Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 8
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 --JForget 00:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Matthew "the Iron Fist" Birtchnell
Possible hoax article about a professional boxer who does not seem to be mentioned on the Internet anywhere, who was defeated by another boxer who is not mentioned on the Internet anywhere, with a cite to a book which also does not seem to be mentioned on the Internet anywhere. I propose that this article be deleted on the ground that it does not appear to demonstrate that its subject meets WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — appears to be a hoax, barring further evidence. Can anyone find the ISBN for that book? --Haemo (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax Beeblbrox (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete hoax. Can't find anything about the subject or the author of the book. If it's not a hoax, it fails WP:BIO anyhow Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:V at best; is a hoax at worse. Neither book or author appear to be found on amazon.co.uk or amazon.de as I would have reasonably expected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The book doesn't even appear in WorldCat, a union catalog covering 10,000+ libraries. If it does exist, it must be hopelessly obscure. EALacey (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- (Comment: Nor is the putative author listed on WorldCat as having written any books [1]. I cannot find any book with a title on the lines of Die komplette Geschichte der Deutsch Boxen, either.) -- The Anome (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Were it not for the fact that the author of the article has been contributing to Wikipedia for quite some time, I doubt that people would have thought twice about the inauthenticity of this page. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of sources and lack of record. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:02, 11 March 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Theocratic Realism
Short, unsourced article about a possible neologism, which makes the article a candidate for deletion per WP:NEO. Also, a Google search shows too little hits, most of them being the article itself. Victao lopes (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The concept conveyed by such a term is clearly notable in my mind, but the term itself has no notoriety, and the book that allegedly coined it is yet to be published. Give it time. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I am the author of the to-be published book and I am not quite ready to have this out in the open. When it is published you may do with it as you will. Please delete this listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divin021 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: If you want the article to be deleted, you can add the template {{Db-g7}} to the very top of the article. However, considering that the article is in the middle of an afd debate, you should not do that. Wait until the debate is closed. Victao lopes (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I do not think that this is notable. J.delanoygabsadds 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 02:44, 10 March 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 Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to Hqb (talk · contribs) for saving the article. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thornberry Animal Sanctuary
This article had no assertion of notability when I initially tagged it for speedy. There is one now, but a very weak one. The creator seems to think that the importance of the sanctuary's mission statement constitutes by itself an assertion of notability for the sanctuary itself, which, of course, is not the case. The references, added by a third party, are trivial. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article is important, I consider it very informative and is notable enough for Wikipedia in my opinion. So I think it should stay. Jammy (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep'. Information available in independent sources (BBC News Online, e.g.). --Oldak Quill 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The information in the references provided do not verify the contents of the article beyond that the charity exists and that it "rescues thousands of mistreated and abandoned animals each year". I see no significant, in-depth coverage by third-party sources to demonstrate that this is a notable organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmxl5 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I initially tagged an horrible first-person version for deletion as spam. The issue now is notability. I am inclined to say that if every scondary school that can manage to write a decent article about itself is automatically notable; if two platforms on the edge of a park qualify for an article; then an animal sanctuary counts as notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that the nobility of an organization's mission should be of no significance to its notability for the purpose of WP inclusion. However, I would argue that the referenced third-party coverage is not "trivial" as defined in WP:ORG#Primary criterion. Three of the pieces are specifically about the organization and its founder; and two others illustrate the sanctuary's local and even regional impact. The founder also received national recognition. In general, there is no requirement that all information in an article be referenced to independent sources; for non-controversial, factual details (history, facilities, etc.) WP:ORG says that using primary sources, such as the organization's website, is OK. If the veracity of such information is challenged, it should of course be substantiated or removed; but I don't think this is a significant problem in the current version. Hqb (talk) 10:35, 9 March 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 as per general consensus. Merger or redirect is left to the disretion of the individual editors -Ravichandar 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Guilty Pleasure
- Guilty Pleasure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Send My Love to the Dancefloor, I'll See You In Hell (Hey Mister DJ) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- The Church of Hot Addiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- The City Is at War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Non-notable/non-charting songs with little or no media coverage and no references (except for one of them, and it's a YouTube link). All fail WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. Prod removed (and [2], [3], and [4]) without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to either Cobra Starship or their respective albums Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs expanding, give it some more time for users to add information to it. --Jammy (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Song on a significant album. --Oldak Quill 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Being on a notable album does not impart notability to each song—(say it with me everyone:) "Notability is not inherited." —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:27, 9 March 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.
{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} Speedy Delete per WP:NOT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Grammar with Cindy
Well-intended but unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and is not designed to be used as a blog, public forum, or space for essays or tutorials. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Article has been tagged for speedy delte (under A7). Justin Eiler (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete - no sources, it's a personal essay or original research. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Wikipedia is no place for personal essays and Wikipedia is not your blog. Contains Original research Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - as per above reasons. --Concordia (talk) 01:26, 9 March 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 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trzmygly
This is very probably a hoax. The only reference for it is fr:Trzmygly which is being considered for deletion. _R_ (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No Google hits at all. Looks like it's definitely a hoax.--TBC ♣§♠ !?! 22:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not much information on it at all, until the author of this article can produce a informative enough article on this village then it should not be on Wikipedia at all. --Jammy (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. News flash: the article in French Wikipedia just got deleted. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per my prod nomination.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:54, 11 March 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. David Eppstein raises an excellent point. Sean William @ 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lauren Burk
--KEEP--This article may have encyclopedic value considering the legal system, incarceration, punishment, and crime wave in America.
Subject only notable for being murdered. See WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP - 66.214.9.247
- Removed trolling comment by vandal. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep You hit the nail on the head. She is indeed notable for being murdered, so why put an AfD for it? There are over 1000 news articles on Lauren Burk, and the case has attracted immense attention. The media has already decided on the importance of this case, and it's not up to Wikipedian editors to say anything. EgraS (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Being that this is Wikipedia and not a news site, it's absolutely up to the editors to decide whether or not she is notable enough to be included here. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", and WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. For some reason, Wikipedia is becoming a database of obituaries. See: Eve Carson 24.124.109.67 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's informative enough and very notable, I don't see a reason why it should be deleted other than the fact someone is being stubborn on what they don't think is worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article. --Jammy (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per EgraS.--Oldak Quill 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, notable for only one event. If the event itself becomes sufficiently notable, create an article for it. --Zantolak (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. In the absence of a guideline for crime articles, I prefer that some significance beyond just grabbing headlines be demonstrated. This appearing to be a sad, all-too-common random robbery, it's just a burst of news that will soon dissipate. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree, Keep "All-too-common" indeed, the usefulness of information of this kind is to prevent similar incidents. Within academia is the field of criminology and crime prevention, and more and/or different information is known of this case than that of Natalee Holloway or Eve Carson as of this posting. If it's found that a parking lot is inadequately lit or that college students away from home are an easy target like sailors in a strange port, then lets see where the information takes us. I would like to see a lot more info on this case than is submitted, but local authorities may be saving some of that for trial. Not all info is useful to all people.Sparree (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Here we go again. More MWWS. Seems we have to have an article on every pretty murder victim. What's notable? WWGB (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete For all the above reasons. Also, this WP:POINTy article's creator and principle editor is an alleged sockpuppet of an editor whose interests include pretty white women killed by Black men. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Malik, I never thought you were a conspiracy nut in league with Flash. I can also accuse you or anyone on the userpage of any offense and mention it every time you post anything. This topic is of significant interest in the American media and has thousands of news articles on it and is head and shoulder, root and limb above the rest of the murders. EgraS (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is not true. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - In the very first line (above), the person who proposed this deletion admits that the subject is notable. Notable for her death, yes --- but nonetheless notable. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
- Poor phrasing isn't the same as the nominator asserting notability. The only claim to notability is dying. That is far different than being notable for dying. Murders are very common, they alone do not make an individual notable. Resolute 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. Let's all stop pretending that this is just like any other murder in the USA. There were how many hundreds (or thousands?) of murders in the USA in the past week/month/year? How come we all know this name? And we don't know the other hundred/thousand names? This murder is different, period. Whether or not it deserves to be is an entirely different issue. We at Wikipedia cannot dictate to ABC and CBS and NBC and Fox and (etc.) what they should be noting in their news broadcasts. Someone somewhere (God knows who) has decided that this is one of the notable murders from the hundreds and thousands that occurred. So be it. It's notable and we can cover it. Your head is in the sand if you can say with a straight face that this murder has received the same news coverage (read "notability") as any other run-of-the-mill murder. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
- Oh, come on yourself. The only reason many people here ever heard of Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote an article and most of us are trying to have it removed because the subject lacks sufficient notability. It's just NOT that different, period. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wow! Like the previous post says, get your head out of the sand. And quick. Your comment is laughable. Go and re-read it. The only reason that millions of Americans have heard about Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote a Wikipedia article on it. That's your claim? That remark is so ignorant, it warrants no reply. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
- Oh, come on yourself. The only reason many people here ever heard of Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote an article and most of us are trying to have it removed because the subject lacks sufficient notability. It's just NOT that different, period. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. Let's all stop pretending that this is just like any other murder in the USA. There were how many hundreds (or thousands?) of murders in the USA in the past week/month/year? How come we all know this name? And we don't know the other hundred/thousand names? This murder is different, period. Whether or not it deserves to be is an entirely different issue. We at Wikipedia cannot dictate to ABC and CBS and NBC and Fox and (etc.) what they should be noting in their news broadcasts. Someone somewhere (God knows who) has decided that this is one of the notable murders from the hundreds and thousands that occurred. So be it. It's notable and we can cover it. Your head is in the sand if you can say with a straight face that this murder has received the same news coverage (read "notability") as any other run-of-the-mill murder. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
- Poor phrasing isn't the same as the nominator asserting notability. The only claim to notability is dying. That is far different than being notable for dying. Murders are very common, they alone do not make an individual notable. Resolute 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Quale (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Quale's comment TaintedZebra (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. --70.188.129.189 (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Deor (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Remember that the notability standards really don't include people notable just for one thing, for one event; and passing interest (as evidenced in the article) in the death of an otherwise typical college student surely isn't enough to guarantee notability. This isn't Natalie Holloway. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. So please explain to all of us how and why Natalie Holloway is different. No one in the world ever heard of her until she was murdered. And she was a high school kid, to boot. So, how indeed is that different than this case? I'm real curious. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
- Comment There is a concurrent debate going on with very similar facts to the ones here. 24.124.125.33 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I came to Wikipedia direct from Google to look up Lauren Burk. If Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, it should keep this article. If it calls itself an academic encyclopedia, this is different. If you delete this, you should delete all porn stars, all politicians (except Presidents, Prime Ministers, and major Senators), delete Jimbo Wales (just a minor internet figure - half joking!), etc. You may say that other crap does not justify this article but this article is not crap and other articles set the standard. This article is also important as one of a series of similar murders during a time frame. If you want to combine articles, that's ok but a little confusing....People say notability. Well, that's the notability, similar crimes over a similar time. Otherwise, an isolated killing isn't always noteworthy, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) — Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- WP:WAX. The existence of, and claims to notability of other articles has no relevance at all to this article. It has to stand on it's own merits. And I fail to see how a news story fits in with an "academic encyclopedia." Wikinews is the project you are looking for. Resolute 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Every murder victim is notable enough for WP? I don't think so. Fail to see what this article is doing here. WikiNews, okay. Wikipedia, no. Rien Post (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Uhhhhh. Who said every murder victim? Seems like those are your words, no? And that's painting with a pretty broad brush. And if that's what you are resting your argument on, that's evidence enough of the weakness of your argument. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
- Delete. Not notable. Like an obit. Renee (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOT#NEWS. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Has sufficient notability per guidelines. SuMadre (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It is sadly, but she is only one of many crime victims. --Paukrus (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a crime blog. Per WP:ONEEVENT ,WP:NOT#NEWS , and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per rationale of Sparree, and to the conspiracy theorist, if the shoe fits... Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I considered the suggestion from Sparree that this information might be useful for analysis of crime patterns but am not convinced. Such analysis would require a more comprehensive list of crimes. Matchups (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per everyone else. --Philip Laurence (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - It's very sad that this young lady has been murdered, but if being murdered is a criteria for notability, Wikipedia would be full of such notables. This is not an obit site. yorkie19 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, a non-argument ... grasping at straws. I don't hear anyone saying "being murdered is a criteria for notability". If that is your argument, where are you hearing that concept being advocated by "the other side" of the argument? Clearly, it's not her murder per se ... we can all agree that thousands are murdered. It's the impact / news / reception / coverage / reaction of the murder that makes it worthy of note. Why do people make such broad and sweeping claims (much like yours) that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand? Seriously? Who in the world ever said "every single murder, period, warrants an article"? Who said that? What a weak argument. It's not even an argument. Or, a position, for that matter. I will placate you, though. Yes, I agree with you. It is true that being murdered is not a criteria for notability. Got that out of the way. Happy now? Now, moving on productively, what does that have to do with this debate at hand? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
- Merge with Mourning Sickness. This victim, nor this murder seem to be notable. Rather, the REACTION to them is notable. Rooot (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Great girl, but not notable. - auburnpilot talk 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIOE. Being killed may be newsworthy, but does not have a historical impact. Notability is not temporary. Will she be notable in ten years? Probably not. Reywas92Talk 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP because this is a subset of "college campus murders," which are a cultural phenomenon that has increased in number in recent years and is worthy of discussion/study/analysis. Mooveeguy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- She wasn't even murdered on a college campus. so that argument to keep is rather obtuse. WWGB (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, then, keep it as an example of Missing White Woman Syndrome. How can anyone enter that debate without examples to reference? Mooveeguy (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteThe only reason I ever heard of Lauren Burk is someone had put it on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just American and to me the only reason I do know about this poor human being is someone put in on Wikipedia. Wikinews fine not here. What are we trying to outdo facebook et al! If so the floodgates will open I have at least one possible that could be added, death by car used as weapon, student, young man,(damn! wrong gender) Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Quale. Cougar Draven (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A one time story, this is not comparable to the Natalee Holloway case that dragged on and on and generated far more public interest. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Tragic that a young woman like her had to be murdered, but it isn't noteworthy. Peter1968 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP This is a major story in the USA. Why have an easily accessible, user editable online encyclopedia and not include this? Might as well delete Natalee Holloway, Hurricane Katrina, and the Iraq war as well if you delete Lauren Burk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.88.233 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) — 75.143.88.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - per previous: it's quite news-worthy but not encyclopedic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E. Cxz111 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - None of the deleters probably live in the South. This is the most discussed news of the past month. Wikipedia is definitely not World Book, as one has to put in the context that there are 2 million articles, or 1 article per 120 or so people in the US or 1 in 5000 in the world. Lauren Burk's case is landmark in importance, and deserves a much longer article. This deletion discussion itself illutrates the importance of the case. Few of what I've seen comes close to this. I question if the deleters here are doing it because the murderer is black and they dont want to ever write anything or show anything that is percieved to be anti-black, but really, race should have nothing to do with this AfD. And there are some 2K articles on google about Lauren Burk. Tattarattat (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)— Tattarattat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete as per "all too common" and MWWS. better placed in MWWS article in an "Examples" section, yes? JTGILLICK (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per everyone else's points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.210.153 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — 72.207.210.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep or Rename well-covered media story, making it notable. Natalee Holloway herself is not notable, just her story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article Eve Carson was moved to Murder of Eve Carson. These are similar media-driven stories. Moving Lauren Burk to Murder of Lauren Burk should similarly satisfy the complainants on this page. A user has written a proposed guideline on this kind of story at User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts) and is inviting comments. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- No it would not. Neither the unfortunate woman or her murder are notable. Changing the name of the article does not make anything any more notable. WWGB (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was a national media story. The argument, that the story is not notable, is false. Please visit that other page and weigh in to the argument there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand your position on this matter. I'm just making the point that simply changing the name of the article would not satisfy this "complainant" (which is a change from being called a "deletist"). WWGB (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- The primary complaint in both this and the Carson story is that the victim is not notable. Natalee Holloway herself is less notable than Carson and certainly no more notable than Burk. The notability is in the story. The story got national media coverage, and therefore is notable. So renaming the article is the right way to go. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mean to butt in on you two, but I feel that all three subject are equally unnotable. I do agree that the notability is in the story, and unfortunately Carson and Burk's stories are told too often to be notable. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is the Holloway story notable, then? People go missing every day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I feel her disappearance is notable because of the controversy surrounding it. But you could make a strong argument that a biographic page about her doesn't belong. You have to remember, back in 2005 when she went missing we didn't have ONEEVENT and BLP. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I've learned from watching the deletionists attack previously uploaded images by the thousand, what the rules were in the past do not matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be drawn into this debate, but I'd like to add my support to WWGB's comment. In my opinion, renaming the article doesn't make the subject more notable, and it wouldn't change my !vote. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I've learned from watching the deletionists attack previously uploaded images by the thousand, what the rules were in the past do not matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I feel her disappearance is notable because of the controversy surrounding it. But you could make a strong argument that a biographic page about her doesn't belong. You have to remember, back in 2005 when she went missing we didn't have ONEEVENT and BLP. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is the Holloway story notable, then? People go missing every day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mean to butt in on you two, but I feel that all three subject are equally unnotable. I do agree that the notability is in the story, and unfortunately Carson and Burk's stories are told too often to be notable. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- The primary complaint in both this and the Carson story is that the victim is not notable. Natalee Holloway herself is less notable than Carson and certainly no more notable than Burk. The notability is in the story. The story got national media coverage, and therefore is notable. So renaming the article is the right way to go. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand your position on this matter. I'm just making the point that simply changing the name of the article would not satisfy this "complainant" (which is a change from being called a "deletist"). WWGB (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was a national media story. The argument, that the story is not notable, is false. Please visit that other page and weigh in to the argument there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, Her life wasn't notable enough to deserve an article, same with Eve Carson, and just renaming the article to 'Death of...' still doesn't make them notable enough. Is every female American murder victim getting their own article now? I hadn't heard anything at all about these girls until I saw it on Wikipedia --KingOfExtreme (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Notability does not have to do with whether you personally have heard about something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Notability fully depends on people hearing and knowing about the person/situation. I bet no-one in my country or any other country outside of America has heard about this girl's death because it is no different to all the other hundreds of people who die everyday, apart from a typical case of MWWS. Like I said before, does every American female murder victim deserve their own biography based solely on the fact that they are now dead? --KingOfExtreme (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you concerned that wikipedia is going to run out of space? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Notability fully depends on people hearing and knowing about the person/situation. I bet no-one in my country or any other country outside of America has heard about this girl's death because it is no different to all the other hundreds of people who die everyday, apart from a typical case of MWWS. Like I said before, does every American female murder victim deserve their own biography based solely on the fact that they are now dead? --KingOfExtreme (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Notability does not have to do with whether you personally have heard about something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete (To begin, please excuse the seeming facetiousness of the following suggestion) Wouldn't the proper venue for all these Life-Notable-Only-Because-Of-Notable-Death items do better on something like a subset of MySpace - one called DeadSpace, perhaps? Or a subeset of FaceBook called DeathBook.
-
- Alternatively - a Wiki article on People Notable by Reason of Death Only? JTGILLICK (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
KEEP - The event (her death) is notable, period. Regardless of whether or not she herself is/was notable. It would take a fool not to realize that her story has been blasted all over the news. Like it or not, it has. And, that is what makes it notable. This murder has elicited a huge (national) public reaction. Her story / her death / her murder ... coupled in such proximity with the Eve Carson murder. To argue that this has not gathered national notability is ludicrous. How do people on this page argue that point with a straight face is beyond me. I am indifferent to the name/title of the article. But, certainly the event is notable --- independent of whether or not the individual (Burk) is notable. I'd also basically mimic all that Baseball Bugs has said. His arguments are clearly on point and valid. Everyone else is caught up in pushing some agenda -- and ignoring the plain fact that this is a notable event. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
- P.S. We can just "copy and paste" the Eve Carson debate. It is essentially the same exact debate. That ended in "no consensus" ... as these all do ... and as this will. And rightly so, as "no consensus" simply defaults to a KEEP. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
- Redirect This is basically what I said at the other AfD: I'm seeing a lot of WP:ONEEVENT delete arguments being made; however, Wikipedia is chock-full of people who are notable for only one event: Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Mark David Chapman, Thich Quang Duc, Sirhan Sirhan, Günter Parche, Gavrilo Princip, John Hinckley, Jr., you could go on and on. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, but rather pointing out that having a policy that says that we shouldn't have articles for people notable for only one event is clearly flawed. As with the other, I recommend redirecting to Murder of Lauren Burk. Is this girl notable? No, buther death has received significant coverage in the media, making it a notable event. faithless (speak) 07:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as others have repeatedly stated, citing WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. BWH76 (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per others, not notable. Media attention alone shouldn't determine notability, much of their criteria for attention is based on a thing called 'getting ratings'. Sansumaria (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have just declared CNN, et al, to be unreliable sources. Can you find a wikipedia rule to back up that claim? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment (elaborating on what I said earlier) The continual reference to "NOT NEWS" is a bogus argument based on old-fashioned thinking. Wikipedia is fluid and dynamic, NOT PAPER. The media decide what's notable, not individual editors who personally think something is "not notable". As a member of the general public, I come to wikipedia for information. If I can't find it here, I might assume wikipedia is behind the curve. Worse, if I knew it was here and now is gone, I might assume wikipedia is being run by bozos. Either way, I might conclude that wikipedia is unreliable, and will turn elsewhere for information in the future. That conclusion should be of more concern to editors than anything else. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now Baseball Bugs has voted twice (see 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)). What's up indeed, Doc??? WWGB (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, yer right. Didn't realize I had. So solly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, fishwrapper news. Will (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have just declared CNN, et al, to be unreliable sources. Can you find a wikipedia rule to back up that claim? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Do you realize, Baseball Bugs, that every time you repeat the same arguments in increasingly combative tones, you seem more fanatical and your arguments become less effective? You've made your point. More than a few times. Give it a rest. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am merely trying to get people to think about what they're saying, to think outside of their respective boxes that they seem to want to keep wikipedia in. I would like wikipedia to be all it can be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia does have articles on current events. Perhaps that policy is wrong, but if so we should change it, not ignore it just because we sympathise with the victim in this particular case. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 14 March 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. Sources have been added by Faithlessthewonderboy that address the delete concerns. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Paper Trail
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC#Albums. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable enough unless it's a very famous artist or is fairly popular. --Jammy (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete T.I. is apparently pretty famous (several US Top 40 hits, according to Billboard), but this is still crystal ballery Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely a violation of WP:CRYSTAL TaintedZebra (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is not a crystal ball means. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." However the information in this article is based on verifiable information and we have articles on the artists earlier work. There does not appear to be a policy based reason to delete this. Catchpole (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Try not to focus too much on the whole "crystal ball" thing, although until the album's released, writing about as if it's a done deal does involve a good deal of that. The main point of the nomination is that there is not enough media coverage for this album to be notable. Until the album's released, unless there is significant coverage in 3rd party sources, notability is not established. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony
- Keep VERY notable artist, no reason to delete--Yankees10 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Notability is not inherited. Just because T.I. is notable doesn't mean anything he releases is. And in this case, he hasn't even released it yet. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Incredibly Strong Keep I've just added several sources. This is a forthcoming album by a multi-platinum selling Grammy-winning musician, and has been covered by Rolling Stone, MTV, BET, XXL and VH1. People seem to think that WP:CRYSTAL applies to all future events, which just isn't the case. The album is extensively sourced and certain to take place; therefore, there is not crystalballery afoot. faithless (speak) 02:00, 15 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Boss of All Bosses
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and referenced from an unreliable source. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC#Albums. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough information for it to be notable. Jammy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails on all counts noted TaintedZebra (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cool name. Delete per JohnCD. Majoreditor (talk) 02:45, 10 March 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sofia Talvik
Lacks any assertion of notability, and fewer assertions found with Uncle Google. I am also nominating the following related pages because as albums they are equally non-notable:
Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Google indicates plenty of independent online sources (e.g. allmusic profile). From a press page about her, she seems famous within Sweden, interviewed by several large papers and magazines (http://www.makakimusic.se/). --Oldak Quill 23:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sofia Talvik is an internationally radio played artist as this entry is about to say. Plus she is very talented and has also dueted with Bernard Butler. Keep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenespeed (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per Oldak. Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - lacks independent reliable sources. If there would be multiple independent sources referenced, I'd be happy to retract this opinion. BWH76 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of current Primera División de Fútbol Profesional players
- List of current Primera División de Fútbol Profesional players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Should be covered by categories. Unusually hard to maintain. Punkmorten (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras 2007-08 Clausura squads
- Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras 2007-08 Clausura squads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras 2007-08 Apertura squads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Squad lists belong on the article of each club, not on a centralized list. Not a good idea. Punkmorten (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can this information be merged into each club's article? Someone put a lot of effort into creating this list, so its seems a shame to delete it without moving the information into the "current squad" section of those articles. Jogurney (talk) 02:36, 9 March 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Catroots
This was apparently an unreleased game for the Nintendo 64 (although the article currently states differently). There are very few sources that document this game. It does not appear to be possible to make an article about this subject that satisfies WP:V. --- RockMFR 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep Released or not, the game is verifiable because of it's existence on IGN, Gamespy, Gamestats and others. The article could use some improvement however. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- These are not different sources. They are all owned by IGN. --- RockMFR 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm usually in favour of borderline keeps, but this one seems to be too obscure. User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 9 March 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 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Man bash
- I believe this article does not need to be deleted on the grounds that it obviously is about a regional slang term, and therefore very localised in its verifiability. It notes on the reliability page that 'The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment.', and so using common sense people should be able to note that the term 'man bash' is reliable and cannot be backed-up by third party sources due to it's regional nature, I myself find this term an exciting insight into the human nature of dialect development.silentcivilian (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008
- Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete For all above reasons. --Kukini háblame aquí 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - fails just about everything. Not salvageable. – ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day--Boson (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to make any changes which will enable the page to stay up. Please see my input on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peet 12 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia, is there nothing i can do/put on the page to make everything said above clear? Willing to moderate.
- Delete not an article and never will be. To the creator, I recommend your next page come backed with secondary sources. Sorry. JuJube (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note- Primary sources are always best. Kukini háblame aquí 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note- Primary sources are always best. Kukini háblame aquí 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - nothing useful here. Deb (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NEO Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Peet, you are new by your own admission. Please review all the rules for articles before creating another article in order to avoid situations like this. Use your own user space if you need any help to achieve this. TaintedZebra (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. (I hate to always say that, but pretty much everything has already been noted.) J.delanoygabsadds 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy I would have speedy deleted this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
ok fair enough delete it i tried to but i dont know how to but do delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peet 12 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 March 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 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chunky Puffs
It's a breakfast cereal in a TV show. The entire content is: Chunky Puffs are a fictional cereal in the show "Ed, Edd n Eddy" on Cartoon Network. They are shown as a delicious food that most kids in the cul-de-sac want. No assertion of notability has been made. I tried to locate some reliable sources via Google, but there are none.
More than a year ago, it was proposed that this article be merged with the main TV show article. To be honest, I don't think it's notable enough to be included in the main article. In my opinion, it should just be deleted. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable. Agree with nom. that it's not even worth a merge. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the FC word. JuJube (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Pointless information altogether. Jammy (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above, but a mention of the stuff in the Ed, Edd n Eddy article makes sense. -- House of Scandal (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm....where would you put it? I looked at the article, and if we exclude sections such as "Characters" and "Reception", there is only one left-Overview. Even there, I don't think it would fit, it would probably just disturb the flow of the text. I think this is too trivial to be included in the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom TheProf | Talk 13:47, 10 March 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 all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Simon Ferry
A youth team player with no evidence of first team appearances for a professional team, and yet another PROD contested by an IP user. Fails per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN.
I am also nominating the following players for the same reasons described above:
- Stefano Celozzi
- Thomas Kraft
Angelo (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. None appear to have graduated to playing in a fully professional league and so fail WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. robwingfield «T•C» 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all - is it snowing? --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Non-notable. BWH76 (talk) 11:05, 14 March 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 deletion rationale, that this is synthesis writing, combined with the lack of reliable independent sources, outweigh the only given keep rationale of other lists exist." The other comparisons/lists could just as easily be nominated for deletion if necessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comparision of desktop search software
Original proposed deletion was contested, however I feel that the original issues still pertain: "A personal essay in the guise of an article. Because only a limited number of software packages are covered, this ends up being just the author's own personal opinions - unless there is comprehensive coverage based on published sources, this is not suitable content for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps should be userfied?
In the author's words (from the article talk page): "It is impossible for a user to make a comprehensive review of dozens of tools... this is a wiki, give time (and that isn't 5 days) for other users to contribute as well. It's no one's personal opinion, this is information available at the author's website and mailing list. The external links are 3rd party information. They do not conform to your "references or sources" (according to your specification of references and sources) because there aren't any! Be pragmatic here. There are no published articles in ACM or IEEE or any other place!"
The author is admitting that there are no sources for this and it is unlikely that there will be any. The article is inherently unverifiable and cannot be rewritten from a neutral point of view because there are no external reliable sources to be found. Gwernol 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Everything about such an article is inherently POV: the evaluation criteria, which software to include and which software not to include, and, of course, the evaluation itself. By its very nature unfit for an encyclopedia. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you suggest other evaluation criterias? Can you find the type of information stated there about other desktop search software? I targeted technical aspects there. Did you prefere a table with a single row with "searches text"... now that wouldn't be very helpfull would it. There is still a lot to be done, for example, which file types and application data each crawler indexes... But I can't do that all by myself. The only thing here that is POV are the tools listed in the comparison, but please, don't let it deter you from adding the missing ones. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I cannot suggest other evaluation criteria, since by doing so I would be introducing a comparison that is just as non-neutral as the one that's already there. You stated on the talk page, There are no published articles in ACM or IEEE or any other place!, which is by itself a good reason why there should not be an article about this on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is the original publisher of such a synthesis, that would violate its policy, WP:SYN. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you suggest other evaluation criterias? Can you find the type of information stated there about other desktop search software? I targeted technical aspects there. Did you prefere a table with a single row with "searches text"... now that wouldn't be very helpfull would it. There is still a lot to be done, for example, which file types and application data each crawler indexes... But I can't do that all by myself. The only thing here that is POV are the tools listed in the comparison, but please, don't let it deter you from adding the missing ones. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- As suggested by Gwernol on the talk page, I'll quote myself: "I support leaving this article here to be further improved and worked upon. Something like this will definitely come in handy once it gets a bit more elaborate and has a larger overview with perhaps closed sourced applications added as well." Perhaps give the article some time to be corrected and for sources to be "verified". From the look of his e-mails, seems like author is interested in improvement. I'm not a Wikipedia-smart person, so maybe there's a week/two week period before deleting articles anyway. Andrz (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC).
-
- There is a one week period while this discussion will continue. If proper published, independent sources can be located to support the article, then it will be kept. Remember the sources need to show not just that these particular products exist, but also contain these specific comparisons. Thanks, Gwernol 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Please give me one or two examples of such sources. The information stated in each table was provided by the developers or their site and mailing list. The only two sources I could find with comparisons about these products are not considered valid to you. I reiterate that there aren't any wikipedia-style-reliable-sources... at least I couldn't find any, but if somebody does, please tell me. BTW, please take a look at Google Desktop, where are the "reliable" 3rd party sources there? Take a look at Microsoft Word as well, there are several "citation needed" and the references there are to microsoft itself or seem to be plain offtopic.... O_O Can't the article exist while being tagged as unsorced? Because there are others like that. IMO deleting this one would be unfair. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- An example of such a source would be if a reliable, independent magazine - PCMagazine, or MacWorld or similar - published a comparison of desktop publishing software. They would have done the work of choosing which products to compare, which attribute to compare them by and how to rank them. The problem with the current article is you have made the choice on which attributes to compare and which products to include. Wikipedia only reports the results of previously published work, so unless there is such a source we don't publish. The Microsoft Word article has two published books to support it, so while it may not be perfect (as you say it has citation needed tags) it at least has some basis for inclusion. The Google Desktop article does need improvement, but there is no doubt that reliable sources exist - I can think of a number of published reviews of it. I appreciate that this is demoralizing when your first effort is rejected. Please don't take this personally, this is not a reflection on you or your work. Its just unfortunate that you choose to create an article that falls outside the bounds of what Wikipedia is. Don't let this discourage you. A good place to start is to work on an existing article - maybe you'd like to add some of the sources that would improve Microsoft Word or Google Desktop? Once you get the hang of how things work, then you can move on to create articles of your own from sources. I certainly appreciate the effort you put into this one, and I believe you have a lot to give Wikipedia. Good luck, Gwernol 12:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The problem is that this is a gray area for wikipedia. It's too technical and non-mainstream to appear in PCMagazine or MacWorld, but it's also too non-scientific to be published in a scientific journal. Although there are possibly other sites or magazines where this could appear... they would not be considered as "independent" or "reliable". Even though the irony is present on the so-called "reliable sources" when they present the product of a powerfull company. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete Seems like OR by synthesis to me. Resolute 06:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is no original research. I assembled the facts provided by the authors or their webpages and mailing lists. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really... this is a huge demoter for contributing.... I'm assembling extremely technical information provided by the software authors, but people here want me to give them a reference of an article published in ACM or IIIE or Elsevier. Are people here really in favor or sharing information? And off course I would love to have information of every desktop search software, that would be great.... The problem is that such information isn't there and I'm not omniscient either... This type of information has to be stiched together from each tool. I believe Rome wasn't built in one day as well. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is this any different than the hundreds of other "comparison of ..." lists on wikipedia? Are they all candidates for deletion? --20after4 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- It depends entirely on if they are based on sourced comparisons or not. Which particular comparison lists were you thinking of? Gwernol 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- This article does appear to have at least a few credible sources. Perhaps the scope needs to be changed to "Comparison of open source desktop search engines" since it lacks information on commercial alternatives. I think that would be a better solution as apposed to deleting the article completely. As an example of another comparison list that has fewer listed sources: Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks however, this google search pulled a really long list of them: [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20after4 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- An example of a comparison article with invalid references (i.e. in the wikipedian sense) is Comparison_of_container_formats. Another comparison article with almost no sources whatsoever is Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients. And none of these is marked for deletion. The irony of 2nd class articles (i.e. unsourced, to be deleted, etc) is that they are usually very valuable to some people, and the reason why they are unsourced is due to the scarcity of available information... which is what wikipedia tries to provide. I think the "unsourced" badge is a eye opener for everyone that consults wikipedia. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It may not have been included before but the article now links to [6] which seems to be a very relevant source for information on this subject. --20after4 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 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 all. ---Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Raoul Courvosier II-class
The only word for this is cruft. It is so entirely in-universe that it does not even tell us which fictional universe it is set in. Suitable for a specialised Wiki about that particular universe, but not for Wikipedia, per WP:N and WP:WAF. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also including in this nomination the following similar articles:
- Indefatigable-class (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Covington-class (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Jason Alvarez-class (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Invictus-class (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Reliant-class (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Delete, reluctantly, but support creation of sourced, real-world content about fictional universes. Given that these have no sourcing at all and minimal information, writing quality content about the subject matter would be no harder starting from scratch. These are apparently from the "Honorverse", according to "What links here". Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've Rewritten it extensively to remove in-universe style/content and wikify. Citations wouldn't hurt, but they're findable. Note that this only applies to the main article - I support Deletion for the others, they're pure cruft. Eithin (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all (at all costs, for HH fans) as craftcruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge ot Spacecraft in the Honorverse 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- At least it isn't full of 'we can assume' and '(Note: At this time, the SLN should be considered 2nd class. They don't have anywhere near the firepower represented by a pod-laying ship. This could be subject to change if the SLN woke up and smelled the proverbial coffee.)' nonsense as one of them is. I was about to go for Merge to Spacecraft in the Honorverse if they aren't already covered there. But I did a web search on Raoul Courvosier II and lo and behold, it's already covered in Wikipedia in Grayson Space Navy as are the Covington and Jason Alvarez classes, so by all means, Delete all. Indefatitable is in the Spacecraft in the Honorverse article, and Invictus and Reliant in the Royal Manticoran Navy article. There's no excuse for these separate articles.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:52, 10 March 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 all per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Objection to the consideration of a question
- Objection to the consideration of a question (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am also nominating the following articles because they are essentially identical in terms of the issues concerning their existence. The first group was created withing the last five weeks by the the same editor:
- Reconsider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Adjourn (motion) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Main motion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Fix the time to which to adjourn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Call for the orders of the day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Rescind, repeal, or annul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Postpone indefinitely (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Incidental main motion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The second group is older, created by other editors, but I don't believe any different, fundamentally:
- Incidental motion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Privileged motion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Subsidiary motion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Previous question (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Second (parliamentary) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Some of the articles above might be appropriate for transwiking to Wiktionary, though I have doubts about others. None of the articles has any external links or sources other than Roberts Rules of Orders; none has more than a dozen or so edits, even the several that are years old. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all. A particular type of objection in parliamentary procedure is definitely encyclopaedic. Plenty of online sources (e.g. http://www.bartleby.com/176/23.html), scholarly sources (e.g. those at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Objection+to+the+consideration+of+a+question%22), and book sources (e.g. those at http://books.google.com/books?tab=sp&sa=N&q=%22Objection+to+the+consideration+of+a+question%22). --Oldak Quill 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Some added comments regarding this type of article. Elements of parliamentary procedure deserve articles as any other technical concepts/mechanisms do. These topics are not limited to dictionary definitions and have scope for: history, variations, examples in-the-world, variables, significance, &c. --Oldak Quill 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all. (ec with John Broughton) Although RONR is the primary (and only) source in some of the parliamentary procedure motions pages, that is more due to my own unfamiliarity with the other parliamentary authorities than any issue related to the subjects themselves. I'm sure those other manuals have their own take on it. Presumably, you are planning on nominating some other parley-pro articles for deletion as well, but in one sense the case for keeping this one may be even stronger than the others because it does cite The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. I would say that all parliamentary procedure motions are inherently notable. A merge of some of the minor ones into a larger article (e.g. the created and as-yet-uncreated requests and inquiries; which are parliamentary inquiry, point of information, request for permission to withdraw or modify a motion, request to read papers, request for any other privilege) might be appropriate. But this one should probably have its own article. I have created stubs on many of the items at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure#Motions but they have plenty of room to grow; give 'em a chance. I was going to object to the consideration of this question, but debate had already begun. :) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all; no objection to similar items being merged, but this is valid content that should stay. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all; as per Morven, above with similar items being merged.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all - nomination apparently from (sincere, but obvious) ignorance - David Gerard (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all although it may just be better to have a list of some of the more obscure ones. Is there a list of motions someplace? --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- See List of motions. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- There also is a main article at Motion (democracy) that both Obuibo and I seem to have worked on at various times. In looking at that article and at some of the new articles that Obuibo has created, I think some work needs to be done on the original article to eliminate the duplication that has resulted. I will try to get to that tomorrow. The whole sections on Main motions and Motions that bring a question again before the assembly can probably be moved to the newer articles on those subjects. As I say in my "vote" below, there may be some merging to be done here; for example, I have looked at the article on incidental main motions, and see no reason why that should not be merged into the main motion article. The reasons for the distinction are pretty trivial anyway and, ironically, relate to the first article on this list (Objection to the consideration of a question -- I see that the distinction is discussed in that article, and I am the one who added that in a few weeks ago.) Neutron (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- See List of motions. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all. Admittedly, I have personal involvement here, as I created two of the articles in the last group of five nominated above, and expanded two of the others, and also did some work on the Objection etc. article. I had not seen most of the ones in the middle group (starting with Reconsider.) I also am the one who added material to some of the articles from The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, and I also re-created that article, which had been a deleted stub. As for some of the recently created articles that I did not create, I have not looked at all of them. An argument might be made that some of them could be merged back into the article on the "types" of motions they belong to, such as subsidiary, privileged or incidental, but I think that must be dealt with on a case by case basis. For example, I am not sure why we need an article on "Main motion" when that was adequately dealt with in the "Motion" article... but perhaps I should read the "Main motion" article before commenting! The point is, perhaps some "order" (pardon the pun?) must be brought to this topic, but wholesale deletion definitely is not the way. I also was recently invited to join a Wikiproject on this area, so perhaps that is a way to make things more systematic if there is a problem. Neutron (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been trying to figure out how to proceed along these lines. Some motions, such as motions relating to nominations, might simply be a redirect to an article on the general subject; in this case, perhaps, nominations in parliamentary procedure. This larger article could include a variety of subtopics, such as nominations by the chair, from the floor, by a committee, by ballot, by mail, by petition, etc. Some older versions of these parliamentary authorities have passed into the public domain, and we might be able to obtain them online and do a copy and paste to get these articles started. That might be the most expedient way to proceed. I don't think parliamentary procedure has changed a lot since 1923. In the case of RONR, that would be the Fourth Edition (1915). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all Certainly it is possible that some of these articles could be merged, but there are numerous sources for parliamentary procedure that could be cited and compared, plus specific notable organizations (like, say, the U.S. Senate) which have variations on the rules (for example, closing debate in standard Robert's Rules takes a two-thirds vote, whereas the U.S. Senate, relatively recently, lowered this to three-fifths, and the so-called "nuclear option" was effectively a reduction to fifty percent, through the device of a ruling by the presiding officer which -- no matter how much it ignores precedent and rules -- is then confirmed by a majority. It's clear to me that sufficient detail can be found to justify all the independent articles, but it will take time. Before that, merge and redirect is an ordinary editorial decision, and, in my opinion, AfD is used far too often to avoid simply editing.--Abd (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all. Per above, the topics are certainly notable, discussed in many reliable sources. Should be no problem having more than mere dictionary definition content. Structurally, it might be better to merge somehow, but an AfD is a bad way to decide on the structure of this, it's too complicated. Mangojuicetalk 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep all per above. Our coverage of parliamentary law and procedure at the moment is extremely weak and these articles are an essential step toward strengthening it. Last week, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, I noted that we had voted on an overly complicated motion and in retrospect I should have insisted on a division of the question. I was stunned when this came up as a redlink. Discussion of the various types of main, subsidiary, privileged, incidental, and restorative motions as defined in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, Deschler, Sturgis, Keesey, and other parliamentary authorities in the United States as well as their counterparts in other parts of the world and their more august counterparts in legislative bodies and corporate settings is a legitimate, significant, and encyclopedic topic, even though procedural formalism in informal club settings is generally on the decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for that comment, Brad. It touches on many of the issues that confront those of us who have been trying to expand Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area. Division of the Question is a good example: Does it get its own article? Does it get an article together with Consideration by Paragraph? If so, what is the title? These two motions don't really "fit in" anywhere else. My instinct would be to suggest that each of them gets its own, very small article, but then of course it becomes vulnerable to those who look for small articles to delete. Then as I keep looking down the list of incidental motions, I see three in a row that deal with voting methods, and that is somewhat easier: We can have an article on Motions regarding voting methods, or something like that. As for your points about legislative bodies and parliamentary authorities outside the U.S., that raises a problem. Most of these articles on parliamentary procedure read as if parliamentary procedure pertains solely to non-legislative bodies in the U.S. There is, of course, a reason for that. I and a few others know about Robert's Rules, and I seem (for the moment) to be the authority on Sturgis. But I know very little about how the rules of Congress differ, to say nothing of the rules of the 50 state legislatures, and I know absolutely nothing about either legislative or non-legislative rules in any other countries. The Motion (democracy) article does have a bit of material that goes outside the bounds of Robert's/Sturgis, but I don't think any of the articles do. So where do we go from here? I think we need to move this discussion somewhere else, and the new WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure started by Obiubo seems as good a place as any. For now I think we are going to have to stick with the available resources, and build a good set of articles on Robert's/Sturgis, and hope that those knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure in Canada, U.K., Australia and elsewhere will decide to join in. That will raise other issues about one article vs. multiple article for each motion that different countries have in common, article names, etc. But those will be good problems to have. Neutron (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all There is an enormous amount of published material available on every motion in RRO. All are clearly notable, although I agree that all need substantial expansion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 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 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lee Daniel Owen
Non-notable musician. Was going to SD for failure to assert importance, but thought I'd let the community decide. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Zero Google hits (or news.google hits). Since it's a current subject (b. 1988), Google should reflect significance. --Oldak Quill 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no relevant Google results other than his band's Myspace page. --Snigbrook (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:01, 9 March 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 ---Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dolebludger
Wikipedia is WP:NOT a slang dictionary. No real sources (exactly none of the listed references and external links mention the word). Another in the series of BS articles to sneak some dude's name on Wikipedia using various hoaxes[7]. Weregerbil (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this is really no more than a dictionary definition. Wiktionary has already got it (as a two-word phrase, which is how it is generally used). JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- delete, not much more than a neologism. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. We are not Urban Dictionary. OR, cruft, non-notable phrase.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete dicdef. JuJube (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Jobseeker's Allowance or similar. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this is a dictionary definition, and isn't even correct as this is a two word phrase. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Jobseeker's Allowance or similar. Twenty Years 05:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge, it's a real term, but still a dicdef. Suggest merging to
Jobseeker's AllowanceNewstart#Newstart_Allowance as above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC). - Comment there's no such thing as 'jobseeker's allowance' in Australia: it's called Newstart, and forms part of the Social Security (Australia) article at present. I'm not sure what's worth keeping here - prejudice against job seekers deserves better coverage than just the name which is most commonly used to abuse them. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- But dolebludgers aren't actually seeking work. Many countries have this developing class of idlers - Sweden, UK, etc - and there's a need for a good article on it. General articles such as Laziness and Unemployment might be the best destination. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Nick. Once again, even the phenomenon of shirking employment needs a better article, with reliable sources and a broad geographic outlook, rather than this one which is little more than a definition of a pejorative term. Using this title and content for an article on this subject would not be consistent with WP:NPOV. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: a merge to Newstart is not acceptable either as it links a pejorative term to an article, similar to the whole Miserable failure thing. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It turns out that Wikipedia is actually a slang dictionary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude. I am proposing a change to WP:DICT so that we don't waste time. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Wiktionary is the place for this (and Dude IMO). —Moondyne click! 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, don't merge, it's unnecessary. -- Roleplayer (talk) 13:52, 12 March 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 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Running List of Euphemisms for Penis in Email Spam
- Running List of Euphemisms for Penis in Email Spam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is clearly a joke article; the email bit is a good cover but all it is is an excuse to list out a somewhat incomplete list of the many, many names given to the penis. The attempt to use the email spam angle might have been more convincing if there had been any attempt to provide references etc. Ros0709 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Frag. Really, 'nuff said. Indiscriminate, not fit for an encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Schlong. It's nice to have a formal process to discuss issues such as this. Weregerbil (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete particularly since it has a spam link attached for penis enhancement pills. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Compiling a reference for this type of thing could provide a useful resource for anyone interested in studying the origin and use of various slang terms. Seems like the potential educational use might warrant its existence. I mean, if there's a page about "films by gory death scene" then why not this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.36.7.27 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) — 18.36.7.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- Also, the "spam link for penis enhancement pills" at the bottom is actually a link to a blog entry discussing these pills, not advertising them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.36.7.27 (talk • contribs)
- And not only that, but "article Y" has an article and this is more notable than that" isn't a good reason to keep something Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No... just... no. There is no way at all to keep this reliably updated or referenced, and as said before, this is not encyclopedic content and a magnet for spam. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and Hersfold. It would be a magnet for vandals, too. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Circumcise. There's just no way that this is WP:V-able. Besides, I thought spam had completely turned to obfuscations like p3n!s by now. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a thesaurus for slang. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic, filled with original research. Looks like it could be a spam magnet Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- delete- there can't be much of this in WP:RS, surely? The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This deserves the Bobbitt treatment - Delete - Unverifiable, unsourced original research. —Travistalk 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, then, quite clearly, delete per WP:SNOW.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Chop it off per nom. JuJube (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because it fails WP:NOT#IINFO and, more importantly, WP:V. The majority of entries are unsourced. If someone wants the content for another site, or wants to userfy it, then provide them with the content. *** Crotalus *** 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Kind of stupid to be honest, who would really search Wikipedia for this kind of thing. Oh and before anyone asks, I added to the article because it's something I remember off Casino Royale. Jammy (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This article needs to be E-X-P-A-N-D-E-D (ho ho, I'm kidding, Delete). --Canley (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- BJODN it. No? Can't do that anymore? Darn. Delete. Resolute 06:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blow it off and if it gets kept, the title should be standardized to List of euphemisms for penis in email spam. (And what happened to BJODN?) Matchups (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- BJODN sadly got deleted itself (it does exist here, but its not the same. BJODN was transwikied to a new wiki that's here Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a big tip cut it loose. (delete) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:NOT#IINFO. KnightLago (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, there are no sources, and per this previous AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 10 March 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 per ArbCom temporary injunction on merging/deleting/anything articles related to TV series characters. Once that has been lifted, feel free to bring it to AfD again if you wish. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew
- List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of extremely minor characters from the Tokyo Mew Mew series. Most of those listed appear in only a single episode of the 52 episode anime series. This list is pretty much WP:PLOT and fancruft. Collectonian (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable and potentially useful/of interest to readers. Merging characters into one article is one thing, wanting to wipe Wikipedia clean of any mention of characters is another. --Oldak Quill 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Let this page stay! Before the currently-developing Mew Mew Wiki, those that are not that minor were placed there. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Why? "I like it" is not a valid keep reason. They are not notable. If there is a Mew Mew Wiki, transwiki it there where it belongs. Collectonian (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Objecting to these being in their own articles is one thing, but I think the list can stay. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Why? We do not provide coverage for every last character to make a few second appearance in a series. They are not notable. Collectonian (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per ArbCom. JuJube (talk) 22:12, 8 March 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) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Shu Han (disambiguation)
Contested prod with no particular reason arguing for keeping the article. Prod reason was: "Unnecessary disambiguation because none of the three entries contain the exact string "Shu Han" and it is unlikely and unreasonable that anyone will use "Shu Han" to look for Han Dynasty, Cheng Han, Former Shu, etc." _dk (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This appears to be a dab page for things named Shu or Han, both of which have dab pages of their own. Unless there is another use of "Shu Han" (and there doesn't appear to be), this is is a rather pointless form of disambiguation. PC78 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is basically an intersection of Han (disambiguation) and Shu, both of which serve far more useful purposes. Delete per nom & prod. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and prod. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, prod, PC78, Hersfold, etc. Cloudz679 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteA bit pointless and not very informative. Jammy (talk) 23:19, 8 March 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Whelan Bowl Solution
No notability - for a 'now popular idea', I can't find any other references to it, and it appears to be verging on WP:NOR. However, I'm no expert on NCAA football in any division, so will leave the decision up to other more informed minds :-) CultureDrone (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The ill-formed title doesn't really give much of a clue as to what the article is about; it's about the NCAA Division I-A national football championship. Another related article is Bowl Championship Series. This is about US college (gridiron) football. At any rate, if Mr. Whelan's proposal is noteworthy, it might be discussed on one of those pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. Also note WP:SPA/WP:COI/promotional concerns as creator is Jdub943 (talk · contribs), suggesting creation by Justin Whelan himself. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 8 March 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 a subsequent recreation as a redirect to Half-Life (series). seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hazardous Environment Combat Unit
We've been through this before... no assertion of notability, no tertiary/secondary sources or out of universe info on conception or reception... I had previously merged this after contested prod, but a user reverted my change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment which article did you merge it to? --Pixelface (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm guessing to Gordon Freeman which has a "HEV Suit" section (which I suggest merging any new material (doesn't look like there is) into. --MASEM 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- This article is about a special forces unit that appears in four games, rather than the suit that Gordon Freeman wears. --Pixelface (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that David Fuchs redirected this article to Half-Life (series) after the prod was removed[8] and no content was merged anywhere. --Pixelface (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was a {{mergefrom}} tag on Half-Life (series)[9] and David Fuchs removed the {{mergefrom}} tag on March 1 saying "merge complete"[10] but I see no merged content in the Half-Life (series) article. On Talk:Half-Life (series)#Races merge, I see a link to Talk:Half-Life (series)/merge which has some information, but no information on the Hazardous Environment Combat Unit (except a mention in the Black Ops section). I don't think a merge is necessarily a bad idea, it just doesn't look like it's happened yet. --Pixelface (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I should clarify; I wanted to delete all of the races, but someone suggested that they go into the Half life series article. Since there was too much cruft in each and no one responded on the merge request, I shunted all the info into Talk:Half-Life (series)/merge so whoever could edit and transfer what they saw fit to the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm guessing to Gordon Freeman which has a "HEV Suit" section (which I suggest merging any new material (doesn't look like there is) into. --MASEM 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, notable enemy that appears in four notable videogames. All of those videogames have been reviewed so I'm sure information on conception and reception can be found. As a sidenote, if the content of the article was merged like the nominator says (it wasn't), the article should not be deleted but should remain as a redirect so the edit history gives proper attribution per the GFDL to everyone who contributed to the text. --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mere game cruft; not notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at WP:ITSCRUFT. --Pixelface (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment', I've added reception info to the article, citing GameSpot and IGN. More can be found at Game Rankings (HL, HL:OF) and Metacritic(HL). --Pixelface (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete still no significant coverage; mentions only in game reviews. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment While the sources Pixelface added do address notability... I'm not sure if they go to the best lengths to do so. They seem to be more about the game's AI engine then the fictional aspects of the soldiers themselves. If this article is kept, it needs major cleanup: the list of weapons at the end is not appropriate. --MASEM 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The artificial intelligence of these characters is notable. And the resemblance of the weapons used by the characters to actual weapons is information that can be verified. --Pixelface (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The AI being notable points more to the notability of the game engine and the AI it used than to anything specific about the characters. However, this is a caution; I'm not sure if this fails either way yet, it would be better to get something more specific to the characters. As for weapons, it is general practice for video game articles is that weapon lists from video games is considered indiscriminate info even if they can be verified against real world weapons; only if the weapon itself stands out from reviews or development info should it be included . It can be stated that the weapons carried by the HECU are similar to real-world firearms, but there's no point in listing them out. That the weapon list is currently included is not affecting the article's notability issues, but it is part of a cleanup that I think would make the overall article better. --MASEM 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The artificial intelligence of these characters is notable. And the resemblance of the weapons used by the characters to actual weapons is information that can be verified. --Pixelface (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete By the time "HECU weapons and equipment" is cut away (rightfully), we're left with details which belong in individual game articles and original research. The reception info is about gameplay on the whole, a few scraps relating to the marines' AI doesn't necessitate or sustain an article. Fails WP:N due to not being the subject of multiple in-depth sources. Had a quick look for sources but nothing promising turned up. Someoneanother 03:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, then redirect article name to Half-Life series: unless someone can provide evidence of significant notability to this AFD discussion, the article should be deleted. The subject may well have a couple of sentences in reviews here and there, but this does not extend past AI behaviour, which is better contained as reception in the main game articles - especially considering the Opposing Force article is devoid of any of this information anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Just a quick note, the subject has not actually appeared in four video games. Its appeared in one video game and its three expansion packs. That's a bit different than being spread over separate sequels. -- Sabre (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - or more of a request - append content to Talk:Half-Life (series)/merge and I'll look at generating a compact & referenced article for all Half-Life creatures, as it would probably be a better approach.Gazimoff (talk) 16:15, 14 March 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 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Beyond Dominia
Entirely speculative article about a possible future film production. No evidence supplied and no assertion of notability. Ros0709 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFF. Possibly even a hoax, as I can't find any sources for this project. PC78 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete db-empty. JuJube (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:12, 9 March 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 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Preying Ground
Article for film with for which there is no evidence is even in production; no 3rd party refs; fails Wikipedia:Notability_(films) Ros0709 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
- Delete. No independent sources (not verifiable). IMDb hasn't heard of this film, news.google has no results, and of 18 Google results, only one is related to this film (the production company website, which is linked-to by the article). --Oldak Quill 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFF. The source even states that the film is in pre-production. PC78 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for now, not enough verifiability at this point, and WP:CRYSTAL.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- House of Scandal (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:45, 9 March 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tokyo Mew Mew Spinoffs
Two are not spin-offs, only individual chapters from the manga series, two are video games, one is a sequel. All are already covered by Tokyo Mew Mew and do not need a separate NPOV, unsourced listing. Collectonian (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Move to Tokyo Mew Mew series. --Oldak Quill 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- They are already covered in Tokyo Mew Mew and they are not series. Only one is a "sequel" and its a two volume manga sequel to the original manga. Collectonian (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since "series" in the name suggested is not capitalised, that title isn't a proper noun and doesn't suggest there is an officially-dubbed Series. There's precedent for grouping related media (movies, books) together under "X series" when there is common derivation, but no official grouping-term. See the lists at book series, movie series and video game series for examples (as a quick example: Foundation series is about some of Isaac Asimov's work that are related in a similar way.)--Oldak Quill 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- That does not apply to anime/manga articles. Per our MOS, unless they are vastly different (which these are not), we cover the original manga series and discuss its anime adaptation and video games in the same article. Theses are not a series. It is a single series, Tokyo Mew Mew, from which an anime adaptation was created and a short, two volume "sequel". Collectonian (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since "series" in the name suggested is not capitalised, that title isn't a proper noun and doesn't suggest there is an officially-dubbed Series. There's precedent for grouping related media (movies, books) together under "X series" when there is common derivation, but no official grouping-term. See the lists at book series, movie series and video game series for examples (as a quick example: Foundation series is about some of Isaac Asimov's work that are related in a similar way.)--Oldak Quill 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- They are already covered in Tokyo Mew Mew and they are not series. Only one is a "sequel" and its a two volume manga sequel to the original manga. Collectonian (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as everything in it is already covered in the main article. Comparing this series to the Foundation series is a bit of a stretch, I think. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Nihonjoe. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:56, 8 March 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. John254 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Knob Creek (bourbon)
advertisement 842U (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The article wasn't particularly adverty in the first place, but it had a few weasel statements and unreferenced quality-related comments. I tried cleaning it up a little and most of the content was OK. It needs references though, and a more thorough clean-up. --Oldak Quill 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, just needs cleanup. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, well-known high end liquor brand by major distillery. Needs some independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I've heard of it, and I'd presume it's notable, but really needs third-party sources. A merge wouldn't do any harm either.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:51, 8 March 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 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yee! (phrase)
Neologism WP:NEO and self promotion. Prod tag removed by author. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom - though last section of article almost seems to be edging towards a disambiguation page CultureDrone (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, borderline WP:BOLLOCKS. WP:NAD is just the beginning of this article's problems - it also totally fails WP:V. Add to WP:DAFT.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Interesting that I was able to use WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:NAD next to one another...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- WP:NADS? --Closedmouth (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- speedy or strong delete -Uses Urban Dictionary as a source lol:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yee haw! JuJube (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for all the reasons above, also because it contains the phrase "according to urban dictionary". *slaps forehead* --Closedmouth (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO, WP:DICDEF and WP:BOLLOCKS, uses Urban Dictionary (a dictionary for neologisms and slang terms) as it's only source. Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 15:40, 9 March 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 Clear WP:BLP speedy. Three reasons: 1) WP:BLP "one event" - this is about an event not a person. There is no bio here outside of the event. 2) That the event relates to the subject in question is only "claimed" - he may be a wholey innocent victim, being associated with a fairly horrid action. 3) This is a recreation. Any recreation of a BLP deletion needs a consensus that it is justified before recreation. We don't discuss it whilst having the article. If people are keen on this, I suggest they try to write a sourced NPOV article on the event, but not a biography on a (perhaps innocent) otherwise nonentity.--Docg 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- For context: here's a rule that I would have speedied on if I'd thought about it. While I don't think the article met anything in WP:CSD, I think it was clearly speedy-able under the ArbComm ruling, and if I'd had my wits about me I'd have done it myself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Motari David
BLP minefield of individual notable for only one event (and possibly not even that). The article seems to exist here because David Motari has been salted after repeated re-creations; however, I don't see any basis on which to speedy this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This man is referenced, by name and picture, in several newspapers of record including The Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Australian, &c (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=David+Motari&btnG=Search+News). By having an article on him, we are not making available information that was not already public. Since there is no evidence that the mob are correct, we should frame the article with that in mind (strong referencing to very legitimate sources, make clear where allegations and contestable statements are from (e.g. "According to The Times...")). --Oldak Quill 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- WP:ONEEVENT focusses on having articles on subjects in newspaper articles about wider events, or articles relating to events where those events already have articles. The event that this man is famous for doesn't have a separate article (presumably David Motari will serve as an article for the event and the person). Since this event has been reported in newspapers of record across the world, and has been responded to by the Marines, it is significant and should have an article. --Oldak Quill 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Creations of this article were temporarily protected for BLP concerns after the earliest articles established presented clear WP:BLP violation, and I can't help but wonder if the creation of an article in this space instead is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the protection policy. Anyone attempting to establish a page at David Motari on the date this article was created would have encountered the following notice: "WARNING: This page has been locked so that only some users can create it. If you are an administrator, it may be fully protected; please ensure that you are following the protection policy." However, there is a possibility that the creator was unaware and simply is unfamiliar with MOS guidelines on article naming. If lasting notability ensues from the publication of this video, it may gain sufficient notability to overcome WP:NEWS. Even if it does, however, an article on the event should not be named for the person per WP:ONEEVENT. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Moonriddengirl. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 8 March 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 List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers --JForget 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of UEFA Champions League winning managers
- List of UEFA Champions League winning managers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is already another list on this subject; List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers, which is at FLC, so this article should be deleted as it no longer serves any purpose. NapHit (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ARTYOM 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The information is already on another page List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers Brokenspirits (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to the main article. The title can still serve some useful purpose. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Jammy (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect - not only is it a very plausible search term, but then we can avoid duplicate recreation in the future. matt91486 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect per Matt. ---CWY2190TC 04:46, 9 March 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. I can't see any consensus to go either way. Both sides make good, policy-based arguments, and cannot seem to come to an agreement. Thus, there is no consensus to change the status quo. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Historical persecution by Christians
- Historical persecution by Christians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Moved to Christian debate on persecution and toleration
Delete A POV fork of the "Persecution of X-religion" articles. The info presented here, i.e. persecution of other religions are present in the respective articles, or if not, should be merged. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note A similar discussion is going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and anti-Christian persecution. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it's happened, it's documented; the alleged propensity of this particular religious group to persecute parts of itself and other groups is well covered by multiple works dealing with the subject; the article could and should be much improved, but that's an editing question. I'd suggest reworking it in a more general way, and perhaps dividing it. DGG (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: You missed my logic. No one saying it did not happen, it happened, it true fact. But this article is POV fork. The information of persecution of the other religions are documented in "Persecution of X-religion" articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: In this way numerous such articles can be created Persecution by X-religion. This Persecution by X-religion articles are clear content forking. The information should be in Persecution of X-religion articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- If we have articles about persecution of members of organisations, why can't we have articles about persecution by an organisation or group? Why the bias toward the persecuted? If we are going to have articles based on "persecution", the most NPOV approach seems to me to be equal treatment of the persecutor and the persecuted. --Oldak Quill 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your logic that if persecution of articles are present, then why not persecution by. But the article is documenting exactly similar information which are present in persecution of articles which is content forking. Wikipedia defines content forking as A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. There is no need to have numerous articles on same subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is not content forking if information is being aggregated from several articles into a more-specifically focussed summary article. At first, particular sections might be similar to, or the same as, sections in other articles, but they will diverge as the article grows into itself. --Oldak Quill 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your logic that if persecution of articles are present, then why not persecution by. But the article is documenting exactly similar information which are present in persecution of articles which is content forking. Wikipedia defines content forking as A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. There is no need to have numerous articles on same subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- If we have articles about persecution of members of organisations, why can't we have articles about persecution by an organisation or group? Why the bias toward the persecuted? If we are going to have articles based on "persecution", the most NPOV approach seems to me to be equal treatment of the persecutor and the persecuted. --Oldak Quill 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This article couldn't be NPOV if it were written about current/modern persecution, since there is no cohesive group called "Christians". An article Historical persecution by Roman Catholicism would be valid, for example, since Roman Catholicism is a cohesive and centralised organisation. Since this article only deals with pre-modern persecutions during times when Christianity was integrated into the state and was cohesive within populations. The article deals with problems about the cohesiveness of the term "Christian". It focuses on pre-12th century history (i.e. mostly before the Great Schism) when Christianity was a cohesive organisation/movement. Persecution during the Christianisation of Rome, the Christianisation of post-Roman European states, and the Crusades can be said to be "persecution by Christian[ity]". The article describes the fractionation of Christianity into denominations and persecution that resulted from this. --Oldak Quill 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article is documenting exactly similar information which are present in persecution of articles which is content forking. Wikipedia defines content forking as A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. There is no need to have numerous articles on same subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- But "persecution by" is not the same as "persecution of". Different groups will have persecuted a particular people. Information on persecution by a particular group will be dispersed through a number of "persecution of" articles. Any population which has no significant history of persecution with one exception is less likely to have a "persecution of" article. If the persecutor has a history of persecution, this event will be detailed along with others in "persecution by". Since there is a different emphasis, these articles will contain different contents. EDIT: To clarify with an example: persecution by the Nazis may be covered in Persecution of Jewish people, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. Persecution of homosexuals, Persecution of Romani people, &c. This is all-very-well-and-good for those looking for information about persecution of each of those groups, but what about those trying to find out about Persecution by Nazism? Do you expect them to find and look at each of the "persecution of" articles? --Oldak Quill 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes you are right that persecution by is not the same as persecution of. But take the logic here. For example, the persecution of X have been carried out by Y and Z. Similarly persecution of Y have been carried out by X and Z. And persecution of Z have been carried out by X and Y. Now when you create an article titled Persecution of X, it includes information on persecution by Y and Z. The same is applied to Persecution of Y and Persecution of Z. So when you create articles titled Persecution by X, Persecution by Y and Persecution by Z, then these articles become creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject which is called POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- But "persecution by" is not the same as "persecution of". Different groups will have persecuted a particular people. Information on persecution by a particular group will be dispersed through a number of "persecution of" articles. Any population which has no significant history of persecution with one exception is less likely to have a "persecution of" article. If the persecutor has a history of persecution, this event will be detailed along with others in "persecution by". Since there is a different emphasis, these articles will contain different contents. EDIT: To clarify with an example: persecution by the Nazis may be covered in Persecution of Jewish people, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. Persecution of homosexuals, Persecution of Romani people, &c. This is all-very-well-and-good for those looking for information about persecution of each of those groups, but what about those trying to find out about Persecution by Nazism? Do you expect them to find and look at each of the "persecution of" articles? --Oldak Quill 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Well documented and very interesting. Could stand some expansion in spots but a useful contribution.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL are not reason for keeping an article. You missed the logic why this article need to deleted. This article is WP:CFORK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If you are of the opinion that is article is content forking of certain "persecution of" articles, please give a link to the article and a short description of the issue. I don't think that it is an acceptable argument for deletion that an article could be content forking. But to deal with this topic in articles with names "persecution of XY" / "persecution by XY" is not a good idea anyway. Nevertheless, since people are interested in the topic (and its definitely relevant) there need to be articles on it. If this article in its current state would be deleted, this would probably be easier. I could just recreate an article Christian debate on persecution and toleration and I would not have to clean up the reaming issues with this one. However, since I have already cleaned up several of the issued with this article, giving me, among other, a pointless controversy at the article Separation of Church and State in the United States, I would have wasted a lot of time if the article is deleted. In general, I don't consider full deletions a way to solve NPOV-issues. If you disagree with an article you will have to go through it sentence by sentence most of the time. Zara1709 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment *See Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Execution_of_Hindus_in_India. And see Persecution_of_Hindus#During_European_rule_of_the_Indian_subcontinent.
- See Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Drowning_of_Protestants_in_Ireland and see Anti-Protestantism#Anti-Protestantism_in_Ireland. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - in the same way we deleted articles 'Historical persecution by Jews/Muslims' on the basis of original research. If we want to discuss time-specific incidences of persecution (i.e. by the Roman Empire for example), then we can do it in the specific article. Presenting the issue as a "timeline of persecution" as if the separate incidences throughout the ages are actually linked is inherently original research. Unless of course this interlinking has specifically been verified by multple reliable sources, which I doubt. The link between the persecution under Theodosius (379), the events of the Spanish Inquisition (~1500), and the sectarian history in Ireland (~1600-) is far too weak to be presenting them all as related in one article. ITAQALLAH 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- How is that original research? When you compile a year article, you compile information from different sources to create a single-subject article (as with all history articles). If there is a scholarly consensus that X was a persecution by Christians, then that event should be included. If there is enough information to warrant articles, Historical persecution by Jews and Historical persecution by Muslims should be recreated. Also, if Persecution by Christians constitutes original research, so does Persecution of Christians. --Oldak Quill 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- You may wish to familiarise yourself with those respective AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination); which were rightly deleted on the basis of unsalvageable original research. It's original research because no academic sources actually link these unrelated events - thus it's an inappropriate synthesis of material, implying sequence or links where there simply are none. ITAQALLAH 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- AFDs on similar topics are not binding for related topics. If there is an academic consensus that event X was a persecution carried out by Christians and separately that event Y was a persecution carried out by Christians, they are connected as being defined as persecutions carried out by Christians. It doesn't really matter that they haven't been listed together or collated and it is not original research to collate them. --Oldak Quill 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- You see, it's you who is asserting the link, not the source. This is where the original research comes in, and implies they are linked despite no source verifying it. Surely you can appreciate the misleading impression given when you implicitly link together unrelated events - it gives an impression of sequential, continuous, inter-related, successive events - even though no source at all has verified this. That's what makes it original research. From WP:OR:
- AFDs on similar topics are not binding for related topics. If there is an academic consensus that event X was a persecution carried out by Christians and separately that event Y was a persecution carried out by Christians, they are connected as being defined as persecutions carried out by Christians. It doesn't really matter that they haven't been listed together or collated and it is not original research to collate them. --Oldak Quill 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- You may wish to familiarise yourself with those respective AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination); which were rightly deleted on the basis of unsalvageable original research. It's original research because no academic sources actually link these unrelated events - thus it's an inappropriate synthesis of material, implying sequence or links where there simply are none. ITAQALLAH 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
-
If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
-
- The topic of the article is "Historical persecution by Christians", yet none of the sources to my knowledge are discussing in this precise context. They are talking within their own time-specific contexts such as the Reconquista or sectarian Irish tensions. None of the sources are talking about historical persecution by Christians in which they review Christians persecuting throughout history. Hence, to present unrelated incidences from different sources as somehow related is original research, as no such verification or assertion of a link exists in the sources cited. If sources exist which discuss in this specific context, then it's a different matter altogether. ITAQALLAH 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- All article-writing involves some level of creativity that can't be considered "original research". In year articles, when unrelated events in a year are listed, the article asserts the link, without a source necessarily listing those events together. They are all linked by the fact that they occurred in a particular year. This is the same as describing a series of events in an article which are linked by the fact that there is academic consensus defining these events as persecution carried out by Christians. That kind of collative creation isn't original research and is necessary to compiling articles from multiple sources (deciding what is important and how to present the information). Furthermore, an article about "persecution by Christians" isn't connecting a series of unrelated events to further an opinion. The article details events that are acknowledged as being persecution carried out by Christians. To state that Christianity has persecuted (with appropriate examples, sourcing and attribution) is just stating that fact, not pushing a POV. It makes no assertion about Christianity being persecutive and it isn't claiming consistent and systematic persecution.
-
-
- How is that original research? When you compile a year article, you compile information from different sources to create a single-subject article (as with all history articles). If there is a scholarly consensus that X was a persecution by Christians, then that event should be included. If there is enough information to warrant articles, Historical persecution by Jews and Historical persecution by Muslims should be recreated. Also, if Persecution by Christians constitutes original research, so does Persecution of Christians. --Oldak Quill 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- When this discussion began, I took the claim that there were no independent sources describing these events together at face value. There are many sources which detail persecution by Christians:
- Book entitled Christendom and Its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution, and Rebellion, 1000-1500
- Book entitled History of Christianity in the World: From Persecution to Uncertainty
- Book entitled Living Together, Living Apart: Rethinking Jewish-Christian Relations in the Middle Ages
- Journal article entitled Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century
- These show that there are independent, usable sources to link persecution-events by Christianity. --Oldak Quill 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm probably not inclined to repeat my argument about original research again as it's all available above. The basic rule is: don't assert links not asserted by the sources themselves; represent sources in their exact context. If you want to write an article about "Historical persecution by Christians" - find some publications doing just that and relay what they say. What shouldn't be done is collating unrelated time-specific incidents from separate sources and then weaving it into one narrative. Wikipedia isn't about creative writing or original articles, it's about dry, clinical presentation of material already related by reliable sources - in it's original context.
- Thanks for the links, Oldak. Upon first glance I would opine that these books seem to cover time/geographically restricted incidences, so I would still say there is little basis for providing a "timeline of persecution" committed by Christians. ITAQALLAH 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- When this discussion began, I took the claim that there were no independent sources describing these events together at face value. There are many sources which detail persecution by Christians:
-
-
-
==Withdrawing nomination== Since most of the people are opposing deletion and believe this article interesting, I am withdrawing my nomination. The reason behind my nomination was this article if POV fork. But to maintain neutrality, persecution by other religion articles also need to be created. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am renomnating this article since there are diverse opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- Delete all "Persecution by" articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, the accepted organisation is: incidentX of persecution of Y by Z in region A is placed as X, in "by Z" subsection of geographical section A of the "persecution of Y" article. Mixing that up creates duplicate articles and POV-forks. Relata refero (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- How are "Persecution by" articles any more POV than "Persecution of"? Also, unless population X has only persecuted population Y and population Y has never been persecuted by anyone else, the "Persecution of" article would be a duplicate of "Persecution by". In that case, there should only be one article. How common do you think this setup is? Most populations that have been persecuted have been persecuted by more than one group, and those who have persecuted have done so to more than one group. The two types of article have different emphasis and would have different contents. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Read what I say again. Its about the duplicated statement of each incident of persecution in two different articles. That's the definition of content forking. Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. User:Itaqallah has it exactly right. This article links unrelated events and creates the impression that they are linked, in violation of WP:SYN. This is different from e.g. "Persecution by the Nazis", as they were a cohesive, centralized group with a systematic policy of persecution. But again, it would be wrong to list every act of violence by an individual Nazi under such an article, unless it was part of the general persecution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- There are usable, independent sources which describe "persecution by Christianity" and link disparate events (see up for list). To have an article about Historical persecution by Christians isn't original research, other sources link these events. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Assuming you refer to the 4 linked items above, not, they don not link "these events". One is limited to the high and late middle ages, and I bet concentrates on Western Europe, with a single powerful church. One is a generic history of Christianity. The third again is limited in scope, and I don't see how the 1954 article on Turkey is relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- They each describe persection by Christianity. It is not original research to collate information from multiple sources in this way, and it is not creating a false timeline when there isn't one. It asserts no direct relationship between these events, simply that there have been events acknowledged as persecution carried out by Christians. It seems highly inconsistent to me to say that "Persecution by" articles are original research, and "Persecution of" articles aren't (which is the implication of allowing "Persecution of" articles and deleting "Persecution by" articles). --Oldak Quill 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per User:Itaqallah.Bless sins (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Several of the people who vote delete here are being rather ignorant. First, Wikipedia is not a democracy ([11]). You have to give more specific arguments that just "Delete all 'Persecution by' articles" - and this one point could be taken into account by renaming the article.
- Secondly: An article "Persecution by XY" does not any more link "unrelated events and creates the impression that they are linked, in violation of WP:SYN." than an article "Persecution of XY". If you claim that the article violates wp:NPOV 'and that the problem is so severe that it can't be fixed, you have to be a lot more specific.
- Thirdly: Even if an article is a POV-Fork, the solution is merging, not deleting. This also goes for Islam and anti-Christian persecution.
- There might be more points to mention here, but that is enough for now. Zara1709 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- See the AfD of "Persecution by XY" articles; also Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment There is scholarly work that discusses how a specific group has been persecuted (e.g. antisemitism). There is no definitive scholarly work that says "This is the way Christians persecute other groups." The subject is fundamentally in violation of wikipedia's OR policies. It simply leads into a laundry list of various unrelated events that are treated as one topic, even though the article is really one massive synthesized topic. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- See the AfD of "Persecution by XY" articles; also Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW Keep It's preposterous to say we cannot have an article on this, even though it's a near certainty that such an article is going to be a POV battlefield and therefore always be junk. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Nice try, though - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Eh? DG, read the damn comments first before being snide, OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete "Persecution by..." articles are by definition POV. It's inherently a point making exercise. Not what an encyclopedia is for. The word "persecution" alone is asking for trouble in an encyclopedia. --Merbabu (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What exactly is it supposed to be a "POV fork" of? The "persection of X" articles were accompanied by "Persecution by X" articles. Neither of thse concepts is any more "POV" than the other. How can it be POV to describe "persecution by" but not to describe "persecution of"? The argument that it is original research is nonsensical. Some editors here really so need to read the policy page rather than just repeat catchphrases. Persecution by Christians has occurred. There is no disputing that fact. Paul B (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Paul, if not 'inherently POV, it is nevertheless a fork of content. Unless there are works that anyone brings to the table indicating that persecution in general by Christians is a well-defined and studied concept - as opposed to specific incidents of persecutions by Christians or individual Christian movements or people that have been studied as persecutors. Otherwise, as I say above, particular incidents will necessarily be duplicated, which is the definition of content forking. Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Content forking is a normal process, as policy clearly states. It arises when information cannot usefully be contained in a single article. There is always some degree of repetition in related articles, but it makes no sense to say that the same information will be contained in both in this case. Persecution by Christians may refer to persecution of groups who are not represented in by articles and creates a meaningful marrative that would otherwise be scattered and fragmented. Paul B (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep Useful and encylopaedic (ugh, I despise that latter term but I'll use it anyway.) Wait a minute, both of those rationales are on WP:ATA. I guess I better come up with some semblance of a real argument. Anyway, I just think that it's helpful to have both the persecution OF and persecution BY series of articles. You're only doubling the total number of articles, and it makes information a lot easier to find, if you happen to be looking for excuses to bash on the one hand, or pity on the other, a particular religion. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete article is a POV fork. The Persecution by muslims article was deleted. At a bare minimum, remove the word "Historical" from the title. Yahel Guhan 03:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per Itaqallah; this article is impossible to write without violating WP:SYN (content) and WP:POV (title). -Rosywounds (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 00:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per Itaqallah. It's a POV fork. Similar articles have been deleted. The article itself is a trainwreck and of low quality. Majoreditor (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Article has been moved to Christian debate on persecution and toleration 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can not do that User:Zara1709. You should instead vote for "Move to X" and let the closing admin decide. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I supposed that everyone who has written something on this talk page has taken a close look at the article and its discussion page. Since many people here have not written anything on the discussion page of the article ever and nobody put forward any objections to the move, there was no reason why I shouldn't move the article. Zara1709 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, you can not do that. You can vote for "Move To Christian debate on persecution and toleration" --Be happy!! (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I can do it. Wikipedia:Requested moves: "If the move is uncontroversial and the move is technically possible, then please feel free to move the article yourself." Zara1709 (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- How did you know that your name change is not controversial. Usually people propose name changes on the talk page and let editors talk. I for one disagree with the name change if it is sufficient to make it non-uncontroversial because "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is appropriate for an article that talks about philosophical and theological stances on the legitimacy and place of persecution and violence, rather than anything related to the history of what Christians actually did.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure you realise that the name change alters the entire scope of the article, which is now "Christian debate" (i.e. theoretical or theological views) about the issue of persecution/tolerance and, presumably, how these have changed. 2/3 of the article which covers the sequence of unrelated historical incidences is now pretty much redundant on top of being original research. ITAQALLAH 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Moving an article during an AFD debate is bad form. The usual practice is to suggest a new name on the AFD page for the closing admin to deal with. For my vote see below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure you realise that the name change alters the entire scope of the article, which is now "Christian debate" (i.e. theoretical or theological views) about the issue of persecution/tolerance and, presumably, how these have changed. 2/3 of the article which covers the sequence of unrelated historical incidences is now pretty much redundant on top of being original research. ITAQALLAH 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- How did you know that your name change is not controversial. Usually people propose name changes on the talk page and let editors talk. I for one disagree with the name change if it is sufficient to make it non-uncontroversial because "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is appropriate for an article that talks about philosophical and theological stances on the legitimacy and place of persecution and violence, rather than anything related to the history of what Christians actually did.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I can do it. Wikipedia:Requested moves: "If the move is uncontroversial and the move is technically possible, then please feel free to move the article yourself." Zara1709 (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, you can not do that. You can vote for "Move To Christian debate on persecution and toleration" --Be happy!! (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I supposed that everyone who has written something on this talk page has taken a close look at the article and its discussion page. Since many people here have not written anything on the discussion page of the article ever and nobody put forward any objections to the move, there was no reason why I shouldn't move the article. Zara1709 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can not do that User:Zara1709. You should instead vote for "Move to X" and let the closing admin decide. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is obviously not going to be a popular article and it clearly needs some work but that is no reason not to keep it. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen it. Not only do I disagree but I think Zara's name change has snuffed his point. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The name change has been completely unilateral which I do not agree with. "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is a good topic for philosophical and theological stances on the legitimacy and place of persecution and violence, rather than anything related to the history of what Christians actually did. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen it. Not only do I disagree but I think Zara's name change has snuffed his point. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, come on...this is a huge part of history. I protest the name change to Christian debate on persecution and toleration, this article is not about a "Christian debate". --MPerel 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep with original title - this is a legitimate subject. Until I (just now) added a reference to the Oxford Martyrs, it showed a Roman Catholic POV, perhpas it still does. The present article probably uses too few sources, but that is a case for improving it, not deleting it. The present title only covers the early sections, on the theoretical basis. You may not like the fact that Christians killed each other (and those of other faiths), but unfortunately it happened. 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. "Christian debate on persecution and tolerance" is just plain ridiculous, especially considering that few in the past 2,000 years share our understanding of either persecution or tolerance. "Historical persecution by Christians" is a laundry list of events, factoids, and trivia that belong elsewhere. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if your 'argument' really deserves a elaborate reply, but since I just have the book at hand, I can give you a long quote from Coffey (2000). After this author has summarized the debate among historians about persecution and toleration in 17th century England, he writes: "Indeed, it is all too easy to miss the striking similarities between early modern Europe and the contemporary world. Seventeenth-century England is by no means as alien as historians sometimes suggest, and the story of persecution and toleration in the period is far from irrelevant to contemporary concerns. It is no doubt true that the study of the period introduces us to a world very different from, one as fascinating and unfamiliar as the worlds explored by anthropologists. Yet it would be a mistake to draw too bold a contrast between a devout past and an irrelegious modernity (...)." After some further elaborations he comes to the point: "The religious militancy and violence that charaterized early modern Europe have returned to haunt the modern world. (...) Indeed, in many countries in the world today, religious persecution is a major human rights problem, with Christian minorities being particulary vulnerable." (p.8) So much for the argument that "few in the past 2,000 years share our understanding of either persecution or tolerance". With all those people here at Wikipedia writing articles about their religion being persecuted - it appears as if there are quite a few people out there who would share the mediaval advocation of religious persecution. Now, in a western context, this has all been debated throughoutly already. And I would consider it quite important to have an article on this debate here at Wikipedia. Some people might actually learn something from that.
- Furthermore, that important Christian theologians advocated religious persecution is fact, and it is not content forking from any other article, especially not from Persecution of Christians. To pretend that this would be original research, as it has been done by Itaqallah is totally ignorant. I mean, you don't even need secondary literature for that, you'd only have to read Augustine's "Epistle against the Donatists" or Luther's On the Jews and their Lies. These books are rarely read nowadays, but if you are in a western country you should be able to obtain them. Zara1709 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- So a lengthy quotation about 17th-century England is supposed to refute my "argument"? I think you missed the point, which goes something like this: does the Latin tolerantia mean the same thing in the 5th century as English "tolerance" means today? Is there a Latin word that does mean what "tolerance" means? What do Augustine's and Luther's books have to do with anything? Books don't persecute, at least as I understand the term. And I never called this OR. I just believe this is the type of "article" Wikipedia doesn't need. We ought to keep the facts and remove the article. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Zara, you have totally changed the topic of the article - without consensus, midway through a deletion discussion of a different topic - yet still act as if my objection on the grounds of original research applies to this new title. I'm sure there has been debate about persecution and tolerance in Christian thought, and that this can be verified by secondary sources as is necessary. The fact remains that any collection of incidences independent of eachother, spanning tens or even hundreds of years, is inevitably going to constitute original research when joined together into one narrative - unless we have reliable sources which do see sufficient links to be able to present it as some sort of timeline of persecution which this article attempts. ITAQALLAH 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Articles "persecution of X" and articles about "persecution by x" ae completely unrelated, there's no reason to assume that both group of articles could end up retaining the same information. The topic of religious persecution is in itself interesting, and it is helpful to have cumarized articles about the acts by or against every particular group. If i'm interested specifically about the things X group has done against other groups, it would be unreasonable to have to look up the information on articles about the other groups. Apart form the practical inconveniences this presents, it resents a logical obstacle, as it makes the a priori knowledge of said agressions a necessity for the access to the information. This is contrary to the referencial purpose of an encyclopedia, and it culd even be considered POV puchisng, as it aims to make the simpathetic information about a given group hard to find, but the controversial facts scattered and difficult to correlte, when they are in fact related, and this relation could very well be a legitimate point of interest for a number of readers. I object to any change of name, this article should document and reference the persecutions made by christians, and only reference the debate and meaning of the concepts of tolerance et al (wich could merit its own article) if it's needed to make a point in the historical account of facts. Obviously, accounts of persecutions by other groups merit their own articles, per the above rationale. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)- Assuming your premise that "persecution by" and "persecution of" articles will not contain the same information is correct, can you explain the above links given by Otolemur crassicaudatus which show how the material in this article is already covered elsewhere?
- I take issue with your second point - the purpose of Wikipedia is to relay verifiable information in the specific context it has been relayed. We don't invent article titles or topics so as to make our own synthesis, thereby essentially forming a hodgepodge of unconnected events and sources. The critical absentee in all of this is the fundamental theme the article tries to assert through these examples, itself finding no verification in the sources which instead discuss these things in their own specific contexts. To suggest there is any relation between persecution under the Roman Empire and the events in Ireland beyond the superficial observation that Christians are involved is an absurdity. So the rationale that articles are warranted just because they are 'interesting' or 'convenient' cannot alone justify their presence. ITAQALLAH 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I retract my vote, after reviewing the current state of the article. But i want to defend my arguments, as they are general. sorry :)
- Of course: examples only serve to disprove absolute assertions of the like "there's no information common to both types of articles". ths is not what i said, the assertion presented by me was "this two sets of articles do not necesarilly contain the same information" wich is not an absolute judgement, but merely a negation of the identity of both sets.
- Second, interest and convenience are the sole purposes of an encyclopedia. Half the value of information is its organization, as opposed to its content. A list of all acts of persecution carried out by a group has the exact and same value as a list of all the acts of persecution carried out against a group. even if they end up cotaining the same facts. WP:SYN should be cited only when the synthesis proposed amounts to POV pushing, and the criteria for the collection of information is arbitrary (or POV wich is the same in this context). In the context of this discussion, there's a clear criteria for the collection of this information (if this were what the article actually did), and presenting different sources for the members of a list is not a violation of WP:SYN. Or you would consider a list like the one in Vampire films a violation of WP:SYN only because there's no reputable source that puts this particular movies together?
- finally, this article does not conform to the purpose i'm arguing for, so i retreat my vote quitely, but not because my arguments are erred, but because i was mistaken as to their pertinance for this case (ie this is not a factual revision of "acts of persecution by X" but a wider recount of a debate and historical facts). Gorgonzola (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I might be inclined to agree with you, but interest alone cannot be the deciding factor in whether an article is legitimate (see WP:INTERESTING). WP:V states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - and that's all I'm requesting: sources which discuss persecution by Christians throughout history. A few sources have been presented but they're severely limited in their scope. The reason I think there are too few sources about the precise topic is because it completely ignores the complexity of these incidences, and glosses over the fact that motivations equally as important as religious may have played a role. But that's my own speculation. At the end of the day it's the sources which verify this interlinking that are required. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the thing with your argument, is that in particular, it is applicable to all list of "persecution of", just as easily. And in general, it applies to ALL lists. Even accpeting that not violation of WP:SYN is a prerequisite for the confrormation of lists (which i don't, WP:IAR, etc), i think that asking for references that put all facts in the same category is absurd. What you really need is to determine ONE objective criteria, and then find sources that say that a fact X conforms to said criteria. This is the normal standard for lists like Vampire films, and the correct policy here would be notability of the criteria chosen for the composition of the list. In this case, i think that the criteria that puts together all acts of persecution carried out by a given religious group are pertinent, and wildly interesting. But this is talk page stuff, no reasson for an AfD, as it usualy is the case with lists of all kind.
- However, this article is not that. That's why i can't comfortably vote keep, although i believe that both topics are valid and could make good articles. I could vote Delete and Recreate? Gorgonzola (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to agree with you, but interest alone cannot be the deciding factor in whether an article is legitimate (see WP:INTERESTING). WP:V states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - and that's all I'm requesting: sources which discuss persecution by Christians throughout history. A few sources have been presented but they're severely limited in their scope. The reason I think there are too few sources about the precise topic is because it completely ignores the complexity of these incidences, and glosses over the fact that motivations equally as important as religious may have played a role. But that's my own speculation. At the end of the day it's the sources which verify this interlinking that are required. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a moment here, there is no reason for you to take a step back. On the discussion page of the article I have written a comment where I actually hinted that I woulnd't have a problem with moving this article back to "Historical cases of persecution by Christians." With such a name and some general cleanup that should only take a few hours, legitimate concerns about wp:SYN would be taken into account, and we could have rather easily achieved a consensus on this on the discussion pages if this was actually about concerns of wp:SYN. But alternatives to deletion were not AT ALL considered here. Furthermore, as the persistent denial of User:Itaqallah, who refuses to accept that there was a Christian debate on persecution and toleration, illustrate, this afd is not about legimitate concerns of wp:SYN. The Christian debate on persecution and toleration constitutes a "sufficient link" for the cases of persecution by Christians. This is not the article Islam and anti-Christian persecution, and I am not claiming that I know enough about Islam to write and article on the corrosponding debate in Islam (which I suppose to exist). But, fo the sake of argument, let's just say that I am Christian. To get this down to a Bible qoute: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7) The fact that important Chistian theologians advocated religious persecution can be considered more then just a "speck of sawdust" in the eye of Chrstianity, even more than just the cases of religious persecution by Christians alone (they wouldn't be that bad if they had been against the doctrines of their respective churches at the time at which they occured.) So I will not judge the Muslims for their cases of religious persecution, but - as Christian - I demand that I'll be allowed to deal with the "speck of sawdust" in the eye of Christianity. Zara1709 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Furthermore, as the persistent denial of User:Itaqallah, who refuses to accept that there was a Christian debate on persecution and toleration, illustrate, this afd is not about legimitate concerns of wp:SYN." - Okay, this line of argument is becoming a bit disingenuous now, especially in the light of my comments above which directly contradict your claim. This AfD was about WP:OR/WP:SYN until you decided to change the article topic altogether which IMHO was poor etiquette and obstructs any sort of consensus from developing on the issue initially raised here. In any case, a laundry list of every historical event of persecution by Christians is not warranted unless this interweaving is done by the sources themselves. And a laundry list is even less warranted in an article whose central focus is now "Christian debate on persecution and tolerance." and not any persecution itself.
- "The Christian debate on persecution and toleration constitutes a "sufficient link" for the cases of persecution by Christians." - Look, you are missing the whole point of this discussion. That is: verification, the fundamental prerequisite when trying to establish any "link." Let the sources assert the links. If they aren't there, don't assert your own, and don't use published sources to imply unverified links. If you can find sources weaving together every single event of "historical persecution by Christians" as if it's all one sequential story, great. If not, there's nothing further to discuss here: it stands in clear violation of content policies. The latter is what your comments must strive to address, which they consistently fail to do. ITAQALLAH 22:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I did not change the scope of the article. That Augustine etc. advocated religious persecution had previously been mentioned in the article, the only thing I did with changing the name was pointing this out clearly. Probably this was bad form, but considering that the purpose of this afd appears to be making a wp:point against the article, without this point having been addressed on the article talk page, my "form" isn't as bad. Some days ago I cleaned up a real POV-Fork, the old Nordic race article. Essentially, one editor wanted to have an article on Nordic race that didn't debate the Nazis Walther Darré, Hans F.K. Günther who wrote books on the topic. No one called for an afd in that debate, the obvious and only considered solution was merging. So, if we have here a situation in which one article mentions that Christians have persecuted and have advocated persecution, and another one Persecution of Christians which doesn't mention this, someone could argue that we have a POV-Fork here and that we should merge those two articles. Aside from the point that the POV-Fork is supposed to be the other way round, no one brought this up on the talk page. The Wikipedia:Deletion policy has a whole section on alternatives to deletion: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. " ... "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name." ... "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page."
- I could continue about this afd being against wp:point, but let's turn to the issue that User:Itaqallah has raised. He is bringing in Wikipedia:Verifiability, but is it being applied correctly? After all, it shouldn't been to hard to verify that Luther wrote a book On the Jews and their Lies. For the qustion whether there was continued debate on persecution and toleration within Christianty, here is a quote: "Eventually, this tolerationist position was to became the new orthodoxy among Christians. Tolerationists had posed as reformers of European Christianity who were calling the church back to its roots. (...) The eventual triumph of tolerationism constituted a transformation of the Christian tradition every bit as significant as the fragmentation caused by the reformation. Today, Christians of all denomintions lock back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incromprehension." (John Coffey (2000), Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History, Pearson Education, p. 206) This should be sufficient. If you have any more concerns, we can adress them on the article talk page. Zara1709 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if the article had remain in the same form as the title of the AfD, then i would comfortably vote a strong keep, but since this article is not the same than before (title changes focus, focus determines criteria for inclusion), i would have to start all over again. I too think that it is very improper to move an article during an AfD, even if you think that said move does not change focus. And i believe that both topics could make very good artciles, but this trasvestism between the two of them is just POV pushing, and confusing. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no point in arguming here whether the name change actually changed the scope. If this clears this afd, let's move the article back to Historical persecution by Christians or to Historical cases of persecution by Christians. I should have displayed more self-control and not moved the article, but I got pretty annoyed about this afd. I would suppose that - after two afds already and strong discussion on that talk page of the article, during which a difficult case of actual original research and original synthesis was resolved, people whould take the issue to the article talk page and not start another afd. Aside from that, concerns about the article being properly synchoronisted with other articles on the topic are legimate, but can be cleaned up with comperatively litte effort, and there was really no need for an afd. I personally have objections against an article named "Persecution by Christians", the same way I have objections against an article named "Persecution of Christians". But - cleary - there are a lot of relevant cases that fall under this, and this needs to be included in Wikipedia. Dealing with this topic in an article with a neutral title would be preferable, but the next time I won't move an article during an afd. Zara1709 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree on several levels. An AfD is not a discussion on how to improve the article (this is talk page stuff), is a discussion on the pertinence and encyclopediability of a topic. In other words, what the article actually says is somewhat irrelevant over what the article should say, wich is what is really being debated. The title "Acts of persecution by christians" refers to an article that should say and collect information of a very different kind than that collected in the article "Christian debate on tolerance and whatnot", and it's impossible to decide an AfD over one if one of the things we are discussing in the same AfD is an option between this two totally different articles. It is like asking "should we demolish the brookyln bridge?" and replying "let's build a dam over the hudson river". The pertinence of the dam over the hudson river has nothing to do with the answer to the question to the original question. Based on this, i would close this AfD as null, settle on one title and then review the case, because i think that in an AfD the burden of proof is on the deletion (although this is contested).
- I think that each article should be evaluated in its own merit, sync with other articles is nonsense. this is not a paper medium, there's no constraint or editorial presure but searchability.
- I think that articles should refer to entities that are objectively distinct, and judged according to the notoriety of the labels we use to catalog information about them. this means that i think that a compilation of events that share an objective factual relation are proper, but references to a meta-category for description of a theoretical ("christianity" hasn't debated anything formally, as a whole, since the first schism some 1500 years ago) debate is not.
- "persecution by/of" is a factual statement. it is teh neutral. Calling the article where we should be discussing this factual acts of religious hatred "Debate on tolerance" is somewhat euphimistic, or plain wrong: are we talking about the events where thousend of Cathari were brutally massacred by catholic crusaders here or about what were Saint Augustine's opinions about the correct treatment of heretics and pagans? 'cause they seem to be different beasts to me, and the criteria to judge AfD on these two animals are completely, and utterly different and independent.
- Due to all of the above, i think that this article should be not-deleted. I don't say keep, because i think that closing this AfD still leaves a world-war of debate to be waiged, and the last thing i would consider is leaving this article in its current form, but that war should not be fought in this courthou... ehem, in this AfD. :)
- Gorgonzola (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no point in arguming here whether the name change actually changed the scope. If this clears this afd, let's move the article back to Historical persecution by Christians or to Historical cases of persecution by Christians. I should have displayed more self-control and not moved the article, but I got pretty annoyed about this afd. I would suppose that - after two afds already and strong discussion on that talk page of the article, during which a difficult case of actual original research and original synthesis was resolved, people whould take the issue to the article talk page and not start another afd. Aside from that, concerns about the article being properly synchoronisted with other articles on the topic are legimate, but can be cleaned up with comperatively litte effort, and there was really no need for an afd. I personally have objections against an article named "Persecution by Christians", the same way I have objections against an article named "Persecution of Christians". But - cleary - there are a lot of relevant cases that fall under this, and this needs to be included in Wikipedia. Dealing with this topic in an article with a neutral title would be preferable, but the next time I won't move an article during an afd. Zara1709 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Merge into Historical persecution by Christians. // Liftarn (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't understand your merge proposition, Historical persecution by Christians already redirects to this debate thingy... Gorgonzola (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, then it should be move to Historical persecution by Christians (or perhaps even better to Persecution by Christians to also cover recent events) and keep as it's a notable subject backed up with strong sources. // Liftarn (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand your merge proposition, Historical persecution by Christians already redirects to this debate thingy... Gorgonzola (talk) 22:47, 13 March 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. I have redirected to Tucson, Arizona#Education. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relvant, verified information. I've left the history intact so that it can be accessed easily to merge. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Satori School
Does not appear notable. Under the present notability guidelines for schools, the article would need to have significant secondary coverage -- it has none that I could find. Many Google hits for "Satori School" seem to be about other similarly-named schools, a band or album, or Satori. tgies (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Specifically mentioned in several books indexed by Google, must be mentioned by more books in the world (http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22satori+school%22). It is verifiable and potentially useful to many. Also, WP:SCL is only proposed and is not policy. --Oldak Quill 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:RS and WP:NNetkinetic (t/c/@) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - notability guidelines are a guideline to what to keep, not a handbook to culling (even if misused that way by non-writers) - David Gerard (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete After six pages of Googling (and screening out the school of the same name in Galveston) I get nothing but the school website and directory listings. The only non-directory hit I've gotten is this mention that they use a certain curriculum. They do show up on Google news, but only as a meeting place of a wide variety of groups. A Wikipedant could could claim that the article could be deleted for making no claim to notability; I personally would expect some specific national notice, and I don't see any. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Mangoe. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to Tucson, Arizona#Education. This school is sufficiently unusual that it is well worth a section backed up by the book reference, found above. TerriersFan (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Tucson, Arizona#Education. A delete would be fine, but a mention of the school in the main article seems appropriate here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 12 March 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. Merging can be done by editoral process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Murcia jewish community
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep Appears to be a culturally significant community ... but let's see more sources. Blueboy96 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I question the reliability of the two sources. The first appears to be a personal web page with no editorial oversight. The clip on youtube should not be linked to for copyright reasons, but the original program could be used if cited correctly. Marasmusine (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
the vid on youtube is property of a synogogue in madrid Ill get permission
Ill improve my sources to include the festival of 3 cultures in murcia which includes this very community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia comunidadjudia (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- COnsidering how slight both articles are, this should be merged into the main article on the city. There is no mention of this in the city's article at all. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment.
The article conveys quite relevant (and for this reader somewhat surprising) information, i.e. that at least one Jewish community persisted on Spanish soil even after the Alhambra Decree and the persecutions that followed. This information should, in my opinion, be reliably sourced (that's the key point obviously), and, on that condition, preserved and expanded. Whether keeping this article is the best way to proceed is another matter.I misinterpreted the article's weasel words.L'omo del batocio (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC) - Comment I edge towards a merge or a re-write it isn't current form only 50% or so is material that could be reliably referenced and is not WP:OR (no disrespect to the author) however as per omo del batocio's comments above, the topic appears to be notable, even if the current form of the article is not quite up to scratch and has bad sources. I would therefore be more inclined to save the topic and the article with a re-write (or a merge into the article on the town) than loose it and potentially a newbie user to a deletion. SGGH speak! 09:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Information about Murcia and Jewish people at books.google (http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%2BMurcia+%2BJewish). Verifiable and significant. --Oldak Quill 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject is notable and the article has potential. Majoreditor (talk) 02:55, 10 March 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. Maxim(talk) 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gwynno james
Google gets 36, which is worrying. Oh, and none of them are relevant anyway. αѕєηιηє t/c 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Published author (published by the Church of Wales):
- He's also provided words for classical music works:
- http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lazarus-cantata-baritone-soloists-orchestra/dp/B0000CXG10
- Oxford University Press Catalogue - http://www.oup.co.uk/music/repprom/hoddinott/catalogue/
- mention in journal literature - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4666%28196507%29106%3A1469%3C528%3ARFTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
- Verifiable and significant.--Oldak Quill 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Prob. Delete He's the librettist of a definitely notable choral piece. The rub, however, is that nobody seems to care about that. Googling his name produces a scant three pages, and except for the collection of sermons (which is a bookstore listing) all of the meaningful hits are sellers of the sheet music for the piece in question. In fact it is difficult to establish that he is a cleric. Mangoe (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it is difficult. There may be information published about him in printed press, though I don't know where to start. The lack of information available through Google may just reflect Google's biases and poor coverage of non-present niche topics. Obviously, if there are no references to use, only a very minimal article is possible from the few sources available (though I would say a minimal article is better than no article, particularly if a significant person has poor internet presence). --Oldak Quill 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's a reasonable argument, except that Google very plainly shows a lot of notability both for the piece in question and its composer. At the moment the most we have is enough for no more than a brief appositive in discussion of the piece(s), and no more. Saying that there might be print sources-- well, there might, but there might not. I certainly couldn't come up with them, not on this side of the Atlantic. Mangoe (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also point out that his sermon collection (a slim thing at sixty-one pages) barely registers. I get two hits at used booksellers, and Amazon barely even knows that it exists. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. "One of the more considerable intellectuals of the Welsh Church" Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 10 March 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Viral injection
Contested prod. No reliable published sources are cited to show that this is more than a non-notable neologism. The first few pages of hits for the phrase on Google, Google News and Google Scholar all concern injection of a virus or anti-virus, not a marketing strategy. Delete. EALacey (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. In fact I was nominating this article for deletion at the same time, with the reasoning: "I can find no references to the term 'viral injection' apart from in a medical sense; the text is almost completely incoherent. This appears to be a hoax or, at best, original research" Ros0709 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I could not find much evidence of use (only found one use in a forum post), doesn't help that any legitimate uses are drowned out by scientific meaning. Couldn't find any legitimate books.google and scholar.google hits. --Oldak Quill 15:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of sources, although I was able to slightly improve the article's grammar and style. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of viral marketing. If viral injection is a recognized technique by the industry, it should be included as such in said article. Author confuses the sense and meaning of the word "viral" when applied to marketing strategies, so on top of the above, the article is confusing and leads to error. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:14, 13 March 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. John254 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alfred Howard Carter
Article does not meet WP:BIO requirements. I am tenacious about nominating this, regarding the subject matter - but the article does not provide any assertion of notability - the subject claims to be "one of the greatest pioneers of the Pentecostal Christian faith..." but is not even mentioned in the main article. There are no references, no external links, no statements to back up his notability. Ozgod (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Google hits [[12]]
- Keep. Published author on spirituality (http://bookworm1225.librarything.com/author/carterhoward). Google results support him being a figure in Pentecostal Christianity (although Google results may not reflect significance in this case). --Oldak Quill 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep cleanup and reference better, and remove the hyperbole. There are losts of references in the article, they just aren't formatted to be pretty. There are also other claims to notability in the biography, on heading a school and other institutions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The references provided barely pass the independent test. There is no coverage of him in broader sources (Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar). --Dhartung | Talk 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It takes a little maneuvering, but googling for "Howard Carter" Pentecostal produces a long list of substantial hits. It's quite clear that he was an important figure in British Pentecostalism. Mangoe (talk) 11:56, 9 March 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 Non Admin Close Dustitalk to me 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Custodi di quella fede
Non notable and unremarkable. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable, significant. --Oldak Quill 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep - It's certainly verifiable, but aside from the fact that it's an encyclical there's no notability asserted. I'm not convinced that a condemnation of Freemasonry is significant in itself, but the article deserves a chance at expansion. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems to me that papal encyclicals are notable per se. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note This may also be of interest - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inimica vis 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs)
- Keep Although I think that papal encyclicals are inherently notable I have added a couple of masonic sources to show that this was notable. JASpencer (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep with new sourcing verifying notability. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, per JASpencer's good work. Go ahead and close, Dusti ;-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 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...? 07:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Buzz! The Disney Quiz
I may be wrong, but Google has me believing this is a hoax. αѕєηιηє t/c 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I was going to speedy delete this, but since it is newly announced (1-2 days), may not be indexed on Google. Allow time for author. --Oldak Quill 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am responsible for a large amount of the recent editing on the whole range of Buzz! articles (but not this article) and I must say that I'm very dubious about this. Relentless have got three versions of Buzz! in development for the coming months - Pop Quiz(next week), Quiz TV and Buzz! PSP - It would seem a bit odd for them to overload themselves further with another edition. That said they have form for failing to notify publishers about upcoming products, Pop Quiz was only announced on one Australian website and I had to email Relentless to check that it was a genuine product. - X201 (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If news becomes available of the release of this product, the article can always be recreated. I think there's some kind of crystal ball policy to cover this.Gazimoff (talk) 16:50, 14 March 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, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cochin Flower Show
This would appear to be non-notable. αѕєηιηє t/c 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The Cochin Flower show is a major event at the Coastal city of Kochi. It has been going on for 26 years. Hence, this, I believe is a notable event of interest to the general public (esp. tourists planning to visit Kochi), and thus, I believe it is very encyclopeadiac (on the lines of the Chelsea Flower Show, Cincinatti Flower Show etc. ) Deepakp7 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Deepak
- Keep. Please check Google before asserting non-notability. This seems to be an important state-level flower show in Kerala. It has been written about in The Hindu several times. --Oldak Quill 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Author withdraws AfD - I did, but it appears somehow I missed it. I quite honestly have no idea how. αѕєηιηє t/c 15:57, 8 March 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 - this is a terrible deletion nomination, little effort has been put into checking whether or not the subject is indeed notable, and the nomination is naturally confusing for those of us who don't understand what N and org are. In future, please ensure you research any article prior to nominating it for deletion, and ensure that links to policy are made in plain English that the majority, if not all users will be able to understand. Nick (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Order of Quetzalcoatl
Fails org and N. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:N (and a subset, WP:ORG), has secondary sources (see http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22Order+of+Quetzalcoatl%22 for a selection). --Oldak Quill 15:08, 8 March 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. I have redirected to Blackbrook, Merseyside; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ashurst Primary School
This surely comes into the category of a Non notable primary school? Paste (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 14:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable and plenty of independent sources (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/06/school_tables/primary_schools/html/342_2021.stm) --Oldak Quill 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You can find these tables on every single school in the UK, this link has zero impact on whether or not a school is notable.Paste (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't make any comments relating to the guideline Wikipedia:Notability. I simply made the point that there are independent, trust-worthy sources available; that the article is verifiable. If you want to talk about notability, I guess evidence for its verifiability has implications for its notability per "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability). --Oldak Quill 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Understood, but the point I am making is that every school in the UK has a page such as the one you highlighted. Indeed I should have thought that every school in the UK can have a page that can verify its existence. I thought that there was general acceptance that for a primary school to have an article it needed to have some evidence of notability and this school clearly does not.Paste (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Encyclo-pedia. Encyclo, that means "includes all". If the source is verifiable there's no reason not to have completeness. It makes Wikipedia actually useful - David Gerard (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please review WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO) and realize that wikipedia should not be "complete" simply extensive. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Encyclo-pedia. Encyclo, that means "includes all". If the source is verifiable there's no reason not to have completeness. It makes Wikipedia actually useful - David Gerard (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Understood, but the point I am making is that every school in the UK has a page such as the one you highlighted. Indeed I should have thought that every school in the UK can have a page that can verify its existence. I thought that there was general acceptance that for a primary school to have an article it needed to have some evidence of notability and this school clearly does not.Paste (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't confuse notability with importance. There are reliable, independent sources to demonstrate WP:NPOV, V and OR, which are the inclusion requirements. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't make any comments relating to the guideline Wikipedia:Notability. I simply made the point that there are independent, trust-worthy sources available; that the article is verifiable. If you want to talk about notability, I guess evidence for its verifiability has implications for its notability per "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability). --Oldak Quill 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - don't be silly - David Gerard (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge User:David Gerard is going against the consensus established at WP:SCHOOLS, which is to follow WP:N, and if the article fails that, to merge it to the school district or town article. Additionally, there is a general consensus against Wikipedia being a compendium of all knowledge. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say "delete", but the forces of inclusionism say Merge. Pretty clearly this is just another lower school. Mangoe (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to district and redirect article. Seriously, we can have a permanent stub here, or we can redirect effort toward having a great district article. I want to see a good district article! CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect - to its locality, Blackbrook, Merseyside. TerriersFan (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to the Blackbrook, Merseyside article. (Note: The UK does not have school districts.] Dahliarose (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - to its locality, Blackbrook, Merseyside. It is not only the 'inclusionists' that support merging. Having good district articles or settlement educational sections is a worthy goal and throwing out material may not always be the best use of everyones time and effort. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 12 March 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. Maxim(talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The delete argument that this fails WP:NOT#DIR has absolutely not been defeated by the users wanting to keep it. Also, some of the users wishing to keep the article have provided pointlessly weak arguments (David Gerard, Jammy0002).
[edit] List of police stations in Karachi
Violates WP:NOT#DIR. Also fails to assert notability Ravichandar 14:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The police are part of the structure of a state, intrinsically notable. Karachi is the largest city in Pakistan. It does not serve as a directory: there is no information beyond name and part of city (i.e. no external links, no addresses, no telephone numbers). --Oldak Quill 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of police stations in cities in the subcontinent, sometime as much as telephone booths. I dont think a list of all stations approach anywhere near notability. On the contrary, you could have a list of chief commands of the different areas or districts of Karachi within the Wikipedia article on Karachi. -Ravichandar 10:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This article provides no value; it is unencyclopaedic. Cloudz679 (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Law enforcement in a major metropolitan area is notable. See, e.g, Category:United States municipal police departments. Ideally, this should become part of a larger article about law enforcement in Karachi or as a division of law enforcement in the Sindh state. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- A police department is something different from a police station. It covers a larger area of jurisdiction. On the contrary, a police station, as per subcontinental standards, covers a very small area. -Ravichandar 10:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The subject of law enforcement in the subcontinent should be examined from a British perspective for the police system in India and Pakistan have descended from the British police system. A police station comes nowhere near a Metropolitan Police Department. See Category:Delhi Police. There are no similar lists of police stations of a city in the subcontinent in India-Ravichandar 10:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lists with a broader classification could be created (like Districts of Delhi Police) and merged with law enforcement in Karachi. -Ravichandar 10:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: In addition to the elaborations by Mandsford and OldakQuill of what notability is being asserted, this list does not fit under any of the descriptions of banned directories in WP:NOT#DIR. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment this is just a copy of [13] with wikilinks to the towns beside the names. This article does not serve a purpose. Cloudz679 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- comment that list is copyright, and seems to be being used just a it appears.DGG (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Publicly-available data cannot be copyrighted. Also, our article isn't a copyvio, it's got more information than the link. While both are alphabetical lists of the names of the police stations, only our article provides the region of the city that each force is based in. --Oldak Quill 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Our Article? So it's a copy of the link, with the added value of original research? Cloudz679 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY ("Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed") in the most fundamental way. The whole spirit of that section of policy (and of the policy itself) is violated here. What is the purpose of this list? Lists are supposed to be useful to readers in understanding an encyclopedic subject or in finding their way around the encyclopedia (or both). This list isn't so long that it couldn't be included in an article about law enforcement in Karachi, a subject that would be welcome as an article if it can be written. But even in such an article, there should be some reason why the list would help the reader understand the subject or navigate. Noroton (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect/move to Sindh Police or Karachi police. No precedent exists on having lists of police stations.Bless sins (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Informative and many users will possibly use this so I think it's a worthy enough article for Wikipedia. Jammy (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Don't be silly, it's verifiable - David Gerard (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe merge into Karachi. It's just a directory which I suspect is going to incomplete or wrong most of the time anyway-- how often are they going to open or close a station? Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. A link from this page, the one with the informaiton source, would be a useful link on the Karachi page. There is absolutely no need to have a separate page for this list. As you have identified, maintenance is going to be difficult-to-impossible. Cloudz679 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above discussions. As it is, it is nothing more then a directory. If someone wants to write an article about the police department, that would be notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 12 March 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. John254 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inimica vis
An unremarkable event in history. In nearly two years since this page was created there has been not one citation. Fails N. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I can certainly find the text of this online, but I haven't yet found any sources that cover the subject itself. Needs attention from an expert on the subject - ie someone other than me.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I've notified the author. The article gives a link to the text or letter. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Papal Encyclicals are inherently verifiable, sourced, and significant. Although Papal Encyclicals haven't always been the second-most important type of communication sent out by Popes, they have always been public communications between important figures in the Roman Catholic church, usually relating to theological matters. --Oldak Quill 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's still quoted, it's important in both relations with the post risorgiomento Italian state and Freemasonry. Picking on Papal Encyclical is a bit odd, and I would agree with Oldak that they are inherently verifiable, sourced, and significant. However even if this is not accepted it shouldn't be this encyclical. JASpencer (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep major historical topic. This one is certainly notable, but i'd even say that all papal encyclicals are covered in multiple sources, and I think every one of them would be notable hereDGG (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Note The same nominator has also put up Custodi di quella fede for deletion, so people may want to also put comments there. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custodi di quella fede JASpencer (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Papal encyclicals are almost all inherently notable, as per similar statements above. Almost all have received significant contemporary coverage, and most if not all are regularly referred to in church history and/or theological documents. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 9 March 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; I have redirected to Tyrant (Resident Evil); knowledgeable editors are encouaraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] T-103
Article should be deleted as it fails WP:N and WP:A. Subject is about a non-notable video game character with no references or real-world information. ShadowJester07 ► Talk 13:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into List of Resident Evil creatures, seeing as its about a creature/monster from said videogame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfQ (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Tyrant (Resident Evil). Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment: The Tyrant (Resident Evil) article already has a fairly detailed description for T-103. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The coverage in Tyrant (Resident Evil) is detailed enough, there's no indication that a separate entry is warranted. Someoneanother 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge any mergeable info into Tyrant (Resident Evil). --Pixelface (talk) 20:11, 11 March 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. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hone-onna
Delete Fails WP:RS and notability unestablished. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Cloudz679 (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless sourced reliably or merged to an appropriate place, I can't find much in terms of reliable sources although I'm not an expert on the field in any sense.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Jigoku Shoujo, which already discusses the character in better detail.—Quasirandom (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Changing !vote to Rewrite per Deadkid dk into an article about the folklore figure, starting with a translation from the Japanese Wikipedia article. If not kept for rewriting, redirect to Jigoku Shoujo. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete (or redirect). IMO should have been speedied. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rewrite to focus her as a creature from Japanese folklore. _dk (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- rewrite per Quasirandom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Notice I have rewritten the article into a two sentence stub. _dk (talk) 22:25, 14 March 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 snowball keep. For proposed mergers, see WP:MERGE, not AfD, however I note that consensus appears to be against that as well. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FA Cup 2002-03
Two sentences regarding results of one year's FA Cup. Merge (if not already in main FA Cup article) and delete. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. AfD isn't cleanup - no need to delete an admittedly stubby article on a notable sporting event (presumably part of compiling all Template:FA Cup Seasons). --Canley (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Canley (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and expand per Canley. ARTYOM 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a highly notable competition. If an article about it has this little content, it should be expanded. That's where the English football task force comes in. AecisBrievenbus 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this is part of a series needed to give the full history of the FA Cup - the article needs expansion, but that is not grounds for deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - per comments above, can be expanded. John Hayestalk 13:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - per Canley and Daemonic Kangaroo. robwingfield «T•C» 13:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the article clearly needs expanding, not deleting! GiantSnowman (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - There is a difference between need for expansion and need for deletion. αѕєηιηє t/c 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia development is built on going from stub to FA. Deletion is destructive since there could be a well-written and well-sourced article here. --Oldak Quill 16:29, 8 March 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. John254 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Simon Dobson
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)}}
- Keep. Information in academic sources (Tempo journal published by Cambridge University Press - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=502596), usable online sources (an interview/biography on a brass music website - http://www.4barsrest.com/articles/2005/art463.asp ; biography at Faber Music - http://www.fabermusic.com/serverside/composers/Details.asp?ID=Dobson,%20Simon&View=biog&Section=composers). Verifiable, significant, "notable". --Oldak Quill 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's notable and informative enough to be worthy of Wikipedia article status Jammy (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I've expanded and cited the article to show notability. Coffee4me (talk) 18:17, 9 March 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 EastEnders. The character's future existence has been verified. However, it has not been shown to be a notable character on its own. If and when this is the case, the article should be unredirected. But at this time, there is nothing to show notability of this individual character. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jalil Iqbal
(1) Is a possible future soap character notable. (2) Is the digital spy blog a reliable source? JASpencer (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the character is not a "possibility" as you imply, he is going to appear in the serial. Digital Spy is an extremely reliable source. The character also appears in upcoming spoilers which can be seen here and here. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 13:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, future character on a soap opera with no sources to demonstrate notability (as in, real world notability--there isn't enough "buzz" about this to justify the article at this time). Lord Uniscorn (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - per Trampikey and due to the fact he is in future spoilers. D.M.N. (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do not delete! - the character is now mentioned in this weeks Inside Soap magazine too. In response to Lord Uniscorn, not enough "buzz" - there isn't that much buzz about Chelsea's dad arriving either but he still has a page.Ammera (talk) 09:44, 13 March 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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Luke Sassano
Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (the PDL is not professional). Also nominating David Roth (soccer) for exactly the same reason (pre-season friendly games do not count). пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete could quite possibly be notable due to their awards, but the article doesn't assert this. John Hayestalk 11:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both - no appearances in a fully professional league, so fail WP:ATHLETE. No other assertion of notability. robwingfield «T•C» 13:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both pn BanRay 11:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per my arguments and faithless' arguments on Andy Iro. Let's ignore the rules for a few weeks because the US development structure has rendered these guys technically non-notable for a few weeks before they make their professional debuts. It seems asinine to me to pursue an aggressive deletionist policy on MLS SuperDraft players when the very large majority of them will be restarted in a few weeks. If, in Mid-May, we want to aggressively root out the players who have slipped through the cracks by not signing a contract or who are mired in reserves, let's do that. But right now, it seems counter-productive and short-sighted to get rid of them. --Balerion (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain how that is not WP:CRYSTAL balling? пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I cited WP:IAR for the sake of common sense. Would it KILL you to wait a few weeks before embarking on your Holy Deletionist Quest? Per this supplement to WP:IAR: The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored. The vast majority of these MLS SuperDraft pages will be recreated within a month. If we don't delete them now, we can later go in and find the minority that are not worthy of a page. What are we accomplishing here? --Balerion (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Surely it would have been common sense to wait until the players were notable before creating their articles? I'm not in favour of the "wait and see" approach because of the precedent it would set... robwingfield «T•C» 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but they are here. There's a reason why so many of these articles have been popping up recently. Perhaps it's because the MLS structure doesn't fit well into WP:BIO guidelines that were designed with a fundamentally different system in mind? My question: Does deleting these articles -- 95% of which will be recreated within a month -- make Wikipedia better?. Common sense dictates that the answer to that question is no. --Balerion (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Saying the articles will be recreated is more WP:CRYSTAL balling. See the outcome of this AfD for a sensible closure based on policy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but they are here. There's a reason why so many of these articles have been popping up recently. Perhaps it's because the MLS structure doesn't fit well into WP:BIO guidelines that were designed with a fundamentally different system in mind? My question: Does deleting these articles -- 95% of which will be recreated within a month -- make Wikipedia better?. Common sense dictates that the answer to that question is no. --Balerion (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Surely it would have been common sense to wait until the players were notable before creating their articles? I'm not in favour of the "wait and see" approach because of the precedent it would set... robwingfield «T•C» 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I cited WP:IAR for the sake of common sense. Would it KILL you to wait a few weeks before embarking on your Holy Deletionist Quest? Per this supplement to WP:IAR: The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored. The vast majority of these MLS SuperDraft pages will be recreated within a month. If we don't delete them now, we can later go in and find the minority that are not worthy of a page. What are we accomplishing here? --Balerion (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain how that is not WP:CRYSTAL balling? пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this is pointless busy work and this entire series of AFDs is a waste of otherwise useful time. --B (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The New York Times seems to cover him as a member of the New York Red Bulls.1, 2. Soccer America covers him as well - 3. Although he's a rookie, I think it makes sense to keep this article. BWH76 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 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. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Islam and anti-Christian persecution
- Delete This article is a POV fork of the article Persecution of Christians. All the information presented in this article are present in Persecution of Christians, and if not should be merged in that article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. —Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. As a look at the article makes abundantly clear, it is a laundry-list of mostly unrelated items, and as such violates WP:SYN. Most of the persecution is neither particularly Islamic nor systematically directed against Christians, but rather incidental to generic conflicts. As an example, claiming the "Young Turks" were motivated by Islam is absurd on the face of it - for all their faults, they laid the foundation of Turkey as a secular state! It might well be possible to write an article on this or a similar topic, but the current one serves as an inhibition rather than as a stepping stone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Mr Schulz there are academics who would disagree (though their opinions are controversial). Mr Arnold J. Toynbee is one such person, who you wholesale just denied that he did and stated that he stated. His article and related articles are currently also being like wise and in a like manner attacked. Also it denies that The Blight of Asia was ever written or read. I added those people to the article and the sourced information both were deleted wholesale and without collaboration. Their positions are not getting voiced in the other articles either. A profile for one such acedemic that I created has also being setup for AFD. There is nothing collaborative about editors denying, obstructing and deleting, what scholars clearly state. Editor acting as if they need to be and have to convinced of what is blatant and clearly inprint. You are being unfair and if you look at how much and what was cut of the article this will establish a pattern of abuse done this same type of way on other wiki articles.
LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above, this is a simple POV fork of Persecution of Christians. <eleland/talkedits> 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete POV, communally divisive. -Ravichandar 14:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Lordjeff06 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all comments above. Eklipse (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Stephan Schulz and Ravichandar -- Salih (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
KeepAlthough there are problems with the article, the topic of persecution of any group because of its religion is encyclopedic, and a snowball delete is something that should be avoided; I hope that the author gets time to consider what we're talking about here. Ironically, what I'm seeing here is a person of one faith condemning believers of another faith because of the actions of some. There was a massacre in 1982 of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by militiamen who declared themselves to be Christian-- would it be fair to impute this to all of Christianity? Is persecution by a Moslem different than persecution by someone else? Is a Moslem killer necessarily acting under the direction of a Moslem cleric? I think that a list of incidents of persecution would be encyclopedic, but you have to ask yourself whether you believe that you can check your point of view at the door without feeling that you've betrayed your faith. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)- Delete A POV article by definition. It's a one sided point making exercise bringing together disparate events that should be seen seperately. For starters, "persecution" is a POV term itself and narrows the possible focus of any such article. Take the Indonesian section as an example - much of the trouble in the last 10 years in some of the eastern parts of the island has been virtual war based along sectarian lines. This article doesn't alude to the wider context of two-sided conflict - if it was to be put in, it would no doubt be argued out as irrelevant to the topic (ie, one sided complaint list). As it currently stands, readers are none-the wiser to the bigger picture in this region. --Merbabu (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete pov fork of persecution of Christians. This article is a recreation of "Persecution by Muslims". Editors need to remember that the article was deleted some time ago (and with consensus). Note: editors may be interested in nominating Persecution by Christians for deletion as well.Bless sins (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great point Bless sins! The other article also need to be deleted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The persecution of one religion by another is a widespread phenomenon, and all articles of this sort if written acceptably can be justified here. The solution to unpleasant parts of history that will offend various parties is to write them carefully but not to omit them. NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You missed my logic. No one is saying it did not happen. But the fact here is that when you create an article titled Persecution by X-religion, that article become a POV fork and anti-X POV-pushing. Persecution of Y-religion by X-religion should be mentioned in Persecution of Y-religion articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per my comment on the talk page several weeks ago. Just like the deleted "Historical persecution by X" series, this one collates a series of unrelated events so as to present them as sequential and intricately linked. This constitutes original research, and, given the POVFORK nature of the article, is unavoidable. Anything that needs to be mentioned can be done in Persecution of Christians. ITAQALLAH 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. How about a more NPOV article at Historical conflict between Christianity and Islam (ordered that way for the sake of alphabetics)? An Islam-centric article should be at Historical persecution by Muslims (now a redirect) if there evidence for persecution by Islam. --Oldak Quill 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, the proposed article will be unencyclopedic as the information are respectivly present in Persecution of Christians and Persecution of Muslims. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Historical persecution by Muslims (now redirect) to make more NPOV, and give the article more potential. --Oldak Quill 19:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- That was deleted in the last AfD as per WP:OR, and rightly so. ITAQALLAH 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The delete reason ("The result was delete. WP:OR concerns haven't been addressed - the sources listed do not appear to be relevant and new sources have not been presented here.") seems more a determination that the content in the article at the time was original research, not that there is no scope for an article about Historical persecution by Muslims. With a keep:delete ratio of 13:23, I'm sure there's scope for an NPOV, non-OR article at that title. --Oldak Quill 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- That was deleted in the last AfD as per WP:OR, and rightly so. ITAQALLAH 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename into something neutral like Muslim debate on persecution and toleration or Historical conflict between Christianity and Islam. The topic is relevant and NPOV issued can be cleaned up.Zara1709 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The question is of POV fork. The information can be found easily in the article Persecution of Christians. And there are some WP:SYN in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The first suggestion isn't related to the current content of the article. The second is extremely vague, presents two religions as monolithic, and presumes that any 'conflict' between Muslims and Christians equates to conflict between Islam and Christianity, which is far too superficial a perspective. How would you respond to the view that presenting a sequence of unrelated incidences of persecution, in a way not done by reliable sources, violates Wikipedia policy on original research? Because that's what I believe it does. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- You don't need to tell me about WP:SYN in cases where a "sequence of unrelated incidences of persecution" is presented. After all, I came into my first edit war in WP when I cleaned up Persecution of Germanic Pagans. But whereas there were no cases of persecution of Germanic Pagans by Christians (that little religious warfare by Charlemagne and Olaf II of Norway doesn't really count) there were actually cases of persecution of Christians by Muslims, weren't they? That an article is written in a bad quality alone is not a reason for deletion (unless the quality is really bad, which is not the case here.) I mean, the old Persecution of ancient Greek religion was a lot worse, and it didn't get deleted but was cleaned up. Zara1709 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's not about article quality. It's about whether there are actually sources linking these assumedly unrelated incidents together. There was indeed persecution of Christians by Muslims, and vice versa, and these belong in Persecution of Christians/Persecution of Muslims respectively. Focusing on the victimising group and implying connections between different events on opposing sides of the world - when no such sources exists to verify this - is nothing other than original research. Discussion of the relationship between Islam and Christianity can be done in more general terms over at the aptly named Islam and Christianity. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- All the information present in the article are present in Persecution of Christians.
-
- You don't need to tell me about WP:SYN in cases where a "sequence of unrelated incidences of persecution" is presented. After all, I came into my first edit war in WP when I cleaned up Persecution of Germanic Pagans. But whereas there were no cases of persecution of Germanic Pagans by Christians (that little religious warfare by Charlemagne and Olaf II of Norway doesn't really count) there were actually cases of persecution of Christians by Muslims, weren't they? That an article is written in a bad quality alone is not a reason for deletion (unless the quality is really bad, which is not the case here.) I mean, the old Persecution of ancient Greek religion was a lot worse, and it didn't get deleted but was cleaned up. Zara1709 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- See Islam_and_anti-Christian_persecution#Ottoman_Empire and see Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_in_Ottoman_Empire.
- See Islam_and_anti-Christian_persecution#Turkey and see Persecution_of_Christians#Turkey.
- See Islam_and_anti-Christian_persecution#Iraq and see Persecution_of_Christians#Iraq.
- See Islam_and_anti-Christian_persecution#Sudan and see Persecution_of_Christians#Sudan.
- See Islam_and_anti-Christian_persecution#Pakistan and see Persecution_of_Christians#Pakistan.
- See Islam_and_anti-Christian_persecution#Egypt and see Persecution_of_Christians#In_other_Muslim_nations.
- See Islam_and_anti-Christian_persecution#Palestinian_territories and see Persecution_of_Christians#In_other_Muslim_nations.
- See Islam_and_anti-Christian_persecution#Other_Muslim_nations and see Persecution_of_Christians#In_other_Muslim_nations.
This article is nothing but a POV fork of Persecution of Christians. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Discussed this with Itaqallah before. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unnecessary given main article exists. If sub-articles are to be created, they should be created along geographical lines following the divisions in the main article. Relata refero (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We had a discussion about this before and the decision was to delete all the articles Persecution by Muslims, Persecution by Christians and Persecution by Jews and keep the "Persecution of" articles. Many of us voted for deletion of those articles but Persecution by Christians left. So, the better move, I suggest is nomination of Persecution by Christians for deletion instead of adding more of the same articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has already been nominated. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. I am not sure if people visiting this article would notice that as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has already been nominated. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks fine to me. Also, I just don't believe in deletion. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- So you feel that an article which is inherently going to consist of original research due to its topic shouldn't be deleted? ITAQALLAH 14:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Like we have Islam and antisemitism, Christianity and antisemitism, etc. we should also have this article. If sourced, it has the potential to be a good article, though it may need rewriting (and probably could use a better title). We don't need to move it to Historical persecution by Muslims. Persecution by Muslims, maybe.Yahel Guhan 03:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment While there is a significant body of scholarly literature dedicated to antisemitism and its origins, it appears as though the same is not true here. There are very few, if any, scholarly works that actually discuss the relationship between Christians and Islam--not Muslims as people, we already have Persecution of Christians. This article, at its best, would eventually be reduced into an article that simply discusses Devshirme and Dhimmi (with a heavy bias towards an Ottoman or Egyptian context or modern times) and would still require some analytical thinking and speculation in order to "connect the dots." Moreover, all the information that the article would eventually accumulate would be better fit into articles like Dhimmi, Devshirme, and Persecution of Christians. -Rosywounds (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can't really compare Islam and antisemitism with this article. Islam and antisemitism is specifically a topic that has been discussed in reliable source publications. The same cannot be said about "Islam and anti-Christian persecution", mainly because "anti-Christian persecution" isn't a developed concept like Antisemitism.
- Your argument also lacks fundamental consistency, as on the other AfD currently active you opined delete because it was a "POV fork" (why isn't this article a POV fork?) and because the "Persecution by Muslims" article was deleted, yet here you are suggesting keep because you think that deleted article is warranted.
- As Rosywounds said, an article like this is inherently going to be original research as it inappropriately and unverifiably weaves together unrelated events. ITAQALLAH 14:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I too have noticed the inconsistent argument. Here Yahel advocates having a "Persecution by Muslims" article, yet on the other AfD he/she advocates the deletion of "Persecution by Christians" article.Bless sins (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- IT is a POV fork if one exists but not the other. Either they both stay, or they both need to go. I'd prefer they both stay, but since it seems this is going to be deleted, they both should go. Yahel Guhan 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly this is not how you vote. You want this article to stay, but the other article to go. On other AfD you voted "delete", while here you voted "keep".Bless sins (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- IT is a POV fork if one exists but not the other. Either they both stay, or they both need to go. I'd prefer they both stay, but since it seems this is going to be deleted, they both should go. Yahel Guhan 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I too have noticed the inconsistent argument. Here Yahel advocates having a "Persecution by Muslims" article, yet on the other AfD he/she advocates the deletion of "Persecution by Christians" article.Bless sins (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete for lack of addressing the subject. The problem with such articles is they become laundry lists of "this is when Muslims X have persecuted Y" which is better suited for individual articles of Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Iran, etc. than this. IFF we could have a more systemic article going about the idea of persecution then it might work... but the problem is we take general sources about events and pretend they can make an article about persecution. gren グレン 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, blatant POV fork and full of original research. Pahari Sahib 09:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The subject has no article of it's own and has enough history as such to warrant it's own article. The article has been attacked by POV pushing individuals who have deleted explicit worded commentary by scholars like Mark Cohen. The obstanence of POV pushing editors who deny what scholars such as Cohen say. This is an example of the knee jerk reactionary uncollaborative quality of the current pack of POV editors on the article who have made unjustified and unethical allegations and edits deleting content (and not adding that deleted content to other like subject articles) against the article. This AFD and the accusations made against the article are blatant abuses of the policies of wikipedia. This AFD and the conduct of certain editors on the article is disrupted and not inline with the proper spirit of a collaborative effort such as wikipedia. Here at wikipedia people actually can attempt to state negative things about a subject without being silenced by a POV majority group who silenced with no scholar research of their own but rather deleting what they don't like. This article is an excellent example of information which has scholarly support being censured and or repressed under abuses of policy.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- First of all, I will tell you to read the wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL. I think this WP:CIVIL will do a lot of good to you.
- Second of all, see the arguments by User:Itaqallah that "any conflict between Muslims and Christians does not equate to conflict between Islam and Christianity" and in this article is "series of unrelated events so as to present them as sequential and intricately linked". It is very important point here and this article has several original synthesis.
- Third, "The subject has no article of it's own" - this is a blatant nonsensical argument. Not all subject needs its own article. Wikipedia has certain policies on articles. This fact has been discussed many times, see above, that the information in this article are duplicate of Persecution of Christians. I think I do not have to repeat for you that what is WP:POVFORK.
- And finally I will suggest you that instead of disrupting this AfD, have some say in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (2nd nomination). I can guess that you certainly do not feel good with another article Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete, it appears to already be extensively covered at Persecution_of_Christians#Muslim_persecution_of_Christians. --MPerel 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The problem with this and the related Persecution of Christians and Christian debate on persecution and toleration (as it is unfortuantely now named) is that one is a fork of the other. Both are substantial articles, so that forking is legitimate. The problem is that the subject has not been summarised in the parent article with the addition of a "main" template, directing users to another article for detail. However, I would recommend that this and related articles should be made into a suitable tree, with a main general article (parent) and a series of more detailed ones on specific subjects. It is undoubtedly the case that there is widespread persecution of Christians today in many Muslim-majority nations. The article has numerous citations, which makes it clear that this is neither WP:OR nor WP:POV. It is a fork, but not a mere POV fork. The solution is to tidy up the structure. Perhaps User:Otolemur crassicaudatus could spare the time to do this, rather than keeping making extra contributions to this debate. I would prefer the title Muslim persecution of Christians. If there is evidence of such, Christian Persecution of Muslims, would be a legitimate subject, etc. However, we must not have parallel articles that duplicate (and probably eventually contradict) each other. I also think that ethnic conflicts (such as Bosnian/Serb and Russian/Chechyn) should be excluded, or only mentioned briefly by way of cross-reference. That also applies to the Armenian and other genocides by the Ottoman government. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- You simply ignored the reasonings provided why this article is inappropriate. "The article has numerous citations" yes, the article has. But care to the arguments above that any conflict between Muslims and Christians does not equate to conflict between Islam and Christianity. Some isolated and unrelated facts do not constitute "Islamic persecution of Christians". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - "The article has numerous citations, which makes it clear that this is neither WP:OR nor WP:POV" - This is a fundamentally flawed argument and misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. An article can have numerous citations, yet still violate original research either by inappropriate usage of those citations or by implying connections, links, or a continuity that is not verified by the sources. In this case, the problem of original research lies in the article construction and scope. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You simply ignored the reasonings provided why this article is inappropriate. "The article has numerous citations" yes, the article has. But care to the arguments above that any conflict between Muslims and Christians does not equate to conflict between Islam and Christianity. Some isolated and unrelated facts do not constitute "Islamic persecution of Christians". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- No more then you are not listening to anyone else. Your rational for deletion of the article is a distortion of wiki policy. You are not being collaborative you are being disruptive.
LoveMonkey (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment Explain why you are calling me "disruptive". What is the reason? I have provided all the reasoning why this article is inappropriate. All those who voted delete, provided reasonings for their vote. It is you who are not listening to any argument. And please note that majority of the people have given delete vote here, hence majority of the people are supporting my "disruption". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- By deleting the article and not adding any of its information to the other articles you have noted. Instead you are spending allot of time here instead. As for your other comments. I did not edit war as you and your buddies did on the article. Your buddie are the ones not listening to scholarly sources under the guise that they are being misinterpretated. Any open minded admin would read the talkpage and see just how closed mind this group of censured have been. I have never voted for an article to be deleted not ever.
LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm satisfied that persecution of Christians is covered well by the article of the same name, though I think that if a non-POV article could be written, it would be a keeper. I originally voted "keep" because it looked like we were heading to a snowball of deletes, and I think we all do well to debate the merits of the topic. That said, I think that feelings run high on this topic and that it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about the massacre of fellow human beings. I note that the title of the article has changed several times: "Islamic persecution of Christians"; "Muslim persecution of Christians"; "Islam and Anti-Christian sentiment"; and the current title, "Islam and Anti-Christian persecution". There have plenty of occasions, since AD 622, of non-Muslims being persecuted, because of their beliefs, by followers of Islam, but I can't see indicting all of Islam for persecution, at different times and in different places, by zealots. As a Christian, I am feel no obligation to apologize for the Spanish Inquisition. Once you turn the focus from the religion of the victims to the religion of the perpetrators, it's inevitable that there will be POV problems. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which is why "Persecution of Christians" and "Persecution of Muslims" are both legitimate articles that are kept on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Blatant violation of POV. Dustitalk to me 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - another in a blatant series of POV forks. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 15 March 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. I have redirected to Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons), knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nilbog
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. May deserve a mention at the article on D&D goblins, may not. Not quite sure of the nature of the Necromancer Games source, but I can be almost certain that the 'nilbog in other media' lists unrelated uses of the word. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into D&D article - non-notable, so it should be merged. αѕєηιηє t/c 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Notable. Added some cites to demonstrate notability and potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons), since they are basically a weird type of goblin and that article has a better chance of being notable. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Eteled. Unless cites can be found, we don't have a leg to stand on hereWeak Keep thanks to cites. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)- Keep per Colonel Warden. --Oldak Quill 20:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons) per Ig8887. — NovaDog — (contribs) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Colonel Warden
, or merge into Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)- A merge has been performed, thanks to Webwarlock. It can be simply redirected to Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons) if not kept. BOZ (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons). shadzar-talk 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or 'Merge as per BOZ. Eithin (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons). -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no secondary coverage. Fails WP:N, WP:RPG/N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Realizing you've been cutting and pasting that for the last N edits, you _did_ bother reading this and seeing that there is secondary coverage, right? Hobit (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that he didn't and so his comment should be discounted as false. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Realizing you've been cutting and pasting that for the last N edits, you _did_ bother reading this and seeing that there is secondary coverage, right? Hobit (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to goblin, but the nilbog use outside of D&D should be kept in the merger. Hobit (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Minor component of fictional work, per WP:FICT. Vague mention in a movie review in the Salt Lake City tribune isn't enough to justify a separate article. --John Nagle (talk) 19:41, 11 March 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 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nicole martini
Some random drink that some random tyro made. WP:NFT, the end. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V, WP:N, WP:NFT, WP:NOT#HOWTO... JohnCD (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Snowball delete per all of the above.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:02, 8 March 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 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thessalmonster
Group of Dungeons & Dragons monster claimed by one character in one setting to have been created by them. A brief mention at the article on liches, under the brief description of the lich Thessal, is probably more than enough. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Close and propose a merge or a redirect at the article talk page. no need to bring this here.DGG (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, a brief mention in the lich article is already more than is needed for a trivial monster. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — as above. shadzar-talk 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough information to make it very informative. Waste of kb --Jammy (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no independent coverage. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:36, 10 March 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 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Issa Makalou
Contested PROD. Article makes no assertion of notability as the player has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield «T•C» 09:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. John Hayestalk 11:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - his profile on PlayerHistory.com says that he has made 26 appearances and scored 1 goal for whatever club he played for before he joined Tolouse. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete based on new research from Punkmorten - the appearances given on PlayerHistory are probably therefore reserve matches and non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- [14] shows that he played for Touluse all the time, so delete as the current sources are too thin. In any case, you GiantSnowman don't know if that previous club was fully professional. Punkmorten (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BanRay 11:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 12:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Star Kidz
non-notable tv show, probably a hoax nat.utoronto 09:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - It's definitely not a hoax (see [15] [16] [17]), but I couldn't find any real sources discussing the show--the best I got was articles about one of the former presenter's sex scandal. --jonny-mt 10:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've looked around and I agree with jonny-mt in that most of the discussion seems to be centered on the sex scandal, Although I'm not certain if it should be kept or not. There looks like there may be a few articles around, but I suspect the real problem is that it is difficult to determine the notability of something from Zimbabwe by relying on hits found on Google. I'll keep looking, but it may be worth keeping in mind that the article is only four days old, and it may be that the notability could be established through print sources by someone more local. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep I'm going with keep (although not strong), as I've added what I could find about the channel online, which brings it up to stub class, I think. I don't feel that I've established notability, but there was enough to make me believe that it is notable in Zimbabwe and that, given time, someone might establish this (especially given that the article has only been around for a few days). There's also a couple of extra articles which might help, but I can't access them from here. - Bilby (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Bilby's good work in adding sources. Even if the sources themselves do not cover the channel itself in detail, this should be notable in its part of the world, and we should avoid systematic bias against subjects related to countries that people who edit Wikipedia are less likely to reside in or know about.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the reason why I listed "probably a hoax" as one of my reasons to delete was because the creator of the article has very little credibility in my view as his vandalism is to insert deliberately false information into articles. nat.utoronto 03:44, 9 March 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. I have redirected to Dungeons & Dragons, as that is the only article that I am sure is appropriate to redirect to. Feel free to redirect to a better article, and merge relevant and verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Boalisk
Dungeons & Dragons monster of questionable notability. First appearance was in a module, the second was a reprint in a supplement that just lists monsters. No evidence of third party coverage. A merge to the module may be appropriate, but that depends on how prevalent the monsters are within the supplement. Probably, a mention in the module article or an outright delete is a better option. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Give 'em to Frank Sloth. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 09:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Close and propose a merge or a redirect at the article talk page. no need to bring this here.DGG (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge a brief mention into the module article. There's already a paragraph about the monsters introduced, it just needs a mention of the name and the six word summary of the monster's concept ("crossbreed of a boa and a basilisk") to be all that Wikipedia needs on this thing. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth (I'm assuming) per Ig8887. BOZ (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — non-notable, mention in the module listed above. shadzar-talk 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e. a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Zero benefit to Wikipedia to lose the article; possible gain by keeping it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no secondary sources. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:35, 10 March 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 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Risk clones
Delete It's just a collection of links.. Yzmo talk 09:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Judging by the talk page and current content of the article itself, this just seems to be an attempt to create a fork of the main article. --jonny-mt 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nom and jonny-mt. Cloudz679 (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, just a collection of links to non-notable websites.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - anything notable can be moved to Risk (game) Think outside the box 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The editors of the main article treat this material the way they do because it violates WP:EL. --Dhartung | Talk 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:26, 9 March 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 User:Rudget under WP:CSD#G7. (Non-admin closure) EJF (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Beck row base housing
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails alot, Speedy delete A1, A3, take your pick -Jahnx (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Commment I guess add speedy delete GC7 to that list since the creator blanked the page. -Jahnx (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The blanking by the author was undone by User:Vivio Testarossa; I've since undone their undoing and tagged it per WP:CSD#G7. --jonny-mt 10:20, 8 March 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; will userfy to allow for fixing. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of Zen centers in the United States
Delete The article is written like advertisement. The name of centers are given and their addresses and phone numbers are also given. This is clear form of advertisement. The list is not needed as article, this is what categories are for. So the name of the notable centers should be categorized. A category like Category:Zen centers in the United States can be created for notable centers. At its present form, the article is completely unencyclopedic and advertisement. Wikipedia is not directory. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Valuable resource for those interested in Zen Buddhism. (Mind meal (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
- You missed my reasonings. Wikipedia is not directory. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. Wikipedia is not a phonebook. -Jahnx (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I change my mind, there really is no reason for this to be in a list. I agree a category is suitable. -Jahnx (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Category:Zen centers exists. This article is an excellent resource, and for some strange reason the one thing holding it back is the additional, more comprehensive information provided: i.e. addresses and phone numbers. Had I not taken the time to improve this article with those details, this would have never been nominated. Yet another case of bureaucracy interfering with the beneficial availability of information. (Mind meal (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
-
- Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- A complete bureaucratic waste of time. Furthermore, this is a list, not a directory. It just happens to be a more comprehensive list than most. Wikipedia:Ignore (Mind meal (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
-
-
- Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." Deor (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Article provides a directory and not encyclopaedic content. Cloudz679 (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as Wikipedia is most certainly not a directory or collection of links to non-notable websites or organisations. There are much more appropriate places online for this to be hosted.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above, vios WP:NOT#DIR UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep- But with some tweaking. I think that the author should somehow list the significance of the lineages in each center. Being Buddhism has what is called Dharma succession the listing of each heir and teacher at the center is possibly more in-line with what wikipedia is looking for. If you remove the phone numbers and addresses but have the link to their site then that may give less of an appearance of "phone book" and more of an encyclopedic reference. It is important (to Buddhists or those researching it) to know what line (Dharma heir) a particular center holds. The reason for this is Buddhism can trace its entire lineage all the way back to Shakyamuni Buddha, its sort of like tracing from the Pope back to Jesus. The author has listed the current abbot of each center and their lineage and maybe this may be more a use for this list and not appearing as an advertisement.Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I don't think it looks like an advertisement. However, Wikipedia is not a directory. This information appears to have been ripped from Buddhanet.net and other similar sites, then dumped on Wikipedia. This is unacceptable. Considering the fact that Eastern European geographical entries and similarly dubious content are being spammed onto Wikipedia en masse, this article appears to be good enough to belong in Wikipedia, by its very low community standards. However, not good enough to belong in an actual **encyclopedia**, with reasonable standards, which we must work towards hopefully maybe establishing, someday in the distant future. Lists like these (i.e. List of LGBT couples) don't belong in a credible, legitimate encyclopedia and should be deleted immediately. If a certain Zen center is notable (there appear to be several on that list with articles on them), you can add them to Category:Zen centers and Category:Buddhist temples in the United States, if they aren't already there. Also, for obvious reasons, I'm a neutral party here. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Violates policy and good article structure guidelines. A web directory is where something liek this belongs. 2005 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant delete.Userfy. Move to User:Golgofrinchian/List of Zen centers in the United States. This is clearly part of a worthy effort to expand the encyclopedia, its just not publication-ready, and in the meantime it is a useful development aid for the user and the WikiProject.
Appears to violate WP:NOT#directory. I see two possible justifications for such a directory like listing. One is that it is a navigational aid that links to the Zen centers. This assumes that there is further coverage elsewhere in wikipedia on each, or at least most, of the Zen centers listed here (not necessarily single articles on each, but further coverage). This seems not to be the case. The other justification is that there are independent secondary sources demonstrating interest in an authoritative coverage of Zen centers. This is possible, though such sources haven’t been provided. Are there books or articles on the expansion of Zen centres?
Speaking against the suitability of this list is the fact that it is confined to a single country, one not central to Zen nor particular important in the history of Zen, and the fact that there is not a list of Zen centers in the world.
In the end, wikipedia need to contain content saying something about these centers before it is justified to have a directory like listing heavily populated by external links to websites affiliated with the centers. I'm all for navigational aids, but the content has to be there first. If there is a genuine effort to expand coverage of individual centers, then I would support moving the list into Project or User space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:28, 11 March 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. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NWA Australian Championship
Non notable title with no attempt to establish said notability !! Justa Punk !! 08:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm confused. While browsing this I found List of National Wrestling Alliance championships. Besides the fact I don't see Verifiablility and it appears to be original research based off of someone watching some TV. -Jahnx (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It was originally deleted for that reason I believe, I asked for it back so I could add references, sorry, I will be adding references soon, they do exist --Skyhawker666 (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) OK I have improved the article now...and opened up the talk page. --Skyhawker666 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable and an unsalvagle article I think if history of articles on Australian wrestling are anything to go by TaintedZebra (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Should have stayed deleted. Not the least bit notable! GetDumb 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Somewhat notable and will be expanded as the championship changes hands more. Clay4president2 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Only recognised in Western Australia. Not a Australian championship as such. Mal Case (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete on notability grounds. —Moondyne click! 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete does not seem notable, and article does not establish notability. Has previously been deleted via PROD. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:58, 12 March 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 G7: article failed to assert notability or provide reliable sources. It may also have had advertising/conflict of interest issues. —C.Fred (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Feelthefunk.com
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 8 March 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 conditional keep, if no reliable sources are added within a reasonable amount of time, you may nominate this article for deletion again. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stewart Alexander (politician)
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}} |
Fails BLP, N, V, and appears to be OR. Article has had time to gain notability and proper referencing for living bio. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- comment I agree that Delete sounds like the proper course of action. However I think it would be best if time was allowed for major conributors or the articles creater to edit the page. A simple google search brings up several things like votebrianmoore.com which mentions Alexander as a vice president nominee, however most sources I looked at weren't what I would call reliable sources. -Jahnx (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am not sure that WP:OR or WP:V applies in this case. However, WP:BIO#POLITICIANS with the lack of any reference to any of the WP:BIO general criteria should be sufficient for a deletion. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment - WP:BIO states in the category that includes politicians: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." So that would be bad analysis. KV(Talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Do I have to go through this every time a politician comes up for AfD? There is no claim to notability in the article that qualifies under BIO general criteria. His "claim" to notability would thus fall under BIO#POLITICIANS and he fails to meet any of those criteria. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - As soon as I finish his biography, it will be seen that he is more notable. The provision also has a clear intent to keep out candidates in local and minor figures in statewide elections. There is precedent from various minor party presidential and vice presidential figures having pages, with less citation than is on there now. I think it is clear that the article needs to be worked on, but deletion is unneccessary and was brought up before discussion was brought up on the talk page which is just bad Wikiquette. KV(Talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WAX to that. Show BIO criteria and I will be happy to change my opinion. You have plenty of time before the AfD closes, and I have this on my watchlist. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - That is an essay, not policy, and I still think precedent is important in this matter. I'm also not basing my argument completely upon this. I am, however, bringing it up as a point because the Wikipedia community has established standards through precedent, often exercised as "common law," which is more or less the basis of all Wikipedia policy. In that light, I think WP:IAR very well may be applicable in this situation. KV(Talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WAX to that. Show BIO criteria and I will be happy to change my opinion. You have plenty of time before the AfD closes, and I have this on my watchlist. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - As soon as I finish his biography, it will be seen that he is more notable. The provision also has a clear intent to keep out candidates in local and minor figures in statewide elections. There is precedent from various minor party presidential and vice presidential figures having pages, with less citation than is on there now. I think it is clear that the article needs to be worked on, but deletion is unneccessary and was brought up before discussion was brought up on the talk page which is just bad Wikiquette. KV(Talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The major contributor stopped short of citations, and bios of people living need proper sourcing. It looks more like a fan page seeing as the creator is a member of the same political party, and supporter. We see this way too often ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and source. there will certainly be sources. I dont see that the contributors coi makes it unsuitable. DGG (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and work on the thing. He is too notable as is to simply delete. And it does not technically fail any of those things.KV(Talk) 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This seems like a personal conflict in violation of WP:POINT. The article may need work, but that's no reason to delete it outright. Jeffreyely (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I didn't look at it like that before, but it does seem that this AFD could be seen as a violation of WP:POINT by SynergeticMaggot. I added a quote to his talk page as per a discussion we had when I helped him regain internet access. His response was to state he would take retalliation. He then created this AfD and of course knew that was of interest in the article showing that he clearly understood this as an attack against me. His POINT, applying to WP:POINT would be that he has some sort of perverted power. This isn't the first such application of WP:POINT between he and I in this regard, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermetism and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermeticism_and_other_thought_systems for similar issues where he had worked with User:999 and User:Hanuman_Das, both of which have been banned for sockpuppetry (or so he has told me). KV(Talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Allow expanding and sourcing the article instead of deleting. He is known to tens of thousands of people, the article barely scratches the surface of his life and accomplishments. As for the claim that it is a fan site, if that were the case I think it would show a clear bias. As it now stands, it is a short bio. Allow for expanding and sourcing in a timely manner.--Red-epochalypse (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)— Red-epochalypse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep and source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.50.198 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) — 141.212.50.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep per DGG and King Vegita. --Oldak Quill 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - <This makes no sense at all. Stewart Alexander is the current vice presidential candidate of a national FEC-recognized party who will appear on ballots across the country. His information is all over the internet, including the Socialist Party USA website (www.sp-usa.org, the SP Campaign Clearinghouse Website (votesocialist.org) and a new website for the Moore-Alexander campaign is currently being created by the SP at (socialist2008.org. Even every past SP Vice Presidential candidate has a wikipedia article. How could one justify deleting the article on the current vice presidential candidate?> 99.149.249.213 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Matt
- Keep per 99.149.249.213, and cleanup. There are enough third-party sources out there, as mentioned above, but the recent expansion relies too much on Alexander's autobiography at stewartalexandercares.com for me to be happy with it. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I meant to add all this today, but you beat me to it. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Related Discussion
Do not comment here, this section is for related discussion that was not placed on the AfD page so as to give a fuller picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Vegita (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician)
This discussion is from User_talk:Mstuczynski
I added OR and V to the nomination because its suspect since the creator has a personal bias toward the rticle in question. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The web site in question does not constitute as a reliable second party source (secondary source). Especially since there are topics on the page that do not discuss his political carrer. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. It confirms the first sentence of the article. The rest is about his life, and unverifiable. This is the difficulty in creating biographies while the person is living. If you dont wish to respond, you dont have to. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Stewart Alexander (politician)
This is from User_talk:SynergeticMaggot
While I sympathise with your position on this matter, this article is properly referenced by reliable sources e.g. Socialist Party USA website and is thus neither OR nor unverifiable. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure why I am responding, but the article claims he is the Socialist Party USA V.P. candidate and their website confirms it. I do not know why that is not a reliable source. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:42, 8 March 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. John254 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mobikade
Non notable website. Alexa rank 1,527,396. Asoed (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep The article does parts to assert its significance but I am unable to find mention of Mobikade in UK-based online newspapers. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Web Notability doesn't require a high ranking. Google stats and other forms of stats shouldn't be used alone to determine if something is notable or not. -Jahnx (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. There are no offline sources to verify the article, so how do you suggest notability is determined for this page? Cloudz679 (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply here is a online link to Mobile Entertainment, UK an Feb 19, 2008 article. That is in addition the the independent websites listed as references in the article. So it meets the critera. Which would fullfill the critera 1 or 3. It doesn't have to be an offline source. However if you want to argue the 2nd critera The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization then you have an arguement, however it only has to accomplish one of these criteras. -Jahnx (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Cloudz679, the sources look decent enough, although it'd be better if we established exactly what kind of websites those were (if they were only for promoting this website, then I would change to delete).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Cloudz679. --Oldak Quill 20:19, 8 March 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 CSD A7. Rudget (?) 10:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gearcult
Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per CSD:A7. An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Author previously removed the tag for speedy delete but I believe it is applicable here. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Cloudz679. -Jahnx (talk) 08:48, 8 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lo2a
Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not assert the importance of the subject. Looks like just another search engine. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. Has been in existence for only around 2 weeks as well, no third party sources whatsoever. Google isn't turning up much in terms of reliable sources, gets a few blog mentions but that's about it I think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Alexa gives it a traffic rank of 1,771,477. Eklipse (talk) 14:40, 8 March 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. As for Sellaband, nothing. That just isn't the one being discussed here. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nvohk
Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, notability isn't established. Article uses references from the website it is about. Failing Independent sources. No other notability is pressumed -Jahnx (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What is the difference between this entry and something like Sellaband, whose references are also all from the website it is about? TortugaToo (talk) 01:56, 11 March 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
[edit] Emmanuel Gospel Center
speedy delete - tagged copyvio. Non-admin closure. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Spammy page on non-notable local religious organization. Noble Sponge (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blatant copyvio and so tagged. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:53, 8 March 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. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Peel Street
There is no reason to believe that the content is worthy of notice. There might be many different Peel streets other than this one. Jpdemers (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No comment on notability as I don't really understand the criteria involved in road notability or really follow typical outcomes, but I think a good argument exists for this to be moved, if kept, to something like Peel Street (Hong Kong) and a disambiguation created because this search terms up a number of similarities including Roads and towns. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - it's part of the template, it's got pretty pictures, why not? —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable other than its namesake. -Jahnx (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable, and Wikipedia is not a guidebook. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete.--andreasegde (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. All I'll say is that Wikipedia is certainly not a travel guide - that's why Wikitravel exists. (I raised this question before, and I'll ask again here - what is the deal with transwiki to non-Wikimedia Foundation websites like Wikitravel? Does it matter to Wikipedia editors whether the content is transferred since it's not helping to construct a part of a Wikimedia project?) I agree with the keep voter that the pictures are kind of interesting, but Wikipedia is also certainly not the Wikimedia Commons or any kind of image gallery. Unless reliable sources (preferably book sources) covering this street are added, I'd be more inclined towards a delete.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Article about a major street in the centre of a capital city (IMO, inherently notable). Plenty of online sources. Scope for history, culture and famous things on this street (eateries and food market). --Oldak Quill 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this link comments on the Unusual charactor of the street, which would lend credence to its notability. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Luke! (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The street is historical rich. It is part of early street markets in Hong Kong. It come to more attention when Urban Renewal Council started a re-development project around Peel Street and Graham Street. source There is an indigenous temple in the middle of the street that is the heritage of early Chinese population in the area. --— HenryLi (Talk) 11:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - It is in Central, one of the first areas developed in the territory. It has a deep history like Henry suggested above. Whether we get to it anytime soon, probably not. But worth keeping. Benjwong (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm going to trust that given the history of the area, there will be sources to prove notability. EJF (talk) 17:23, 13 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tefosav
No evidence of RS coverage to indicate they pass either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC (I think it could fall under either). In the ghits I see forum posts, blogs and download links. I don't see any evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- To be fair, I also checked Google Books and Google Scholar; no hits. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: article creator is currently blocked and since he cannot comment here he has made his case for keep on his talk page. I'm not certain as to the policy of linking to a blocked user's comments, so please feel free to rv me if this should not be linked here. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 07:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable spam. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and Orange Mike. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please look at my talk page and provide feedback on my discussion prior to any actions. There is a bigger issue here that simple allegations of "spam" are sufficient "rationalizations" for deletion. I would also like to address OrangeMike in his assertion that no references were found in Google Books or Google scholar as the subject is not related to either books or scholarly publications. I find it silly that he would even make mention of either of these resources to begin with. The problem seems to be in the defined acceptance of Notability and it's broad scope. There is currently debate on the subject of Notability that I believe an article such as TEFOSAV is too easily falling into a gap which makes it's inclusion on wikipedia difficult despite it's relevance . How do you record a notable phenomenon that is not generally notable in both traditional and arbitrarily defined "reliable sources"? Just because the subject is not part of "popular" discussion within easy reach of a google search, does not mean that it is not notable in a more general definition of the word. Given time, it is possible that such defined notability will be obtain in some fashion but only through the combined efforts of the community at large. Also, this is not some simple case of obvious self presentation, as I am not in any way related to the organization in question. In fact, said organization only exists in a historical perspective and that accusations that it is in some way trying to profit in some fashion from inclusion in wikipedia is debatable. As I have tried to make perfectly clear on my own talk page about this topic, this exercise is entirely academic in scope. It is my belief that any rationalizations for deletions should address those statements prior to any actions by the administrators. Finally, I would like to point out that those users making recommendations do not maintain any level of expertise on the subject matter and should refrain from making any uninformed comments regarding its inclusion in this discussion without making a reasonable attempt to educate themselves in it. Only through intelligent discussion can an understanding of the subject matter be obtain and that their "shoot first, ask questions" methodology be called into question. Zenasprime (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- What makes Tefosav different then 12k? Is it 12k/LINE: Zen and the Art of the Drum Machine (Originally published in The Wire, 218)? or Stylus Magazine: Label Profile ? or maybe these Taylor Deupree interview / Blueprints compilation review ? Oh wait, those links are dead! But if anyone is interested I have the actual hardcopy, the paper and ink variety, in my personal library if anyone would like to see them. Incidentally, I have copies of Goove magazine which, while not present in any searchable format here on the internet, contain article relevant to Tefosav. Anyway, my question remains, what makes these two articles difference in terms of notability? Is there some understanding that 12k is more popular that keeps it from deletion that tefosav does not? Why is it that 12k can maintain it's presence simply because Taylor is a better promoter then the organizers of Tefosav? It's not like we do not all know of each other within this circle and if individually asked about the other, we would conclude that they were of similar note, relatively speaking. I don't mean to harp on the subject but this all seems to be of a significant level of subjectivity that shouldn't be tolerated when it comes attached to such a draconian measures, but that's a conversation better served at different location. (note to Taylor, sorry for dragging you into this debate ;) ) Zenasprime (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should. I saw your comment on your talk page (it's best now that you're unblocked to keep the discussion here in one central place) about wanting to preserve an understanding of the music but that's not sufficient grounds for an article being notable per Wikipedia's standards. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think you might be misunderstanding what I am asking. I am not making a comparison to say that because one exist the other should as well. I am asking what makes one different then the other that make it notable while the other one is not. What I gather by the current definition of notability is that an article needs to assert it's notability through links that show it's relevance. The only thing that the 12k article has that the tefosav article does not are the links which I highlighted above. In fact, in creating the tefosav article I did a copy of the 12k text and used it as a template to create it. I am contending that the 12k article differs only in that it presents these links as evidence of it's notability, correct? If that is the case, then would links of a similar nature be enough to establish notability of the article? What I am ultimately questioning is that the establishment of notability, especially in this case, is HIGHLY subjective and that perhaps due to unique circumstances a more lenient degree of moderation should be considered such that the community could be given time to establish a similar degree of notability? Wikipedia is a community based effort, why not give the community time to perform its function? Or do I have the function of this website wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenasprime (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let me ask this, if I am able to produce a bibliography style reference to an article on the subject of Tefosav that is contained in a magazine, such as grooves, and cited that reference in the article, even though it would not be searchable on the internet, would that establish notability in this case? In other words, I can't provide a link to the resource but I can cite some outside article, obscure as it might be, is that enough to establish notability? Zenasprime (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4]
- "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]
- A single article in a magazine obscure enough that it itself does not have an article here, would probably not suffice. Note that other articles have citations to a plurality of sources, not a single one. I do readily agree, however, that the availability or non-availability of a source publication on the Internet is totally irrelevant. I mentioned books and Google-Scholar results because such results may serve to show that the subject matter has been deemed of interest to serious students of the field. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- So you don't really do your research and are here just to be a jackass... grooves YOU are the problem, not the article. Instead of being a jackass, why don't you just answer my question about how to cite an in print source? Zenasprime (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would also like to add that this entire process is chuck full of subjectivity simply because of all the other articles available on wikipedia that do not meet the criteria you have just so kindly pasted up for my amusement. This entire process is subject to asshattery the likes of which only the internet can provide. Wikipedia is a joke precisely because of administrators like OrangeMike. Have fun with your increasingly irrelevant pet project. Zenasprime (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't wikify the word, I didn't know you meant that was the name of an actual publication. Ignoring your insults, I will offer the following link: WP:CITE to our procedures for citing articles. I usually recommend a pretty basic style, thus: <ref>Smith, John. "Tefosav and Electronic Music: Innovation Online" ''[[Grooves]]'' #202 (Jan. 2007), p. 102</rev>. Make sure to create a "References" section on the bottom of the article, so the reference shows properly.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- If it walks and quacks.... anyway, why don't you put this in my userspace until such time as I am able to go through my library to find the relevant sources, as it seems as if you administrators don't really give the community the necessary time to do the job with which it's been tasked to do. I don't have the amount of time, as you seem to do, to lord over wikipedia to make sure that my articles aren't deleted by the over zealous staff. Thanks Zenasprime (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would you like somebody to help you set up what we call "sandboxes" where you can work on revised versions of this or other articles, with citations and the rest of the expected article infrastructure? You could then invite other editors to examine the re-written versions before posting them to mainspace. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Has everyone just given up on this discussion and moved on to more easily delete-able content? Seriously, is the article just going to remain in deletion limbo because the admins responsible for putting it there couldn't logically argue their own position or support their policy in any reasonable fashion? Zenasprime (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Note, I'm not an admin and I made a valid case for deletion. AfDs normally run for five days, and this will run until a consensus is decided. May I remind you of WP:NPA and WP:COI, both of which you've been cautioned about before. Any citations need to come from reliable sources and for the nth time, WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid keep reason. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Again with WP:OTHERCRAP is misguided in this respect. Other crap is important because it clearly shows that there is a Double_standard that exists when ALL things are equal otherwise. AGAIN this isn't a case where policy is in question but it's interpretation by the powers that be.
- Just to reiterate my position, as it doesn't seem to be just my perspective, there is a growing debate that is relevant in this case and it's being reported/discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenasprime (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - does a great job of failing... everything. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- NOTE: Article creator, Zenasprime, has been blocked for 48 hours following this AIV report. —Travistalk 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I spent ten frustrating minutes slogging through the various external links provided in the article, and looking at ghits. Didn't see much of anything that would help meet notability requirements. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can this be made into a stub or if not be put into my userspace until such time that it's notability be aggreed upon? Either way, what is requried is that it be given appropriate time such that the community can provide the necessary additions. Thanks Zenasprime (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've created a sandbox here. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Just so it's clear, I by no means agree to this deletion. It's my position that the community should be given a significant time period through which the necessary source could eventually be added. I in no way support the use of CSD-A7 and firmly believe that the potential for abuse, either deliberate or through ignorance, make this policy more destructive then was it's original intent. Wikipedia should not seek to replace it's hardcopy counterpart by seeking to emulate it's outdated ideological foundation for inclusion, but rather shoudl surplant it through the inclusion of all topics of variable relevance and notiblity as determined by an entire worlds effort. The technology exists for this to be possible, let us use it! Zenasprime (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep Though the article needs work on the references, I feel that there is enough to presume that this isn't a hoax and that Tefosav really did exist as the first paragraph of Tefesav states.
- The group seems worthy of note to me because, though short lived, it is somewhat of a phenomena that several presumably influential artists created a new, non-profit group for supporting digital media.
- By the way, once and for all, just citing WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. Citing other stuff as a reason for inclusion is a mechanism of providing consistency.
- « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:49 2008 March 15 (UTC)
-
- clarification and reply - The question has never been whether the subject existed; and whether it is noteworthy is a value judgment. The question is whether it is notable; and in that, the keep arguments have been weak. (And you seem to be misunderstanding something; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an acknowledgement that we're not perfect here, and some non-notable stuff has accreted; which doesn't constitute a license to put more non-notable stuff in, but rather an admonishment to remove the non-notable. We prefer to raise, not lower, our quality standards.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, what your deletionist attitude seems to miss is that given time, an article will develop the required notability through the collective effort of users. It appears that in it's current state, Wikipedia's policies on this matter are significantly in favor of the deletionist mentality. This is unfortunate given the intended design of Wikipedia as a collective effort. I understand the desire of Wikipedians, such as yourself, to maintain a higher level of respectability, but in the end, it's this kind of philosophy that will ultimately hold Wikipedia back as a useful tool to the public. Zenasprime (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nice try Orange Mike, but you are begging the question.
- Also, I am not misunderstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at all. Did you notice this above: "Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should."? Connect this with the following text from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:
-
The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."
- My point exactly.
- « D. Trebbien (talk) 02:55 2008 March 15 (UTC)
- clarification and reply - The question has never been whether the subject existed; and whether it is noteworthy is a value judgment. The question is whether it is notable; and in that, the keep arguments have been weak. (And you seem to be misunderstanding something; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an acknowledgement that we're not perfect here, and some non-notable stuff has accreted; which doesn't constitute a license to put more non-notable stuff in, but rather an admonishment to remove the non-notable. We prefer to raise, not lower, our quality standards.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 14 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kumudam Jothidam
No evidence of RS coverage and ghits in any language don't indicate any notability for this magazine. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not to be confused with Detele -Jahnx (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless genuine notability is shown somehow.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 10:59, 14 March 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 arguments were made by the keep comments that addressed the notability concerns, when we disregard the SPA. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Frederic H Dustin
Claims to be the founder of a park in South Korea and to be the longest-lived foreign expatriate in Korea. However, searches on Yahoo turn up very little on him or on the park. Blueboy96 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per A7. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Changing to weak keep in light of the references added/and the awards. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article was actually up for an A7 speedy, but I turned it down since it did assert notability. I would think, however, that the longest-lived foreign expatriate in Korea would get more coverage (37 Yahoo hits). Blueboy96 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah really - my searching turns up nothing. Could have proded it, but likely the IP would have removed that too. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I think the article was up for A3 too, which was weird. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is this, but this article is certainly going to need some work if it is to survive. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no real indication of personal notability, although the Jeju Maze seems to turn up in enough travel guides to be worth an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think we have an example of [[this]]. Just because there won't be a ton of information found in English about a man who's accomplishments and life have been centred around South Korea does not mean that that person isn't important and notable in Korea. I added info and was going to bed but thought I'd better vote here just in case. I will add more when I can.--72.1.222.140 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - utterly non-notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The man is utterly notable. He has many accomplishments to his name, including having been invited to the Blue House (South Korea's White House) as a representative of the foreign community of Jeju Island. His philanthropic work alone is worth noting. I started this page this morning but due to time limitations wasn't able to add much more than a few brief sentences. The idea is to continue adding to it as I get time, as well as invite those who have known him to contribute. Give it some time, and you'll see why Frederic H Dustin is most certainly worthy of a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejujejujeju (talk • contribs) 08:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep.--andreasegde (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep I am on the fence about this - I feel the article needs a major re-write to address notability conerns; but receiving the list of awards received, notably from the Minister of Tourism (I am not aware of this is an official government entity in Korea) is enough to keep the article alive for now. Ozgod (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Let's see some verification for this--I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if it can be verified. Blueboy96 19:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete - if there are no more independent, reliable sources that focus on this man (in English or Korean), then it should be deleted. I'm wondering, does he have a Korean language Wikipedia entry? BWH76 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 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 per improved artice, improved sourcing, and withdrawn nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Indosphere
A pathetic little fringe theory that is used only on the Wikipedia and by James A. Matisoff, serving only the purpose of bolstering Indian patriotism. Greater India, Undivided India, Indies, Indianized kingdom and Indian subcontinent (there may be more of them) already serves that patriotic purpose more than adequately. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: I agree that this article needs a few major edits. As Aditya Kabir rightly points out, the term was indeed coined by James Matisoff, and this needs a mention in the article. The context in which the term is used in academic publications also needs to be mentioned more clearly. Although there's a dearth of linguists that work in this area, I would disagree that Matisoff's are the only publications to use the term, since many contemporary academics use the term as well (example.) deeptrivia (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly non-notable; template non-existent. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Greater India, the content may be worthwhile, but it should not be titled under a potentially controversial WP:NEOlogism. <eleland/talkedits> 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - deeptrivia's citation is not relevant. It's a resume, not a publication, it lists the term under "research interests," and it puts the term in scare quotes, implying a lack of agreement in the value of the term on Hildebrandt's part. If someone can find one citation in linguistics that does anything more than mention Matisoff uses the term, I will change my vote to agree with deeptrivia. Rikyu (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Although any well written paper that uses any term like this is very likely to cite the reference that first used the term, a five minute search did lead me to some publications that don't do it explicitly, (The World Atlas of Language Structures, Enfield, Genetti and Hildebrandt, Heine & Kuteva, Siegel & Biels, Levinson and Christensen, Grant & Sidwell, etc.) Mattisoff's paper itself is reasonably well-cited. I would also like to point out that Sinosphere, a more frequently used term, was also coined by Mattisoff. I don't see much ground for this AfD. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK, having looked at the further citations provided by deeptrivia (thanks!), I lean toward severely edit, not delete. This seems a legitimate subject within the realm of linguistics, especially "areal linguistics." I note, though, that several of the sources deeptrivia found have a different definition of the Indosphere than Matisoff. He uses it strictly for "Indianized" portions of Southeast Asia, but most of the other sources use it mostly for South Asia plus Tibet and Burma. So we should note this discrepancy in the edited article. Rikyu (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It seems that the language thing is not really about India (not even when we include Tibet and Burma). It's about a Sprachbund, which in itself is not a well established concept yet (I haven't been able to access the "areal linguistics" site as it requires a registration). In that case it becomes coat rack and quite unacceptable. The little that can be salvaged would only make fodder for some other article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sprachraum and Sprachbund are well established enough in Areal linguistics. Please feel free to point out how exactly do you feel the article becomes a coat rack, and make any edits that will eliminate these issues. You are right in pointing out that this article is not about the Republic of India in any way, nor is it about geography. We have other articles of exactly the same nature on wikipedia (e.g., Anglosphere, Sinosphere, Germanic Europe), and there's no reason why this one cannot stand on its own. deeptrivia (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Delete per WP:NEO and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- (continues from Deep's comment above) Wow! I must begin by saying that you must make some time some day to teach me civility. You are by far the most soothing person that I had a disagreement on the Wikipedia.
- But, the article says nothing of aerial lingusitics, but rather goes on to expound on "Indian" influence on neighboring countries (very much WP:COAT or WP:SOAP). That coat rack is only emphasized by the existence of so many overlapping and repetitive articles on the "Indian influence" around — Greater India, Undivided India, Indies, Indianized kingdom and Indian subcontinent. On top of that, the Sprachbund is an internal concept of Areal linguistics, a subfield of a subfield of language studies, and even there the term seems to be loosely defined (either WP:FRINGE or WP:NEO).
- Besides, what I have seen so far are a few sporadic mentions that hardly covers the "Significant coverage" part of the notability guidelines. Only one person, Matisoff, discusses it at any depth, and his influence may not be enough to keep the article. Though I am not counting out the possibility of applying the Heymann Standard yet, but in light of this and this talk pages I can't really see it happening. This concept doesn't look worthy for an entry. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be non-trivial usage of the term (along with Sinosphere) in academic literature; for example
- Articles by Matisoff (who introduced the term)
- Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects, James A. Matisoff , Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20. (1991), pp. 469-504.
- On Megalocomparison, James A. Matisoff, Language, Vol. 66, No. 1. (Mar., 1990), pp. 106-120.
- Protean Prosodies: Alfons Weidert's Tibeto-Burman Tonology, Review author[s]: James A. Matisoff , Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 114, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1994), pp. 254-258.
- Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Matisoff J A (2003), University of California Press.
- Other authors
- Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia, N.J. Enfield, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005. 34:181–206
- Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Robert M. W. Dixon, Oxford University Press.
- The Sino-Tibetan Languages. Bauer R.S. and Matthews S.J., Cantonese, In: G. Thurgood & R.J. LaPolla (eds) London, UK, Routledge, 2003, 146-55.
- Language variations: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisof. Bradley D., R. J. LaPolla, Boyd MICHAILOVSKY & G. Thurgood (eds), 2003, Canberra, Australian National University (Pacific Linguistics)
- Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, Aleksandra Aĭkhenvalʹd, Robert M. W. Dixon, Oxford University Press.
- Comment: While I feel there is more than sufficient coverage of this topic of areal linguistics to write an encyclopedic article, I also agree with Aditya's observation that the current article veers off-topic into geographic/political/nationalistic issues and hence can be seen as a WP:Coatrack, but remedying that is an issue for the article talk-page and not AFD. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Articles by Matisoff (who introduced the term)
-
- I have taken a stab at reworking the article to provide it with appropriate subject context. Others, more knowledgeable in the area, are welcome to further expand the article and edit out any errors I may have introduced. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks much better, Abecedare. I have further edited the article to remove all material that didn't appear to be directly relevant. deeptrivia (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nicely done, people. I pulled the final external link from the page...some of the material on that page is ridiculously chauvinistic. Putting a garland of flowers around someone's neck is an "Indian" custom surviving in the Philippines? I'm sure that news will interest Hawaiians. And how, exactly, did they determine that 5% of the blood in Filipino veins is Indian? Not a reliable source, even if some of the information on the page is accidentally correct. Rikyu (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks much better, Abecedare. I have further edited the article to remove all material that didn't appear to be directly relevant. deeptrivia (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have taken a stab at reworking the article to provide it with appropriate subject context. Others, more knowledgeable in the area, are welcome to further expand the article and edit out any errors I may have introduced. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- (reduced indent) Resting my case. Nomination withdrawn. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Per above and because Indosphere is a term used in academic articles as well... Ism schism (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note for Administrator - The nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Ism schism (talk) 14:41, 13 March 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. I've redirected to American Automobile Association. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited informaiton. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TripTik
Listing for AfD after {{prod}} removed with the unsubstantiated assertion that "TripTiks are not non-notable!". The article is unreferenced, and doesn't establish the notability of this commercial service (or is it a product?). Mikeblas (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to American Automobile Association. They exist, but there's not that much to be said about them. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect as per the above. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect and possibly merge this content as per above.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:50, 8 March 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 and Redirect to 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I leave it more involved editors as so how best include the material (also, it's a sculpture, not a mural). Black Kite 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Newborn Mural
Non-notable and poorly developed article. Qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS, as Wikipedia is not news. Was previously tagged with {{prod}}, but tag was removed with no changes to the article and no constructive discussion. Grsz 11 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- keep This is actually not a news article, but an article about an art piece. The piece has appeared in multiple newspapers, hence passes WP:N. Stubs are not a reason to delete! (if he merge happens I say we call it a sculpture). Sethie (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, although there are no media stories primarily about the piece it seems to have enough significance, and notable mention in the news, as part of the independence celebration to remain. I would move to, I think, Newborn (sculpture). This is not a mural in the English sense of the term. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - it's unsourced and doesn't assert its notability. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I found this article [18] about the subject although it isn't referred to as a mural and it would seem better placed at the declaration of independence article since the space taken up there would be minimal. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into a single sentence in the other article per Cloudz, unless the notability of this becomes greater in the future.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge A single sentence in 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence seems about adequate. --Crusio (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into the Kosovo article per above. The content is fine, but it's rather a poor choice of title -- it's not actually a mural, it's a sculpture. Over time as more information is gathered about the work it can be split out into its own article again. Alternatively moving to Newborn (sculpture) as suggested above would be fine. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge or delete - basically a non-notable item only here because of Wikipedia's recentist biases. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 15 March 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 as unsourced original research. Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Silent protagonist
This article survived an AfD in September 2007. At the time, the main complaint was that it had no sources, and appeared to be original research. 18 months later, this is still true: there is not a single secondary source in the article, and it is composed entirely of original research. Essentially, the article consists of nothing more than an extended list of examples of things -- mostly videogames -- that Wikipedia editors believe contain "silent protagonists." This is original research in the extreme. The term "silent protagonist" does come up in searches of scholarly literature (this came up in the last AfD), but is generally being used descriptively, not as a term of art. In other words, there's no apparent connection between the uses cited in the previous AfD and the topic of this aticle ("My favorite videogames that have characters without dialogue"). This article has had more than enough time for some reliable source to have been found. None have been forthcoming. None will be forthcoming. We should delete this as original research. Nandesuka (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Zero information is preferred over incorrect and misleading information. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Sometimes, people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it, but the deletion is very extreme solution. I think that "silent protagonist is video game object" is not problem. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Protagonist. This does not appear to be a term used in the industry; the results returned are more likened to eye-catching headlines. Gary King (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per Gary King, but don't merge all of this content, or delete if this term is seen not to be used at all. It's clearly got a load of original research, there are no sources, and it contains far too many examples for an encyclopedia entry. As it stands this is just not suitable for Wikipedia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, using videogames as sources is not original research — it's source-based research. It's not original research to describe someone as a protagonist and it's obvious when someone is silent. And see the sources found on Google Scholar[19] and Google Books[20]. AFD is not for cleanup. The Protagonist article has one source so I wouldn't favor a merge into that article. --Pixelface (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A textbook example of a bad article, and the nominator's reasoning accurately describes why this should go. Quale (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Perfectly encyclopaedic. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. Google scholar link plus things like this attest a good article is possible. User:Krator (t c) 12:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you even read the "Google scholar" link? Which of the books in which the words "silent" and "protagonist" happen to appear do you contend support the text in this article, which has nothing at all to do with any of those sources? Even a cursory examination of that search demonstrates that its connection with the claimed topic of this article approximates zero. Nandesuka (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The question is whether an article can be writen about the topic silent protagonist — not whether the sources from Google scholar directly support the information currently in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you even read the "Google scholar" link? Which of the books in which the words "silent" and "protagonist" happen to appear do you contend support the text in this article, which has nothing at all to do with any of those sources? Even a cursory examination of that search demonstrates that its connection with the claimed topic of this article approximates zero. Nandesuka (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Did you understand the Scholar link? I think I'm pretty up to date on critical parlance, and this isn't an entry at all. "Silent protagonist" is not a genre. In fiction, it's not possible, as a limited 3rd POV would usually provide thoughts, and if there are neither thoughts nor words, then it's not the protagonist (please look that up). This article is pure OR and fan stuff. There is no salient critical distinction, no contextual illumination, no shared attributes, just a list of what the authors think. Geogre (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Gordon Freeman is a silent protagonist. --Pixelface (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- In a video game! There is no scholarly usage of "silent protagonist." There is nothing but accidental combinations of terms for it anywhere but this fan-generated original research. Do we have an article for Eskimo mudflaps, for Deaf Artist, or, most of all, Mute Villain? All of these generate Scholar "hits," and none of them is about the term. Pure OR. Geogre (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- How about The Silent Protagonist: The Unifying Presence of Landscape in Willa Cather's My Antonia? --Pixelface (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- How about it? The landscape is the silent (because it's an abstraction) main character in the fiction. It's no more than saying, "The wilderness is the true protagonist in her fiction." I.e. it is no more compelling than those Eskimo Mudflaps. Adjective + noun is not a usage of a phrase as a term of art. Again: only here, because only possible with visual media. Geogre (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but get rid of all the bogosity. It's plainly a widely used and agreed upon term about computer gaming. Reference to it outside that context seems entirely the product of someone's pretensions. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- So if it's "widely used" it should be easy to come up with some reliable sources, right? Where are they? Nandesuka (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno-- try the links on this page. It's obvious that we cannot expect conventional academic references for something like this. Mangoe (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mangoe, the links on that page are to previous versions of this very Wikipedia article. Can you seriously not see the problem here? We have thousands upon thousands of articles on video-game related topics that do refer to reliable sources. I fail to see why this one is so special that we should ignore our core content policies Nandesuka (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno-- try the links on this page. It's obvious that we cannot expect conventional academic references for something like this. Mangoe (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- So if it's "widely used" it should be easy to come up with some reliable sources, right? Where are they? Nandesuka (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no secondary sources. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Far from providing a reason to keep the article, the Google Scholar/Books hits actually show that the term isn't used to mean anything more than the sum of its parts. The article is unsalvageable original research. EALacey (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but Cleanup - this is an important device, commonly used in many games such as Bioshock, Halo and Half-Life. Although the term itself isn't as commonly used, I was able to dig out some opinion columns such as Gamernode, /kill-the-silent-protagonist-325121.php Kotaku and a guest article on Gamasutra. I've also managed to locate some fanbased uses as this animation series at Newgrounds and this promoted [21] article at Destructid. While the term is not in everyday parlance, I am sure that the article can be cleaned up to remove the POV and OR and make this an an article on an obvious subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. AfD isn't cleanup, and there's no deadline we need to meet. The topic is a valid one. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:42, 14 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Donbas secessionism
The article is pure WP:OR. Virtually no text, just the maps, no sources to support the topic per WP:SOURCE and WP:V. The lonely, non-academic, Radio Free Europe source from 2004 (!) does not even mention secessionism as a phenomenon. Hillock65 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sorry for such an unprofessional start. It'll be extended soon. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 03:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No context what-so-ever. Basketball110 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - NOR. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think this is a terrible article, but it's obviously not brilliant either. At the moment I'd be more inclined towards a delete, but then I can't read the Russian language sources, and if they can establish that this is genuine, then I'd be more inclined towards a keep. There might also be a possible merge target that users may be able to identify. I don't know.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I think we need an article illustrating the East-West relations in Ukraine, however I don't think this particular article is the best choice for it and don't agree with the title and should me merged/expanded into a bigger one. --Kuban Cossack 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. There are no official organizations, which declare secessionism aims. Ans-mo (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per the nominator. Ostap 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this is original research, unsubstantiated by reputable secondary sources; large parts of it are already succinctly covered under articles such as the Orange Revolution. In addition, I checked the Taras Kuzio's reference, and it provides no support for these claims. Should be deleted based at least on WP:No original research (section 1 and 3), and WP:SOAP (section 2). --Riurik(discuss) 19:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to Donetsk Republic a notable political movement in Ukraine that got sufficient news coverage to pass the notability threshold. Then do a partial rewrite to remove author's OR about the secessionism in general and focus more on a specific political movement. --Irpen 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. First of all, just because a criminal organization makes the news does not make it notable encyclopedic content. This so-called "political movement" was banned by the Donetsk Court for organizing actions threatening the territorial integrity of Ukraine. If there is going to be an article written about these thugs, it should be done from scratch and labeled accordingly: Donetsk Republic (criminal organization).--Riurik(discuss) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine with me either way minus the strong rhetoric. They are obviously a radical movement but what makes them thugs? Since there is no ambiguity, I see no need of the parenthetical dab, especially in such a POVed form but that, I guess, belongs to a different topic. --Irpen 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. First of all, just because a criminal organization makes the news does not make it notable encyclopedic content. This so-called "political movement" was banned by the Donetsk Court for organizing actions threatening the territorial integrity of Ukraine. If there is going to be an article written about these thugs, it should be done from scratch and labeled accordingly: Donetsk Republic (criminal organization).--Riurik(discuss) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Greggerr (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Incorporate topic into a future article (basicly a deletion of this). Some ideas for the title are Politics of the Donbas, or separate it into two articles on politics of the oblasts; perhaps a wider scope of Regional politics in Ukraine, including trends, local movements, etc. —dima/talk/ 02:10, 12 March 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 per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Carnivorous alga
The article Carnivorous alga was moved to Predatory dinoflagellate, and when Tameeria, creator of the article, contested the move, there was a vote, in which it was decided that the article should remain at Predatory dinoflagellate. However, Tameeria has recently recreated the old page Carnivorous alga with nearly the same content in what I believe to be an effort to circumvent the page-move, which I would call content forking. Therefore, given the consensus established in the above mentioned discussion, it is self-evident that Carnivorous alga is a superfluous article conceived under questionable circumstances, warranting deletion. ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge, then... —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. At present the content, scope, references and intended readership of these two articles are quite distinct. They may have had nearly the same content at one point (Sorry but I really can't be bothered to trawl through the histories to find out as it's the articles in their present form that's the question) but they certainly don't have now. Carnivorous alga is describing the media use of the phrase "Carnivorous algae" or "predatory algae" while Predatory dinoflagellate is a scientific article about a specific group of organisms. (I would suggest that as Carnivorous alga is intended for a more general readership the lead sentence should be more accessible ("mixotrophic protists"?), but that's off-topic for this forum). In any case, we seem to be discussing whether or not to merge not an article for deletion. Qwfp (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge the information about media responses and appearances in fiction back into Predatory dinoflagellate, and redirect. Deor (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to/with Predatory dinoflagellate. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge, obviously. Mangoe (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- WTF?!? First of all, I am very, very disappointed how this is being handled. Here's why:
- "Carnivorous algae" was a requested article. The article was requested on 2 June 2006 (diff). It stayed on the requested article list until 2 April 2007 (diff). It was probably taken off because it was no longer a red-link since I had created a redirect for it when I first stumbled over it.
- When I got around to putting an article up for it, there were some concerns regarding the content and comments accusing the term "carnivorous algae" of being "comic bookish" and the article being "recklessly written." Whatever happened to "assume good faith" here? Vlmastra proceeded to "gut" the article and renamed it without discussion what the new title should be based on a few unsourced and refutable blanket statements and personal preference. I happened to disagree with both the reasoning for the gutting and the new title.
-
-
- 1) Vlmastra's statement "a parasite is not a carnivore" can be refuted by scholarly literature which confirms that carnivorous parasites do exist.
- 2) The statement that "Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, Brooklynella hostilis, and Cryptocaryon irritansis are not algae" might be right, but upon removing that section Vlmastra stated it would be included in an article on parasitic algae or the algae article itself (diff), thus contradicting the very reason given for removing it in the first place.
- 3) Consensus did not exist for the move from "carnivorous alga" to "predatory dinoflagellate" as that was done single-handedly by Vlmastra without prior discussion of the new title.
- 4) The new title completely changed the intended scope of that article. "Predatory dinoflagellates" applies to more than half of all known dinoflagellate species, including so-called "grazers" that prey on other algae. There are only two "carnivorous" species in the Pfiesteria genus. Based on my research into the topic, 80-85% of the scholarly literature on predatory dinoflagellates deals with other species. Thus, having solely a scientific discussion of Pfiesteria under "predatory dinoflagellate" is putting undue weight on just one genus, plus it's a duplication of what is already in Wikipedia at Pfiesteria, Pfiesteria piscicida, and Pfiesteria shumwayae. I've tried to address the weight issue by including other species in the article, but in my opinion, "predatory dinoflagellate" should be merged into the dinoflagellate article as a subsection.
- I've asked again and again during the whole move discussion what an article on "carnivorous algae" should look like since the whole discussion quite obviously was more a content dispute than anything else. My conclusion from that discussion was that an article on carnivorous algae probably should put more weight on discussing how the term was used in the media since it is not a scientific term. I thought there was consensus on splitting the article along these lines (see diff) so went ahead and rewrote the article in that sense. I have to say I am very disappointed with the reaction to my efforts and I am rather upset that I am now being back-stabbed for "content forking" when all I was trying to do was to follow along with what seemed to be a good compromise: split the content into discussion of the media term in one article and scientific discussion in another.
- In summary, I vote keep, of course. If there is any merging, I would suggest merging it with Pfiesteria. Merging it back into "predatory dinoflagellate" would just recreate the undue weight problem. - tameeria (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep and start a merge discussion. If the term "carnivorous algae" has been used (and was a requested article), the article should be a redirect at the very least. --Pixelface (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep possibly move to Carnivorous protists, which is the more general term and avoids the difficulty in defining "algae" in this context. Saying "predatory" is unsatisfactory since a protist grazing on bacteria is certainly predatory, but not close to the subject of the article - protists that consume animal flesh. The line between parasitic and predatory is also a fine one here, and for me would depend on if the protozoan carried out part of its life cycle in the animal it kills. If it does, it is a parasite, if it doesn't it is a predator. Redirecting this to a single species or genus would also be unsatisfactory, since I think the behavior is shared by several taxonomic groups. A very difficult decision though, I'm open to discussion on this. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 13 March 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. Keep comments did not address the issues of the article, which were based on policy and guideline. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Student Association of Missouri
This is a defunct group of 12 delegates from assorted Missouri colleges to lobby Missouri government. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. Plenty of WP:Original Research. Would merge, but nothing to merge it to. RedShiftPA (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep' - This is an historical document that pertains to events that occurred in Missouri. This should remain a separate article. Information can be verified by contacting the colleges involved. Wiki should support historical records for future generations of college students and as the premier on-line encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.173.112 (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - failure to assert notability. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment I really doubt that "all students unions have inherent notability." 1) They are always local in scope, since they are connected to a particular campus. 2) They rarely (if ever) have an reliable third party coverage. 3) Once you delete all of the unverified, unencyclopedic, original researched material, all that remains is a stub. So, it just makes sense to merge the students unions into their main article. 4)WP:UNI's own standards call for students unions to be merged into the main article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Student life - Here is also a good place to mention ...students' union activities" (from Wikipedia:UNI#Structure)
- Keep.--andreasegde (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I searched for any real coverage, found none. If this were a defunct association of car dealers in Missouri, would anybody consider it worthy of an article on Wikipedia? No; the only reason anybody considers this notable, let alone inherently notable, is because it has something to do with universities. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Not to be defficult or anything, but before citing WP:NOT shouldn't you have checked to make sure it says that "Wikipedia has no deadline", whatever that means? Mangoe (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It used to list it there. You can also find it at WP:DEADLINE. GreenJoe 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not to be defficult or anything, but before citing WP:NOT shouldn't you have checked to make sure it says that "Wikipedia has no deadline", whatever that means? Mangoe (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom there is absolutely no assertion of notability. This association has not received significant coverage in third party sources, and as it no longer exists it isn't likely to receive it now. The notability of the school is not inheritable to the student organizations. Collectonian (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:ORG, is rift of WP:OR, because of no WP:V. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Should consider merging with Bulldog Party article. Notablity is apparent, it was a very notable occurence in Missouri Higher ED and at very least its existence if a very notable product of the Bulldog Party BCV (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 05:19, 11 March 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, G3 as an obvious hoax, per the author's admission that he made the "poster" for the movie. Blueboy96 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alvin and the Chipmunks 2
made up film, the poster is actually a poster for the first film which someone has drawn "2" on see here. Fredrick day (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete No sources, poor construction. I googled "Alvin and the Chipmunks 2" and nothing informational came up. This might be a hoax. Brokenspirits (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Yup. There does seem to be a sequel for the 2007 film Alvin and the Chipmunks planned, but it is still in the planning stages and has not been filmed yet, let alone ready for release in the summer. This is a hoax article.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There are certainly rumors about a sequel, but there has been no announcement from 20th Century Fox or any of the other production companies. Prewitt81 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 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. Canley (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rubisco (band)
Possibly Fails notabiltity CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete possibly?!?! Obviously an advert article made by college kids. --RucasHost (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:DVote Advert. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing on a google search to be used for sourcing/establishing of notability. Borderline A7 candidate (no mention of being signed to a record label? not released an album? not even a song? etc. No claim to notability except a heading titled "fame"). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per A7. Prewitt81 (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Delete. Looks like WP:OR and WP:NN apply here. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unless something turns up...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete.--andreasegde (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:47, 8 March 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. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thottbot
This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and has been put up for deletion several times as no proof of notability has been presented or added to the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, covered in Next Generation magazine, Detroit Free Press, The Inquirer, Gamasutra, and Idaho Statesman.[23]. --Pixelface (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- And evidence of notability was given in the last AFD. Thottbot has been discussed in Ethics and Information Technology and the Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society[24]. AFD is not for cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Google hits don't help, you must put some references in the article so this doesn't keep happening, or agree that it isn't notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- You were present at the first AFD when the Google Scholar references were first brought up. You should see if editors demonstrate notability during AFDs so nominations like this don't keep happening. After that, adding references to the article is a cleanup issue. --Pixelface (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Ghits cannot be accepted as evidence of notability; nor can trivial mentions of the websites in press releases, fansites or brief mentions of the site's content. The content of the article does not have any citations which verify its origins; this leads me to conclude that the article is original research. Since Pixelface has not added evidence of notability to this article, his assertions must be viewed as POV pushing based on WP:ILIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've provided evidence during this AFD. Should your argument be discounted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Pixelface (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- And now I've added it to the article. --Pixelface (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Gavin. nb: Pixel will keep nearly anything per Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
*Delete per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per the updates made since I last viewed the article. Gary King (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Pixelface. The deletion reason give boils down to "article needs improvement". Needing improvement isn't a valid deletion reason. Reliable sources can be added. That's a reason for an unreferenced or a refimprove tag, not an AfD. Having been put up for deletion multiple times isn't a valid deletion reason either. Unless a valid deletion reason is given, the article should be kept. Rray (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. There has not been, and is not now, any proof that this article has any notability. Google searches do not count, and there needs to be multiple reliable sources. If this material doesn't exist, there is no "cleanup", there is just deletion because articles need to be notable on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - NN gamecruft with minimal reliable sources. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable, lots of sources. I question the judgement of all above editors who advocate deletion, and wonder if this amounts to anti-video game bias where objective standards (multiple reliable sources) clearly establish notability. I do not easily make allegations like this, too. User:Krator (t c) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw- FINALLY, this article has established a limited degree of notability. At this point, we should talk about merging not deletion, unless Pixelface believes it can grow further. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to World of Warcraft with all the other WoW infobases. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)After further consideration I withdraw my opinion. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)- Keep It really does have an Alexa rank of 250. [26]. --John Nagle (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Notability has been established. The war on VG content continues, I see. CredoFromStart talk 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article has been improved upon since the nomination. Meanwhile, the last afD was only three and a half months ago... Watchsmart (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - improvements adequately demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This AFD was withdrawn like 4 days ago and everyone's just voting keep. Where are the non-admin closers when you need them? Anyone? Someoneanother 22:49, 13 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Malone House
Tried to CSD this but removed because hey, let's all waste our time with a residence hall. Entirely non-notable residence hall. delete. Fredrick day (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- oh and for any history buffs out there, this is a vintage 1992 building, pre-dates blu-ray. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable building. Note that this was not eligible for speedy because there is no speedy category for buildings. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Redirect to the University solely to keep it from being re-created by the next person who moves into the dorm and thinks it needs an article. The content isn't worth merging. Oh and Frederick Day, thanks for the laugh! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete.--andreasegde (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge Add to University of Virginia? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- If this "vintage" is sourceworthy then Merge with UV; otherwise Delete Plutonium27 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 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, no prejudice against proposing a merger to a list, but that's for the talkpages. No consensus to delete at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)
Unnotable episode of Xena: Warrior Princess that fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. As per the arbcom injunction, AfD can proceed normally, but must wait for any actual deletion/merge/redirect (if that is the final choice) to be done after the injunction is lifted. Collectonian (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep
deletefails WP:EPISODE but passes WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as this is just not that uncommon a thing to see here, and may not be bad if the article is well-written (this one isn't). JJL (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment If you already know this can't be closed until the injunction is over why add to the number of afd's that have to be carried over indefinately? Why not make a note of it and list later.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)If fact I say Speedy Keep per bad faith nom.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)That may seem a little harsh, but I see no point to this. If someone is unaware of the arbcom injunction, fine let it float. But what's the point of adding to the glut when you know there can be no resolution?--Cube lurker (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)- There is nothing bad faith about it and your assumption of bad faith is unwarranted. The ArbCom case was supposed to close yesterday, so the injunction should be lifted before this one ends. I simply made the note because if you don't, people complain. The arb com injunction is not a valid reason for a keep and is no reason to stop the discussion. Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you proide a diff that the injunction ends tomorrow? Looking at the page i see it sitting at 4-1 to close, but i admit I may be missing somehing. If the injunction does lift tomorrow i'll sincerely appologize and strike all mu comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)******Or soon, misread yesterday for tomorrow.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The one oppose was for 1-2 days, which have since passed, so it should be at 4 net votes. I've left a message with the clerk about it. Still, at this point, I think its safe to say that since an AfD should last at least 5 days, it is highly probably the injunction will be gone before this ends, regardless of the decision. Collectonian (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe i'm wrong, but i thought +4 was to accept a case, but a close needs a majority of active arbitors which is 7.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- For this one, it says net 4, so support - oppose would be net. Collectonian (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Moving to user page--Cube lurker (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- For this one, it says net 4, so support - oppose would be net. Collectonian (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe i'm wrong, but i thought +4 was to accept a case, but a close needs a majority of active arbitors which is 7.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The one oppose was for 1-2 days, which have since passed, so it should be at 4 net votes. I've left a message with the clerk about it. Still, at this point, I think its safe to say that since an AfD should last at least 5 days, it is highly probably the injunction will be gone before this ends, regardless of the decision. Collectonian (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you proide a diff that the injunction ends tomorrow? Looking at the page i see it sitting at 4-1 to close, but i admit I may be missing somehing. If the injunction does lift tomorrow i'll sincerely appologize and strike all mu comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)******Or soon, misread yesterday for tomorrow.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing bad faith about it and your assumption of bad faith is unwarranted. The ArbCom case was supposed to close yesterday, so the injunction should be lifted before this one ends. I simply made the note because if you don't, people complain. The arb com injunction is not a valid reason for a keep and is no reason to stop the discussion. Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Collectonian. Wikipedia has 2,270,000+ articles, and if you took out the TV episode and TV character nonsense, it would probably be less than 2,000,000; and I sometimes think that the temporary ArbComm injunction will stay in effect permanently. Perhaps I exaggerate. What good is an encyclopedia that doesn't have articles about Season 3, Episode 13 of "Murphy Brown" and biographies of "Buddy Hinton" (Brady Bunch fans know who I'm talking about)? Mandsford (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Per further info I apologize for the bad faith comment. I'm now neutral, but right or wrong i believe the nom to be in good faith.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- And i've tried to get the spacing fixed but it won't stinking work, feel free to fix.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. Strike tags need to begin to the right of asterixes, or the indent doesn't work. For the post-struck comments, an extra asterix had appeared in the indenting, causing the gap before the last few. (I assume this is the spacing you were mildly annoyed about, not something in the article)-- saberwyn 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've learned 2-3 things today, thank's much.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. Strike tags need to begin to the right of asterixes, or the indent doesn't work. For the post-struck comments, an extra asterix had appeared in the indenting, causing the gap before the last few. (I assume this is the spacing you were mildly annoyed about, not something in the article)-- saberwyn 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- And i've tried to get the spacing fixed but it won't stinking work, feel free to fix.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:EPISODE. Episode is unremarkable and has no "achievements, impact or historical significance" to discuss. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Merge in the usual way to a list of episodes, and close this discussion. articles which can be merged instead of deleted should not be nominated for deletion.DGG (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's already covered in List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes with a summary. Collectonian (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- That list just has one sentence, Xena and Gabrielle join forces with Joxer and Orpheus to defeat Bacchus, who is transforming innocent girls into deadly monsters.. This is a pathetic summary of an episode which has received extensive coverage in secondary sources and which is especially notable in illustrating Xena and Gabrielle's lesbian relationship. It's a good example of how obsessive listification is quite wrong. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Its the same once sentence used for the first synopsis on that article. I will conceded, however, that the Xena episode list is in pathetic shape, but that is not an excuse to create another article rather than actually fix the list. Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep The episode is notable and I have added three citations to demonstrate this. Note that the overt lesbian theme is especially notable. Note also that WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT are disputed. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- A citation to note it is episode X or to confirm the plot does NOT establish notability. The "overt lesbian theme" is an aspect of the series as a whole and covered elsewhere. WP:FICT has been re-written, and the primary aspect in dispute at this point seems to be the issue of relocating the material that doesn't meet the guidelines and if Wikia should be mentioned. Collectonian (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I do not accept any of these points. This is a notable episode of a highly notable TV series. It merits good coverage here and all that is required is further cleanup and development. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. Catchpole (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:EPISODE; notable episode title from a notable series that is well-organized and referenced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge the one sourced sentence into List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes, then redirect. The rest is just excessive plot retelling (WP:NOT#PLOT). No prejudice against recreation if significant real-world information is added like for production and reception so that the article either passes WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE. – sgeureka t•c 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I added three cites for at least three sentences so it seems that you haven't read this article. The article that you want to merge it to has just one sentence about this topic and has no sources for this or any of the other episodes that it purports to cover. Your preference for a list format is contrary to our best practise which clearly favour prose articles over tabular laundry lists. Colonel Warden (talk)
-
- I have read the three sourced sentences and skimmed over the rest of the article, so what I should have said is merge the one sourced nontrivial sentence and redirect the rest. Generally, I find it easier and faster to come up with three new sentences to expand the LoE than to read the article for 15 minutes to find three mergeable plot sentences. YMMV. – sgeureka t•c 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Forgive my ignorance in this case, but what does LoE and YMMV mean? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- YMMV = Your mileage may vary. LoE = List of Episodes. – sgeureka t•c 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the clarification. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, one citation might be expected to support one paragraph in a good article. So, three citations, such as I provided, would support three paragraphs. sgeureka's proposition is to try to reduce the material down to sentences rather than paragraphs and this seems to be just so that he can cram it into a tabular form. Form would be dictating the content in a non-encyclopedic way and so this proposition seems contrary to our best practise. Wikipedia is not a Book of Lists. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- One source confirms that this ep is is the fourth ep of this show (extremely trivial). One sentence confirms the premise of the episode (trivial, could have looked that up on IMDb). One sentence confirms a theme (nontrivial). The rest is originally research plot, which per WP:NOT#PLOT would be fine to some extend if there was significant analysis or other real-world content in the article. But there isn't. So we don't need 30 plot sentences (I haven't counted) to support one short theme sentence. So we can lose the 30 sentences. Voilà, the article is so stubby that it can fit in the LoE. Now, if this episode was nominated for/won a major award, or if the sources expanded a little bit on non-trivial things, I'd be happy to strike my recommendation, but until this happens, I see merge/redirection as the best option. No prejudice against article recreation if more (one or two medium paragraphs) non-trivial real-world information surfaces. – sgeureka t•c 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- You fail to demonstrate how deletion assists such content editing. Your proposal is contrary to normal practise in which stubby material is expanded and developed rather than contracted. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't propose for the content to be deleted; redirection allows for recreation. I am merely saying the current content is completely inappropriate, and should therefore be removed until the time comes that it actually serves to support real-world content, not the other way around. (See WP:FICT#Demonstrating notability for fictional topics and WP:WAF#Contextual presentation what is considered appropriate practise.) – sgeureka t•c 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — a non-notable plot-vio. Mandsford's comment is spot-on, although he estimates to the number of such articles on the low side. I've seen 'em Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- So your comment is just based upon an agenda of systematically removing TV material from this encyclopedia. Despite the merits of the material or despite the fact that such material is encyclopedic. Right? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- This wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information; i.e. we do discriminate against some information; examples include non-notable subjects, plot summary, and trivia. Can you hear me now? --Jack Merridew 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- So your comment is just based upon an agenda of systematically removing TV material from this encyclopedia. Despite the merits of the material or despite the fact that such material is encyclopedic. Right? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The topic is notable, as the citations show. It is not indiscrimiate having a specific focus. Plot summary is absolutely essential as an article upon a fictional item wuld be absurd without it. Trivia is in the eye of the beholder and so that's just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is all your objections amount to. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment And the difference that makes is? Black Kite 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have just added another cite in the course of restoring material which Jack removed in ignorance of its significance. I haven't watched this episode myself but understand that the material should be treated with respect rather than contempt. And I find that it is not hard to explain, source and develop. It's disgraceful that nay-sayers should instead try to belittle and sabotage the article in pursuit of their hostile and negative agenda. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- mere trivia. --Jack Merridew 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- so-called trivia is encyclopedic too and per the Five Pillars is valid content. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Redirect to LOE - aspires to nothing more than trivia and an overly long plot summary. The "sourced" material is also largely trivial, per sgeureka's comment above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The aspiration of the original editor is unclear since they have not responded - we only seem to have the usual suspects here. Myself, I aspire to develop the article into a study of the episode's groundbreaking lesbianism and its effects upon the show's fans for which I've seen some promising material out there. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think he likes the saw-toothed look of the indenting ;-) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep Article needs clean up not deletion. -Jahnx (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, delete any guidelines that contradict this result if you must delete something. The guidelines are just being wishful thinking proscriptive instead of prescriptive anyways. - 05:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment An appropriate project tag has been added and Peregrine Fisher has added some good material including an award. I have started working through the plot summary which seems to be a poor translation, using terms like dríades, instead of dryad. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep notability clearly established. Tim! (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or merge - content is viable, even if not as its own article, and deletion would be sub-optimal. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:01, 15 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Young Scientists Online Journal
non-notable school magazine supported by charitable funding. great idea but just not notable (and sources presented are not RS or notable). Fredrick day (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks a lot more notable than most of the crap here. --RucasHost (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It has a wider role now than just one school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't seem to be a school magzine, just because it was set up by a school doesn't meen its only for that school. It seems to be a slef exisitng entity.
- Delete Three google hits. Three. Two of them are its website and the foundation's website. Maybe later. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be loads of websites referencing it when I looked http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=www.youngscientists.co.uk&hl=en&start=0&sa=N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.46 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of characters in Golden Sun
This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and covers material already in the two Golden Sun game articles. This material is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. It has been tagged for notability since November, and no attempt to establish any has been made, most likely because it doesn't have any. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, ugh, listcruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Keep, not redundant to the game articles (just look at the depth of coverage), doesn't violate any of our core content policies, deletion would be needlessly destructive to Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a perfectly acceptable sub-article of the featured article Golden Sun, as well as the article Golden Sun: The Lost Age. It doesn't tell readers how to beat the game so it's not a game guide. --Pixelface (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Christopher Parham's arguments. Golden Sun is not simply "a book" or "a game", but an entire setting with multiple games, and having the characters together in a merged list like this is appropriate coverage of this universe. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The content of this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and should be transcribed to a suitable fansite as it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I think this article fails the relevant guidelines (Previous versions of WP:FICT that still have consensus, WP:N, WP:GAMECRUFT). The above users fail to establish why this is the case though, so I will be a little more elaborative in the hope I can express some of the argumentation that is tacitly assumed by most of the above comments that advocate deletion.
The platform of the game makes it less likely a character list is needed. Gameboy games have no voice acting, and the limited space available makes story telling in general a lot harder. Only very few characters on this list are actually part of the main story, and only those can be kept with a rationale that they would be essential to good coverage of the game. The characters in 'other major characters' are really just minor when I read their description, and should be removed even if this article is kept along with the minor characters.
Character lists are usually spinouts from the original articles, but all the character information here could be summarised in those main articles, making a spinout for size reasons unnecessary. There's about four paragraphs available each, and this should be more than enough space to adequately describe each major character. The descriptions in the list are often excessive and redundant, too. Each character's role in the story is described, even if it is minor: describing the characters themselves, and then a good description of the plot, would be a better way to inform readers of the story of this series.
See here for more argumentation on character lists. User:Krator (t c) 12:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - Keep - I seconde user:Christopher Parham reasoning. --SelfQ (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep appropriate split-off article to deal with this; as even Krator says, it's the usual way. Question of editing should be dealt with elsewhere. DGG (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per all the others here who agree that this article should be kept. As an appropriate sub-article split, notability doesn't need to be asserted; it's asserted in the main article. The length of time that something has been tagged for notability is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and assuming that a subject isn't notable just because of the length of time an article has been tagged for improvement is just absurd. Rray (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Sub articles are appropriate, but all articles need notability independent of the main article, otherwise they are not individually notable. As this has no references, and there is no indication there are any references that can be added, this has no notability and shouldn't be its own article. 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)
- Notability is not the only reason to have a separate article, but also size contraints. --Pixelface (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, but if notability isn't established, none of the rest of the criteria even comes up, as improvement is impossible if there is nothing to add to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's a reason that notability is a guideline; it potentially conflicts with other values and we need to weigh it judiciously against those other values. In this case, merging the content to be compatible with WP:NOTE, while quite possible, would make our coverage of this area considerably worse and the articles less useful to readers. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The reason for this article to be deleted/merged isn't just guidelines; in this precise case, it is also a policy. Quoted from WP:NOT#PLOT:
- There's a reason that notability is a guideline; it potentially conflicts with other values and we need to weigh it judiciously against those other values. In this case, merging the content to be compatible with WP:NOTE, while quite possible, would make our coverage of this area considerably worse and the articles less useful to readers. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, but if notability isn't established, none of the rest of the criteria even comes up, as improvement is impossible if there is nothing to add to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is not the only reason to have a separate article, but also size contraints. --Pixelface (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.
- FightingStreet (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Go read the editing policy, which would support a merge at the very least. --Pixelface (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete Not a single reliable source is cited to establish the subject's notability. A game guide fansite and some YouTube video are not enough. FightingStreet (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete one secondary source isn't enough. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- weak keep Lack of ind. sec. sources in article is troubling, but topic appears quite notable. Having a "characters in" article for a notable fictional topic makes sense especially if there is no one article to merge it into. Plus WP:SIZE plays a role. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but needs significant cleanup Character descriptions are too plot-oriented. ("Thus did NAME set out on a quest"?? Needs to be out-of-universe writing). Cut character descriptions to one para, focusing on character traits, and then its a more proper spinoff article. --MASEM 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BAGA Keep'- I'm more concerned about getting Golden Sun: The Lost Age improved right now, however once I have the time I would like to cleanup and improve this article. I don't really care if it gets deleted, 'cause I can always bring it back, but... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This does not need to be deleted by any means. It is definitely not a game guide, because it describes each character's history, not centering on their role in the game. Although it does require some references and cleanup, it is not even close to applying for Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Anyways, every game has their own "list of characters" article, so why should Golden Sun be any different? --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup - I'm inclined to think that notability can be found and asserted; regardless, it meets the appropriate criteria for a spinoff article under WP:FICT. That said, the article needs to be drastically cleaned up per WP:WAF and reducing the in-universe information. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are the first person to say that this article may actually have notability :) Which is fine, if it does I hope it can be found and added, I'm just saying if there is none to be found... 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability does not seem to be an issue since WP:FICT says "spinout articles may be used for listing non-notable characters or other elements of the work." Even if this list proves "non-notable", the games still are.--Nohansen (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Every article must establish independent notability from the main article; just because the games are notable, doesn't mean this is too, also known as "notability is not inherited". 18:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- "For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" (from Summary style approach for spinout articles). While it adds "editors should strive to establish notability [...] for these spinout articles", I don't see where it says these "lists of characters or other elements" should be deleted unless they prove notable by themselves.--Nohansen (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, while Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, sub-articles (like this one) are "accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation". Also, I never said this list was notable by itself; just that WP:FICT (in a nutshell) sees no problem with sub-articles (like this one) being "used for listing non-notable characters or other elements of the work".--Nohansen (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep potential exists. [27] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's just some mentions in some game reviews. FightingStreet (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup: If Golden Sun was just one game, I'd support merging it into there, but as it's a series of two games, it'd be somewhat harder to adequately cover the characters in them while keeping/attaining FA status in those pages. I pretty much know that this page became more popular because one of the main characters cameoed in the extremely popular Super Smash Bros. Brawl, released six years after the first Golden Sun. And now that I've a high-speed internet connection, I'm personally planning to come back to this page and give it another giant rewriting job, attempting to cut down all the cruft. I view it to be more prudent to wait until after there's been a big attempt to thoroughly clean up/tone down the page to possibly give it another AFD nom; By then any cruft-based content issues should be resolved and any true issues with notability can be put under better review. Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup It needs a lot of trimming for original research etc., but since it lists the characters of two games, I give it points for practicability even if notability may still be an issue. – sgeureka t•c 21:25, 14 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Look What You Made Me
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and only one (poor) reference. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Can be recreated when more sources and information are available. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Keep, due to inclusion of additional references. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The references you added indicate that it was intended for release in August 2007 but that's about it. There's still no real media coverage shown, so it still fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I agree; I have managed to find another source which suggests the release date to be March 11 although this may not be in line with WP:RS. Cloudz679 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Even if, at one point, it was scheduled for March 11, it most certainly isn't now. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment DJBooth.net reports the album will be released in the Summer http://www.djbooth.net/index/tracks/review/yung-berg-do-that-there/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSox (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment DJBooth does not look like the most reliable of sources. In any case, release dates reported by other than mainstream media or, better yet, the record label itself, are rather doubtful. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment DJBooth.net reports the album will be released in the Summer http://www.djbooth.net/index/tracks/review/yung-berg-do-that-there/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSox (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Even if, at one point, it was scheduled for March 11, it most certainly isn't now. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I agree; I have managed to find another source which suggests the release date to be March 11 although this may not be in line with WP:RS. Cloudz679 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The references you added indicate that it was intended for release in August 2007 but that's about it. There's still no real media coverage shown, so it still fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:07, 8 March 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 secondary sources, and both the articles and the keep votes note that little is known about it. We wouldn't have a separate article about The Briefcase in Pulp Fiction; discussion of the agency should exist in the article relevant to it, rather than having a separate article that says "We don't know much about it." If substantial, reliable secondary sources devote coverage to the Time Agency itself in the future, the article can be recreated at that time. Nandesuka (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Time Agency
Non notable part of TV show, with little meaningful content StuartDD contributions 10:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Jack Harkness. Will (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Whoniverse; the concept predates Captain Jack. IIRC there's something about it in a sidebar in the discontinuity guide, which would provide a much-needed independent reference. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This could be kept as-is, really, or preferably merged to Jack Harkness for now with a redirect. The agency is an off-screen entity which, by the time of Torchwood series 2, has been disbanded, but it is likely to feature in (authorized) Torchwood spinoff novels in the near future. Until that happens there isn't a lot to write about that is separate from Jack. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks for the hint, Percy Snoodle. I checked google and there are already, pre-Jack Harkness, Doctor Who novels involving the Time Agency [28] [29]. On that basis I'd say we should keep this article and expand. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - not really notable or necessary to have its own page.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, do not merge - This topic lacks sufficient notability to justify its own article, and is essentially an extended plot summary. All of the content is already available at the Doctor Who fan wiki The Tardis. I would object strongly to it being merged into Jack Harkness - that article has had considerable work done over the past several months to ensure that it follows WP:FICT. It already contains a description of the Time Agency insofar as it is a relevant plot device; it doesn't need a large injection of in-universe content that goes into disproportionate detail over one aspect of the character.--Trystan (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Whoniverse as suggested by Percy. However, doesn't this article fall under the Arbcom injunction (see AFD nomination below)? 23skidoo (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Somebody mentioned such an injunction in another AfD I participated in recently (as nominator), but apparently it didn't apply there because it's for television items only. If you know where this injunction was passed, could you link to it please? I don't see any point in continuing if we're enjoined from deletion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's the thing - this is a television-related topic. As for the injunction in question, look at the AFD immediately below this one and you should see a nomination for "ChalkZone characters". The Arbcom injunction is linked from the banner. I'm hesitant to include the banner and info in this particular AFD if it doesn't actually apply. But if the Time Agency is considered "characters" then it would. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah!
- That seems to be directed at actions, rather than discussion. We could still arrive at a provisional consensus here and now, and it could be enacted (if appropriate) on expiry of the injunction. I'm sure that injunction isn't intended to trump consensus formed by the community. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's the thing - this is a television-related topic. As for the injunction in question, look at the AFD immediately below this one and you should see a nomination for "ChalkZone characters". The Arbcom injunction is linked from the banner. I'm hesitant to include the banner and info in this particular AFD if it doesn't actually apply. But if the Time Agency is considered "characters" then it would. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Somebody mentioned such an injunction in another AfD I participated in recently (as nominator), but apparently it didn't apply there because it's for television items only. If you know where this injunction was passed, could you link to it please? I don't see any point in continuing if we're enjoined from deletion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tricky one this. Information about the Time Agency isn't that great, but on the other hand it has been referenced in a 1970s Doctor Who adventure and in two more recent spin-off novels, as well as all the references in the new series and Torchwood. What makes it tricky is that the second Torchwood series is halfway through transmission and the second Time Agent to be seen will be reappearing and there are arcs concerning the Time Agency that are clearly going to be addressed. Personally I think the AfD should have waited until after the second series of Torchwood aired. Even so, I think there's enough there to Keep. Alberon (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I'm getting quite keen about this. I (and I'm sure most casual fans of Doctor Who) had no idea there was backstory going back to the second decade of Doctor Who. Magnus Greel, The Talons of Weng-Chiang (1977), Eater of Wasps, Emotional Chemistry. Very sketchy, but it's deeply interwoven into the fictional universe. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- But that's part of the problem, the article provides no real-world context (and there is no indication that reliable sources exist to introduce it). It provides no information on how Russell T Davies viewed the earlier serial. Was he borrowing the idea from it? Was he building on the previously established continuity? Was he even aware of it?
- In any case, without a real-world basis, the article has no valid reason to discuss plot in such detail. While I agree the subject is of interest to fans, that's why we have The Tardis, so that non-notable concepts like this can be explored in detail.--Trystan (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I'm getting quite keen about this. I (and I'm sure most casual fans of Doctor Who) had no idea there was backstory going back to the second decade of Doctor Who. Magnus Greel, The Talons of Weng-Chiang (1977), Eater of Wasps, Emotional Chemistry. Very sketchy, but it's deeply interwoven into the fictional universe. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
*Keep - with some work this can be a great wikipedia article! As for notability, its expected to be expanded on further in both Doctor Who and Torchwood. TheProf | 2007 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- To establish notability, we would need coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the source material. We don't have that here.--Trystan (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- So-called "notability" is of little concern here; if it's not "notable" enough for some tastes, consensus for a merge can be reached because it's part of a larger subject. Actually the novels are independent of the source material, and the later appearance of the Time Agency in Doctor Who episodes is in part drawn from those external sources. This is as if Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were to come back to life, read some of the works of the Baker Street Irregulars, and incorporate some of their ideas into further Sherlock Holmes stories. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The novels are an authorized spinoff published by BBC Books, so I wouldn't call them independent. In any case, they aren't secondary sources. Even if we choose to disregard the notability guideline, the content still fails the What Wikipedia is not policy against bare plot summaries.--Trystan (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does fail WP:PLOT in its current form, which is why I think it needs to be expanded to discuss the evolution of the concept through the medium of different writers. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- But without reliable secondary sources to refer to, how can we include such an analysis that isn't original research?--Trystan (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you're writing about Shakespeare or F. Scott Fitzgerald or Dickens, to be blunt you ain't gonna find many "independent" secondary sources for stuff like this. And OR, as I keep reminding people, refers to information that either never previously existed or is the writer's unsourced opinion on something. If the information is taken from a novel or from a TV episode, that's not OR because you've used a source, so long as you're not adding POV to the report. 23skidoo (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are many reliable secondary sources for this sort of fiction; just look at Jack Harkness, an extremely well-sourced article with clear notability. There just isn't any signficant coverage of this topic.
- I agree that we avoid OR so long as we stick to reporting plot. But to avoid violating WP:PLOT, we need real-world context or critical commentary, which would be OR unless we can provide verifying sources.--Trystan (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think we're tying ourselves in knots here. You can make a stub article listing and describing (out of universe) all of the episodes and spinoff novels in which the Time Agents appear, or you can put the same content into the Whoniverse article or something similar. How you do it is an editing decision. No original research is necessary, nor is it necessary to go into plot exposition (and indeed I hope we don't spend time on such in-universe matters). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you're writing about Shakespeare or F. Scott Fitzgerald or Dickens, to be blunt you ain't gonna find many "independent" secondary sources for stuff like this. And OR, as I keep reminding people, refers to information that either never previously existed or is the writer's unsourced opinion on something. If the information is taken from a novel or from a TV episode, that's not OR because you've used a source, so long as you're not adding POV to the report. 23skidoo (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- But without reliable secondary sources to refer to, how can we include such an analysis that isn't original research?--Trystan (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does fail WP:PLOT in its current form, which is why I think it needs to be expanded to discuss the evolution of the concept through the medium of different writers. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The novels are an authorized spinoff published by BBC Books, so I wouldn't call them independent. In any case, they aren't secondary sources. Even if we choose to disregard the notability guideline, the content still fails the What Wikipedia is not policy against bare plot summaries.--Trystan (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- So-called "notability" is of little concern here; if it's not "notable" enough for some tastes, consensus for a merge can be reached because it's part of a larger subject. Actually the novels are independent of the source material, and the later appearance of the Time Agency in Doctor Who episodes is in part drawn from those external sources. This is as if Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were to come back to life, read some of the works of the Baker Street Irregulars, and incorporate some of their ideas into further Sherlock Holmes stories. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- To establish notability, we would need coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the source material. We don't have that here.--Trystan (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - If we knew more about the agency, then we could restart the article. Right now, all it really tells you is that not much is known about the agency - which isn't really worth an article. StuartDD contributions 11:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Change vote - Merge into Whoniverse per StuartDD's above comment. TheProf | 2007 11:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep While currently there is not much information on The Time Agency, it is still an important historical organisation for both old Doctor Who episodes, and for Captain Jack and the recurring villain/character Captain John Hart will be appearing in another two episodes in the current series, which is still being aired, more information is likely to be divulged. Shouldn't we defer the decision to delete until the end of the current series to see what else in revealed, and why is was disbanded? Resistme (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We should have clear information about the end of series 2 of Torchwood in a couple of weeks. And it'll only be a couple of weeks after that the finale airs. I think, personally, there is enough to keep the page already. The Time Agency in the 70s story and the two books is clearly linked to Captain Jack and Captain John as they're from the same century (the 51st). It is clear that the linkage between the two was deliberate and understood by the new series producers. Alberon (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. With John coming back into the series it seems reasonable to expect more information on the Time Agency, and if the entry is deleted now, it's probably just going to be recreated in a few weeks time with the new information. If we reach the end of the current series of Torchwood and there still isn't enough content for a worthwhile page, then deletion could be reasonable. Until then, I say keep Ametatsu (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, pending finalisation of relevant Arbcom injunction--VS talk 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, seems notable enough already as an organisation which spreads across several episodes and is intrinically involved with a main character. Will almost certainly improve with the season two finale of the series - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep appears to be a notable fictional agency. --Pixelface (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We still have no independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to the topic. How are you establishing its notability?--Trystan (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's one way of presuming notability. The agency's mention in the Doctor Who episode The Talons of Weng-Chiang, the novels Eater of Wasps and Emotional Chemistry, a time agent's appearance in The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances, and the Torchwood episode Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang make it notable in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We still have no independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to the topic. How are you establishing its notability?--Trystan (talk) 17:47, 9 March 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 all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disco Heaven 02.02
An apparently non-notable compilation album. There is no information about the album, the article is solely a track listing. A Google search in an effort to add substance resulted in download links, forums and product listings. No RS coverage from which to expand this track listing or determine notability. I know albums of notable artists are notable, but compilation albums on which they have one or two songs? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- adding for the same reason
Beach House 04.02 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
no RS coverage from which to expand the track listing TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- TPH's comment below was added before I bundled so may not be applicable to all three TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Between the high amount of red linked artists and the lack of coverage in reliable sources, I'd say that this one fails WP:MUSIC's criteria for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS talk 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete While Hed Kandi is certainly a notable label, nothing indicates that these CDs are notable on their own. All fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All per above. Unremarkable compliations of largely non-notable artists, with little if any secondary coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Delete All. They fail WP:MUSIC#Albums and are essentially track lists. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 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. Tiptoety talk 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mohammad Mansha Qazi
This was originally speedied under non-notable bio., but upon recreation, I'm listing it for AfD.
Non-notable journalist/speaker. Maybe speedied again under no consequence. seicer | talk | contribs 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, does not appear to be a particularly notable journalist. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Speedy delete as hoax; (1) a google search for his name is quotes brings up no results outisde Wikipedia. (2) The book he has suposedly written is not found within the amazon catalogue. (3) The newspaper it says he writes for (Weekly Badlta Alim) brings up no results outside of WP on a google search. (4) As far as I can acertain the refernce given has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Regardless, if it turns out he is not a hoax he is still definitly un notable. P.S.-Icewedge (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - As per WP:HOAX. ScarianCall me Pat 12:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Article does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - not notable/probably hoax. Should have been speedied per my original nomination. – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 10 March 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. John254 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Live at the Crystal Palace
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. Is it verifiable that they recorded a live show at the Crystal Palace and intended to, at least at one point in time, to release it? Yes. Is any notability shown? No. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The album has been discussed by several media outlets, several of which are linked to in the article. The album is due out in 2008 according to the band's website and MySpace page. The band is certainly notable, and many of their notable songs will be on the album. --taestell (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You obviously didn't read the references. There are three references in that article: 1st, from a small NH magazine called The Wire (not to be confused with The Wire)—that one actually mentions that they had plans to release an album with this title but that there's "no specific release date set" (and the article's from April 2006). The 2nd ref says nothing about an album; the Crystal Palace is mentioned in the context of having to tour and wishing they could just have their own club like Buck Owens (owner of the CP) does and play there regularly, rather than tour. Nothing is said about a live album, or even about the band actually playing at the Crystal Palace. The 3rd link is to the news page of the band's own website, I couldn't find any mention of the album there, either. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If I could rephrase everything taestell said, I would, but seveal upcoming albums exist that do not have sources. There is the need for attention. This, however, has sources, and is a minor article. Hakeem (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Sourced, definitive stuff known about it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:59, 8 March 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...? 07:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] OCEAN Magazine
Very hard to tell if this magazine is notable or not, a Google news search links to various magazines with ocean in the title. Most of the references are primary, the secondary ones seem minor and don't really amount to significant coverage. Polly (Parrot) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep clearly notable magazine. JJL (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I have wikified it. This revealed a sentence that was not visible before. I think this needs to be given a chance to develop. --Bduke (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Provisional Delete, there appear to be at least three magazines called "Ocean", and none of them seem that notable to me. Delete unless sources asserting notability can be located and included in the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Delete, with some regret. It's clearly verifiable, but hard to demonstrate notability. I can't find any audited circulation information (the gold standard), and don't see that they've published writing by anyone we'd consider notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; I have had a good look but I can't find secondary sources that, for example, have reviewed the magazine, held it up as an authority or quoted it approvingly. Without both decent secondary sources and circulation figures it'd hard to see the notability. I should be delighted to change my view if the requisite sources are found. BlueValour (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I have subscribed to this magazine since its first issue in 2004. It is excellent. Its integrity is impeccable. I've been a subscriber to OCEAN since its first issue in 2004.--Moonn (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I checked the references and they are all blog posts, so it's hard to identify their reliability. At the moment, I'd say delete, unless there are more reliable secondary sources. Dekisugi (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The references are websites. I've read every issue of OCEAN and it is a valuable literary magazine with a widening audience.--Summerswim (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I've seen issues of it at my local college library. It is definitely a viable magazine.--Bellesnbeaus (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- — Bellesnbeaus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:46, 11 March 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 per consensus to delete. Note: General Electric (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article treats the subject more neutrally and has better references. — Athaenara ✉ 06:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GE Ecomagination
This reads like an advertisement for the campaign, and I think it might be copied directly off the ecomagination site. At the very least, this should be marked as not npov Codyrank (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, just an unremarkable marketing campaign. Merge to General Electric if absolutely necessary. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
- Delete per nom. I agree if must need then add in to General Electric. -Jahnx (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, perhaps deserving of a mention in the main General Electric page but is not notable enough for its own article - Dumelow (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with General Electric. Not notable enough to warrant a separate page.--TBC ♣§♠ !?! 19:56, 8 March 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.