I removed the "shoutout"-style commentary added by someone who called himself "The Jedi", so that this article can now be judged on its merits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, world champion in a discipline we have an article on. Corvus cornixtalk 04:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. JJL (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A grand total of 34 Yahoo hits and 52 Google hits. Somehow I'd think a child prodigy and world champion would get more coverage. Blueboy96 04:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Junior World Champion according to reliable sources, regardless of search engine results. (They improve, by the way, if you search on just "bernasconi wushu", because not all sources use her nickname Chelsea.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As Corvus cornix points out, a world champion in a notable discipline. Carom (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. I am willing to userfy this for anyone who wishes to improve it in order to have it moved to a neutral article name. JERRY talk contribs 03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clinton Recession
...is not a term recognized by economists.
The recession was dated from March 2001 to November 2001 by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER),Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is the acknowledged organization that identifies and dates the recessions.
This recession officially started after Clinton had left office.
It is a term that has been used by some commentators with specific political orientation. While it is a good example of politically motivated interpretation of facts, it is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Chakreshsinghai (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The phrase clearly has some currency and so the article should be retained, even if it is just as a redirect. The current proposed merge target seems to have an inferior title. And a merge does not require deletion so the matter doesn't belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or rename. I didn't create the article in the first place, but I wrote most of the current content. I actually stumbled on the article, thinking it sounded like a biased name, but found a large number of sites using the term (9000 g-hits for "Clinton Recession"), from both left- and right-leaning points of view (the latter often rejecting it as a label, but their mention of it still implies that it was part of the discussion). ("Bush Recession" is also used, and receives more g-hits but many of them refer to an expected recession. The article mentions this name also and it redirects there.) But anyway, this article is not principally about the recession itself (the economic facts of which are covered in the Early 2000s recession), but about the dating controversy which occurred a few years later, which was seen as an attempt to blame the recession on Clinton. This was widely reported, as cited in the references, and seems worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The terms Clinton Recession and Bush Recession are not used by economists, it's true, but then Wikipedia's readers are not limited to economists and they seem to have been widely used in political discourse. However, if there is concern that having the title (if not the content) imply that it was a "Clinton Recession" (or "Bush Recession"), we could rename it Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy or the like, if that's deemed not too cumbersome. The material could also be merged into the Early 2000s recession article, although I think that is a less good choice, since the article includes the economic data for much of the world, and details about a political controversy that took place after the recession was concluded seems straying a bit from the topic. Rigadoun (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comments: Renaming it a "controversy", perhaps Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy would address my main concern. That is what the article is currently about, it is not really about recession as a topic in economics.
-
- The terms like "Victorian furniture" and "Ming vases" describe things that happened during the named administration. Thus using the name of an administration is generally about naming the period.
-
- For those interested in politics, I found 25,600 hits for "Bush recession" and only 8,830 for "Clinton recession"!
- --Chakreshsinghai (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy sounds an awful lot like Early 2000s recession#Dating controversy in the United States. Might be a good reason to merge it into Early 2000s recession... -- mordel (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete - politically biased article bandying a term that was not used during the time of the recession and is used now only by rightwing bloggers and rightwing publications. The topic is already discussed under Early 2000s recession and does not warrant a second article. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge any worthwhile content with “Early 2000s recession”, then delete without redirect. WP:NPOV. —SlamDiego←T 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: My position on the article itself notwithstanding, I object to the description “not a term recognized by economists”. Which economists? Economists do not operate with a hive mind. —SlamDiego←T 21:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete POV article with a political slant. Calling a recession which occurred while Bush was in office the "Clinton" recession is impermissable when that is not the usage by respected economists. Edison (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Referring to “respected economists” isn't much of an improvement on Chakreshsinghai's bare reference to “economists”. The case against this article can be made without pretending that there is unanimity amongst economist in general, or amongst economists who don't blow their noses with their fingers. —SlamDiego←T 05:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Might be worth a mention in Early 2000s recession, but not as a stand-alone article. Does not appear to be in widespread usage. No redirect seems necessary. Torc2 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge any worthwhile content with “Early 2000s recession”, then delete without redirect, changing incoming links to point to “Early 2000s recession” WP:NPOV. I proposed a merger just prior to PROD nomination but didn't take the time then to actually merge content. mordel (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - For what it's worth, this article seems like it would go well with the Early 2000s recession article. FWIW, I think a good article would merge the naming controversy with the actual numbers provided in the other. Also, I think it would need to present both the pro-Clinton and pro-Bush arguments to be effective.Werecowmoo (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - neologism; there have been recessions in all presidencies and mostly coincidences. Possibly politically inspired page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism and possibly politically motivated attack page. Even if kept, a more neutral title can surely be found. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Closed as duplicate nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul and salsa instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Soul and salsa
Notability seems to be the problem here. Also, there was a speedy tag placed on this, but it was removed without any reason, by the creator of the article User talk:Soulandsalsa - what a coincidence! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - looks like a spam article with little/no real context. If the magazine became notable it would be worthy of an article. At the moment, it appears to be a mere e-zine or similar. SMC (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. ChetblongT C 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Historical rankings of United States Presidents
- Historical rankings of United States Presidents (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
The page is just a summation of subjective viewpoints. Subjective rankings have no place in an encyclopedia. The tables are original research because they create their own index by combining multiple different sources. This is clearly an invalid way of extrapolating new data. It is evident that after reading the article that the subject itself is DEPENDENT on POV due to the highly different ratings by different people. This article should really be titled 'Opinion Polling of How Different Groups of People Like US Presidents'. This is plainly not scientific.
- Keep Well referenced, and obviously the subjects are all notable. Avruchtalk 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. At Wikipedia not truth, not like, young Jedi, but verifiability and good cites are they the Rules, says Yoda. May the Force be with you. Bearian'sBooties (talk)
- Delete Obviously, I nominated this article for deletion. The article's topic is not encyclopedic. The tables of rankings are original research. The text is original research in that it contains a lot of analysis of the aggregated data in the tables. Two thirds of the linked sources are broken and not verifiable. Bbrown8370 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a huge stretch to look at this as original research. Your argument is that they averaged the rankings. All of the original rankings are there, though, so...yeah. matt91486 (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - obviously notable and well-referenced.--STX 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep expected to find it nn but it's a well-sourced article on a common occurrence of obvious interest. JJL (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This needs better citations, but is actually a pretty good article. It may be appropriate to remove uncited material, but deletion would be overkill. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Ranking the presidents is a parlor game that receives periodic news coverage, thus notable. Obviously a CNN online poll would not be something necessary for us to cover, but scholarly surveys of historians certainly are. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I can see where the nominator is coming from, but he's a bit off. This is not someone on their own ranking the Presidents. This article is about the many, many polls and surveys that are done by historians to rank them...and has been reported on many times. The first would be clear OR and not allowable. The second warrants inclusion. This article is the second. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. 24.19.31.164 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gimbal Top
No context. Recreation of speedied article. Possibly spam. Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as possible advertising. MalwareSmarts (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, seems very spammy, and not really that notable either. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete. Not sure about the spam, but it doesn't appear notable. No sources, no verification. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vanessa Morgan
Disputed prod. Non-notable actress. Claim to fame is a principle cast role in a series which isn't due to premiere until next month. She only has one credit previously in a TV movie. No secondary source coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm sorry but this show has premiered already in three countries: United Kingdom, India, and Italy. --Bolonium (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, well that means the articles on Wikipedia about the show are wrong then. It still doesn't establish notability for the actress, though. Redfarmer (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, only acting part is in an obscure children's TV series, no secondary coverage to indicate notability. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Weak Keep large role in minor series--adequately notable. JJL (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Definitely needs expanding, though. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --B.C say what ? 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep-Notable enough--Shahab (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Being a district attorney per se doesn't establish notability. The mentions in the external links are trivial, and do not tell why the subject is notable, neither does the article. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Charles R. Borchers
I cleaned this article up so it sounded less like an obituary, but I'm still not sure this meets notability requirements for WP:BIO. Bellhalla (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A small town DA with no real notability outside the area served Corpx (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. DA's are regional figures, like state representatives. Not exactly "small town" either by overall national standards; his DA district had over 200,000 residents in the 1970s. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Members of state legislature are considered notable as are holders of statewide offices. Mr. Borchers would be considered a local political figure under WP:BIO, and the threshold for inclusion in WP for local political figures is "significant press coverage", which is not apparent from this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't see the notability. WP:BIO says, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This feels more like a memorial --JJLatWiki (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sancho 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable as a DA for a 3-county area. Needs to be re-written. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The legacy section convinces me that this person is sufficiently notable. It also tells me that there must be other sources out there for expanding the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable DA who did his job. Corvus cornixtalk 04:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. All the other DA's in Category:District Attorneys that I checked all held higher office or were otherwise notable. Borchers didn't and isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No indications of notability other than being a well-liked DA. Notable cases tried? Political controversies? OK, he got a bust in the building he used to work in. I'm still not impressed. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge with Scholastic Corporation. JERRY talk contribs 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scholastic Parents Media
Promotional tone; no third-party sources. Tagged for WP:CSD#G11; speedy tag removed. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Scholastic Corporation. Pburka (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge, an internal division of the larger and definitely notable Scholastic Corporation. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Merge: no need for a separate article. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge, a clear case of merge ("... is a division of whatever" -- without any real information -- so just merge 'em.) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and rediredct could be done without coming here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eveleigh Moore-Dutton
Notability has not been established. Additionally, a tag has been placed on the article since September 2007 asking for the article to be expanded, and it has yielded no effective response in terms of establishing notability nor of tidying up the article or adding any substantive content at all. In the light of this inaction, it seems reasonable to offer it up for deletion. DDStretch (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, city councillors are not inherently notable, and neither are failed political candidates. It doesn't look like there's any other potential claims to notability here, either. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Keep Google search shows that she has more accomplishments than indicated in the article--clearly notable. JJL (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment I don't see the results of these google searches anywhere in this article, which is how I consider it should be evaluated in this case. If you believe the chance of deciding to delete it can be reduced by including material taken from this google search, then shouldn't you or someone else have included the material and resferences (either before or now)? The article can always be re-created with properly argued notability features and references in the future if someone cares to do so if it is deleted as a result of this nomination. DDStretch (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep as per JJL, also the fact that she is now an European Parliamentary Candidate. She is also a member of one of Chester's most prominent families. Seivad (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment I can only then repeat what I wrote earlier: if these facts are true, where is the verified information in the article now which states this, given that there has been a template that highlights the need to include more information, etc since September 2007? DDStretch (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted - an obvious hoax, no need to wait five days. Article was a crude copy of the Vanessa Hudgens article. Gwernol 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sofia Hudgens
I suspect this is a hoax. "Sofia Hudgens" is not mentioned at all in the reliable sources as far as I can see, but "Vanessa Hudgens" is. Google search for Sofia Hudgens doesn't bring up much, which I do not expect would be the case for somebody with such a varied and successful career as is claimed in this article. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 01:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CARE's Response to Avian and Pandemic Flu
Prod removed without explanation. This article is basically an essay assessing the response of an organization to Avian and Pandemic Flu. All references are to primary sources, suggesting original research. In any case, fails WP:SOAP and probably WP:NOT#OR. Redfarmer (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete (or merge to CARE (relief))--no evidence of individual notability for CARE's response to this situation. JJL (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to CARE (relief). --Hyperbole (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - The title doesn't describe the article very well. There's not evidence that the subject is notable. I also agree with WP:SOAP and WP:NOR failures. --JJLatWiki (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- this topic does not deserve its own encyclopedic article. The whole thing just smacks too much of promotion (everything under the "Projects" section is just an ad). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or merge -- individual aid organizations responses to individual crisises is not worthy of its own article -- merge to the aid organization's article, the crisis's article, or delete entirely. --SJK (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No notability, no assertion of verifiability through reliable, or any, sources. Rudget. 15:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Soul and salsa
Notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Article makes no assertion of notability. I'm getting tired of typing that sentence. Maybe we need a shortcut, like WP:NAoN or something. --Hyperbole (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Article makes no assertion of notability. JJL (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- A7SD - No assertion of notability is enough for a speedy. Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment - There's your shortcut right there, Hyperbole. Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Notability seems to be the problem here. Also, there was a speedy tag placed on this, but it was removed without any reason, by the creator of the article User talk:Soulandsalsa - what a coincidence! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - looks like a spam article with little/no real context. If the magazine became notable it would be worthy of an article. At the moment, it appears to be a mere e-zine or similar. SMC (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Preceding two comments were moved here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul and salsa (2nd nomination). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no notability asserted, and a quick search seems to indicate that this is because there is no notability to assert. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete, no apparent notability whatsoever. The creator did add what they apparently believe to be an assertion in this edit ("distributed throughout the DFW area and other cities") but added no sources to back it up. That must have been enough for the speedy-tagger, though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete (the article was speedy deleted as per A7).
[edit] MashON
Thinly disguised advert for website at www.mashon.com. No Google hits. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The topic in question has no notability. In fact, the website is basically a store for a personal comic book creator. The website is still in beta. It is estimated that the website is viewed only four times a day. The user who created this page seems to have only made an account to make this page (assumption though since user is new). The user who created the page is currently the only contributor and the page does seem to be an advertisement for the website. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Since the page is simply not notable, I tagged the page for speedy deletion since the article does not need to suffer a process that could last days when it falls under the criteria to be deleted immediately. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - This article is almost entirely about mashups. It certainly doesn't make any claim for the notability of MashON either as a "call to action" or as a website. --Hyperbole (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A non-notable neologism, a non-notable website and a load of blather about the significance of mashups in general, which are already covered under their own articles, but which does not address the notability of this specific subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, mashups are notable, but this "MashON" is not. No sources attesting to the notability of the site, etc etc. Very badly disguised spam, in my opinion. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A Stab in the Dark (Play)
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Non-notable play, article even indicates that it's a 'fringe' production. Prod tag was removed through inproper use of the undo function, and no reason was given to keep. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 00:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - makes no assertion of notability. Not sure how I feel about "The first production was performed in Adelaide, South Australia, in February - March 2008," either - is this article about a play that's never even been seen by an audience? --Hyperbole (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above. One external link shows rudimentary local press coverage of the production, but not of the kind that indicates notability. –Henning Makholm 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is definitely not notable. MalwareSmarts (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, I don't think that "fringe" means what you think it means in this context. It was performed at the Adelaide Fringe Festival, which is Australia's largest arts festival. I would imagine appearing at such a festival would be at least some indicator of notability. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
- From the article on the festival: "To be part of the Adelaide Fringe Festival, all one needs to do is register by the cutoff date which changes of a yearly basis." Basically, it's open to all comers. Plus, the article also indicates that the festival doesn't start until February 16, which means that this play hasn't been performed yet (as indicated by Hyperbole above). -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 13:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable on a national level. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- This page seems very rough. I am not sure that (Play) should be in its title, as that is self-evident. Likewise, the links to Clue, Murder by Death, And Then There Were None and so on do not work. (I am not a regular Wiki user myself, nor computer literate, so found I could not fix them - sorry, I am old). The play is notable, however. The Adelaide Fringe Festival is a very significant arts festival in Australia - as the wikipedia article on it indicates - and not to be dismissed. Also, the show appears to have been commissioned by a venue with a State government grant (according to the linked article), so it would be of a higher notability than the bulk of the festival. Venues are highly sought after in the fringe. I am slightly biased as I am an Adelaide resident, retired director and theatre goer - though I have no direct link to this production - but I would suggest the editors tidy the article, add the poster image, link it to the related Adelaide Fringe article and give it some time to develop with reviews, production images and so on rather than delete it off-hand. In general, I think new theatre is undervalued and I'd like to see more articles related to the Adelaide theatre scene.(123.2.53.91 (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
- Note: I found this comment on the articles talk page, and thought it would be appropriate to copy it here. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be part of the fringe festival all one has to do is register, but to be part of a show in a major venue you have to be selected. I think people in Adelaide would be hurt to think that a show launched in Adelaide is "not notable on a national level." Wikipedia supports theatre launched in other states and countries, and there are numerous articles on films currently in development.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
- Are you able to demonstrate notability outside of Adelaide? Extensive coverage in national press? As a side note, what is your connection to this play? -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am related to a member of the SAYAB arts board, which awarded this play, but I have not read it myself. I do not consider myself biased as I have not offered an opinion on the show's merits or otherwise. That is for others to decide. I have avoided marketing speak and promotion. I created this page when I noticed the existing Wiki article with the same title points to a British TV show. I refer you to the SAYAB homepage, which states explicitly that the board only awards work ‘recognised professionally’. That is to say, the board chooses work from many applicants and is strong on checking references, quality and credentials. That is true also of venues and government support. This, again, is highly competitive. I do agree that not all of the hundreds of Fringe shows deserves a wiki page, but those select few directly funded by the South Australian Government, as judged by a panel of industry professionals from around the country, should be considered. I would like to champion other articles relating to the Australian theatre scene, and I have made a few small attempts to do so, but I'll accept if this is unwelcome. Over to you, Mister Hand.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
- Keep and improve (especially the UPPERCASE nonsense). Sufficient notability is established through cited links. There's nothing to gain by deleting this article. To 123.2.53.91: The suffix (play) is needed to distinguish it from A Stab In The Dark, however it should be in lower case. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep This article has been unfairly targeted for deletion. The cited links clearly establish notability. It may have been premature, but it certainly deserves to stay. Capitals should go, and poster image or cast images could be added.(129.96.130.236 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
- Strong Keep It in its current form, there is nothing wrong with this article. It meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. It is not unusual for characters in a play to be written in capitals. Some more information, such as "critical reception", would be useful though(129.96.130.210 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
- Delete - non-notable at present. A very premature article. I did a bit of digging around to see if the author, Alex Vickery-Howe, might meet notability criteria (and therefore re-direct etc) but unfortunately he doesn't.•Florrie•leave a note• 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PB-244854
The article makes no assertion of notability. The article is full of apparently original research, which appears to be the sole purpose for its creation. Only small and select bits and snippets from the source document are used to support only the original research-based conclusions presented by the originator. The originator is a single-purpose account with a fairly clearly conflict of interest. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - PB-244854 is referenced in Viability of Personal Rapid Transit In New Jersey published by Booz, Allen, Hamilton under contract for the New Jersey Legislature, 2007. It is a foundation document. --BillJamesMN (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - PB-244854 is the lessons learned from the 1973 Oil Embargo. We have ignored those lessons now we have an oil addiction. Senate Letter Sept 10, 1974 staged the creation of PB-244854. Senator Byrd signed that letter which is why Morgantown's PRT is in Morgantown. Deleting key documents makes hard-won lessons even harder to re-learn. --BillJamesMN (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Efforts in Sweden, Poland, England (and Morgantown) are all modeled after this blueprint. It is a seminal, foundation document for oil-independent transportation. The fact that it is 30 years old tells us that we haven't learned a lot. To ignore global warming and peak oil is a grave mistake. --Swensong (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I figured the report might be notable and replaced the page with a stub I created using information from every reliable source I could find. What I came up with is absolutely as worthy of deletion as the original (albeit perhaps not as unpleasant to read). This is simply not a notable report. --Hyperbole (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Automated_Guideway_Transit. This is no Report of 1800. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Original research? Hoax? I can't even tell... Lady Galaxy 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Completely non notable. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, utterly unnotable iteration of a federal regulatory standard, now three decades old. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: I prodded the article five days ago to give it a chance, but the notability issue still hasn't been addressed. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unencyclopedic, fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.