Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 6
Contents
- 1 Nicole Wray
- 2 Siddhadata Ashram
- 3 Technology vs. Horse
- 4 Rae Stewart
- 5 Working Class Rock Star
- 6 Bayley Gap
- 7 Swami Sarasvati Yoga Society
- 8 David Charles Bennett
- 9 Lyme disease controversy
- 10 Subhash Patri
- 11 Killeroo
- 12 ThatGuyWithTheGlasses
- 13 David Taylor (Photographer)
- 14 Chinese Pinyin Simplification
- 15 List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend
- 16 Evalyn Parry
- 17 Rachel Shattuck
- 18 Asim Akhter
- 19 Federer versus Nadal
- 20 Darla Farmer
- 21 Lee Molyneux (footballer born 1989)
- 22 Single property website
- 23 A viuvinha
- 24 Blue Bird Vienna
- 25 Monash Residential Services
- 26 St. Catharines Wine Tasting of 2005
- 27 Overton United F.C.
- 28 John Holmes (football player)
- 29 Leicester Banks CC
- 30 Pak-Afghan Confederration
- 31 Halo (2009 film)
- 32 Muslim outrage
- 33 Internet brigades
- 34 Oakbank Park
- 35 YHWH Aleim
- 36 The Levite Scribes the Sopherim
- 37 Karl Strauss Brewing Company
- 38 Plural verbs with Elohim as God
- 39 Jordan Johnson
- 40 Howls of Imagination
- 41 Great latitude
- 42 Sorry (Jonas Brothers song)
- 43 Shelf (Jonas Brothers song)
- 44 Love Bug (Jonas Brothers song)
- 45 Takes One To Know One
- 46 Independent National Socialism
- 47 DJ Clay
- 48 Bassmint
- 49 The Patrick Star Show
- 50 Leviathan World (comic)
- 51 Domestic Football League
- 52 Eve Adler
- 53 Advanced Electron Forum
- 54 GayNZ.com
- 55 Gay Youth UK
- 56 Donald D. Conant, Jr.
- 57 Annotation Of An Autopsy
- 58 Angie Gregory
- 59 Bamboo (military slang)
- 60 Jill Evans (actor)
- 61 Peter Tracy
- 62 Michael ihemaguba
- 63 Jason Jones (Television Commentator)
- 64 Use-it
- 65 Strings (Unix)
- 66 Candle zombie
- 67 The Last Hope
- 68 Lord belmont
- 69 John Mark McMillan
- 70 Selden Middle School
- 71 Braydn Michael
- 72 Diane Herrmann
- 73 Kathy Shao-Lin Lee
- 74 Mark J Taylor
- 75 Ectopusses
- 76 The Badd guys
- 77 Beer Money Inc.
- 78 Tales of Hearts
- 79 Alone Again, Naturally (Third Watch)
- 80 Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16)
- 81 David Hamel
- 82 Michael Szporer
- 83 Heresiarch
- 84 Monkey (advertising character)
- 85 Nikola Novak
- 86 Extreme martial arts
- 87 Help Is Coming (T.I. song)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trolling... Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicole Wray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Vandalism and Blocking of users who try to edit it. Deletion56 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of vandalism and blocking of user who try to help and edit it. This includes the template and discography.Deletion56 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close vandalism is not criteria for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close Bad-faith nomination by yet another sock of User:Soccermeko.Kww (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Though this temple probably exists, this article is not verifiable (WP:V), nor notable (WP:N). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Siddhadata Ashram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Also a major part of the article - Gurujee section - has been nominated for speedy deletion by me for copyright violation. --gppande «talk» 09:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the copyvio; speedy deletion doesn't apply to sections of pages, you can just delete them yourself. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm almost wanting to say it's spam. Appears to be little more than a promotional piece for a religious group. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are no reliable sources; the buck stops there. JBsupreme (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep there are reliable sources to verify that the temple exists. Please keep in mind different spellings like Siddh data ashram and Sri Siddhdata Ashram. Laudak (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are we waiting for admins? Please delete --gppande «talk» 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per unanimous vote. --JForget 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technology vs. Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet another "myspace-band", references are poor. Albums are self-published. Fribbler (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find reliable sources; 89 g-hits.-Samuel Tan 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the notability criteria at WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources to be seen. See related discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Off-key in regard to WP:Music. The article reads like marketing collateral, not an encyclopedia entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:Music --Vh
oscythechatter 11:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per Samuel Tan. No reliable sources can be found. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rae Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Here rather than PROD since it's been deleted via PROD once before. I don't think being a journalist or lobby correspondent provide inherent notability and there's no RS evidence that s/he is notable in these fields. Ghits only confirm existence and do not establish notability per WP:BIO. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep?: Difficult for me to judge as I don't receive STV. However, it's possible he's (and it is a he) a fairly big fish in his Scottish pond. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt for now. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Stewart is one in a long list of reporters for the shows he works for. Probability of notability appears slim. —Latischolartalkcontributions 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cannot find any coverage about him. No reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no ghits, only claim is local/regional TV news. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - local/regional broadcasters are generally non-notable. Broadcasters that are national in scope, on the other hand, would be notable if there is sufficient nontrivial coverage in reliable media. B.Wind (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Working Class Rock Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, and partly WP:V. There are no citations and little sources given. The film isn't released until November. Also, the talk page gives light to extreme COI issues. This was also deleted before via AfD and speedy. (see Working Class Rock Star (film))
- Delete Undeath (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting as creator of this page (for the second time now). I'm still baffled that you keep saying the information here isn't verifiable. Please specify which you find untrue or unverifiable and I'll have a citation to back up every case. I don't know how the citation system works with these pages, but the information enclosed is 100% true.
- And calling the fact that I'm also the director of the film a conflict of interest is rather non-sensical. With an independently produced release not a lot of promotion money ends up on the table, and you end up wearing a lot of hats. I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia.
- To state that the article isn't notable and/or relevant is simply strange. I don't see how a North American DVD release available in most retail stores isn't notable. What exactly makes notability in your mind? Does it have to hit theaters?
- So decide what you want. All the information is 100% factual, none of it is crystal ballery, and I can cite proof on every case. In reality, who better to give accurate information anyway than the person most involved in the creation and subsequent sale of the film itself?
- Don't you people have anything better to do or articles that actually need editing and deleting to deal with? I'm sure someone has posted that Hitler invented cheeze whiz somewhere, deleting that makes more sense.
- Not to mention, all of the information that is stated here is also available on IMDb and through NYTimes and Yahoo!, and you're meaning to tell me that Wikipedia is stricter than those companies when it comes to source checking? Do you know how hard it is and how much you need to have proof wise to get onto IMDb with a decent amount of info on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.196.249 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) unstableground (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't (yet) have an opinion on this deletion, but I'd like to comment on a couple of your points. You said "I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia." Unfortunately, WP:NOTADVERTISING is pretty specific -- Wikipedia is not your personal promotion site. Moreover, WP:COI says that you should wait for others to decide that your film is notable and write about it. I can understand that might be frustrating to you, but those are the rules.
- "What exactly makes notability in your mind? Does it have to hit theaters?" No, certainly not. Take a few minutes to read WP:NOTABILITY and particularly Wikipedia:Notability (films). (Please read them thoroughly before you decide what they mean). Verifiability (which would be a problem for Hitler inventing cheeze whiz) is important on wikipedia, but so is notability. My cockatiel is verifiable, because I can prove he exists, but I assure you he's not notable in the least. Especially because no third party has written about him. Is your film notable? I have no idea. It would help if you could provide some independent sources that show how the article meets the above guidelines.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the creator of the article You cannot write an article about something you made. That's COI. Undeath (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand why you would call that conflict of interest, but am I really supposed to wait around for someone to write an article and get half the info wrong? Wikipedia is rife with incorrect info, so I'm taking it upon myself to make sure the info is correct. As for proof of notability and all the info in the article, please see the following:
- The list goes on. unstableground (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read WP:COI, you'll see that yes, you are supposed to wait. If the amount of incorrect info in Wikipedia bothers you, as it bothers me, I definitely encourage you to spend some time improving articles where you do not have a conflict of interest. And after briefly looking at the sources you listed, I again urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY, especially the part about sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So If I add all of these sources to the page it ups my notability or makes it significant? Some are already on the page as External Links, but I guess they have to be filed correctly. How do you code sources into the page? That's the main issue, I don't know how.
- On the COI issue, I'm still on the fence. I get it, I just don't fully agree. A conflict of interest would be if I used the page to state a lot of facts that are untrue, claim they are, and hold by that. It would be self promotion through Wikipedia and exaggeration....... in this case I'm not using Wiki to advertise. The Wiki link doesn't end up in any ads, it's simply there if fans and those interested in the project want to know more.
- Wiki is a great platform for people to find out more about the subjects in the film, as the majority have huge uncontested Wiki articles devoted to them. The page should stand, regardless of who created it. If I had my PR person take the time to put up version #3 in a couple of months it would just be a waste of everyone's time, and rather redundant. It would be the same page, with more citations. unstableground (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion I'll suggest you save the information of this article for a later period of time. Say...when the film comes out. If it hits it big, or recieves a decent amount of coverage, then re-create the page then. But as of now, it's pure COI and crystal ballery. Undeath (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The creator of the page said above that "I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia." This condemns it to deletion as a conflict of interest and Use of Wikipedia as Advertising. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So the links I've provided above aren't an example of significant coverage? That's only a fraction of what is out there right now. Search for the title in "google", you'll get like 8 pages of results of "coverage". Crystal ballery it is not.... by far. I'm not hoping that anything will come out and anticipating it... it is coming out, I have a release date and ISBN #. I have ads going into Koch's catalogs in a couple of weeks. This is not advertising, it's a tie in for further info. I don't quite get how this is such a big contention of terms. unstableground (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a "tie in for further info"? That's still WP:ADVERTISING as you made the film and you are using Wikipedia to promote the film, which is also the COI. The coverage does not matter. Did say, Kevin Smith write or asked someone else to write the page for Clerks II? No. No he did not. And that's what makes this such a clear delete. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Non-notable. Could not find any reliable sources that cover the topic substantially, to fulfill notability criteria; only 89 g-hits. No references. Conflict of interest since author is the director. Author also asserted (above) that he uses Wikipedia to promote the film. Thus likely falls within multiple reasons for deletion.--Samuel Tan 01:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To the article's author: this is an encyclopedia, not a portal for advertisements or for you to write whatever you want. Would you walk into the office of the Encyclopædia Britannica demanding that it is your right to have your movie included in its pages?-Samuel Tan 01:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You equate Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica? Wow, and you say this is "crystal ballery". No, I made this page simply because... well... look around. Any release seems to get a chance to have their own page up here, and for some reason mine has been target for deletion twice? And every word of this article can be copied and pasted from somewhere else, if you really want me to take the time. But I'm sick of this, I have better things to do than to attempt to argue this any further. I'll just wait until the film comes out and it's selling and renting everywhere, and then repost. Then someone like Undead Warrior will come along and purely out of boredom and obsession will find something... anything wrong with it and it'll get recommended for deletion again. It won't matter if it's me or some kid posting something similar, this article has been online now for months uncontested. As soon as I added the release date and further info it suddenly got pounced on. It makes little sense, but protect your self inflated sense of self and I'll move on.unstableground (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.196.249 (talk) [reply]
- I'd like to point you to two pages: WP:AADD and WP:SPIDER. You don't seem to get that if you repost it WILL go under AfD again or will be speedy deleted, because like I said, you have produced the film and are using Wikipedia to promote the film. Wikipedia is not a tool for viral marketing, it is not you or your employees' personal webspace and you Do not own the page you create. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clear violation of so many policies. The film lacks notability and reliable sources that have not been paid for or are not the imdb. The article has spam, crystal ball and conflict of interest issues and finally the author has ownership issues. The comments given by the other editors are correct, wait for someone else to call it notable and let them post and edit the article, correct any information on the talk page but avoid making an article about your own film as this will raise a ton of issues. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a place for viral marketing or any kind of promotion. "I understand why you would call that conflict of interest, but am I really supposed to wait around for someone to write an article?" Yes, you are; and if no one independent of you is interested enough to write one, perhaps the subject is not notable enough for an article. "On the COI issue, I'm still on the fence. I get it, I just don't fully agree." Sorry, that's your problem. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have userfied the current version of the page, if this editor is serious about contributing to Wikipedia then he can do so on other pages until November 11, then if this straight-to-DVD documentary is notable then other editors can take it back in to the mainspace. The user can edit it as much as he wants for the next five months off the mainspace without fear that it will be deleted. But I cannot see this article as it is surviving this or any other AfDs (more likely CSDs). If he is genuine then he can experiment with his own sandbox and learn how to do inline cites and find RS. However if all he wants to do is have another promo page then I suggest he looks elsewhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Sources given fail WP:RS and movie has not been the subject of "non-trivial" coverage as required by WP:N. I have also formally warned the user with respects to WP:COI. —Latischolartalkcontributions 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is a trickle of short articles in the metal press based on the director's press release, but not enough right now. It's hard for an independent, DTV production to be sufficiently notable this far out from release. I am open to reconsidering later in the year, especially since my notability bar is less strict than the current WP:NF, nor do I accept the legitimacy of its promotion to a guideline. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per unanimous vote among experienced/established users. --JForget 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bayley Gap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod; no reliable sources, WP:FRINGE, apparently original research Accounting4Taste:talk 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
I will reamain silent on this matter. my goal is to provid usfull information wich will help others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaga99 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm leaning more towards WP:NFT. 3 non-wiki ghits, none of which are about this; 0 gnews hits.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stay A transistor is a good idea. I work with high power all the time. (im an electrition) And i have found that normal transistors are not very good swichers. Although tuning a spark transistor would be a bit hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mega volt2 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Mega volt2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete per all above. Original research of something made up one day. Resolute 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sources establish neither notability or factuality. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stay Usfull information. Anyone making a teslacoil could use this. The faster it swiches the beter it will be for a tesla coil. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willy56.5 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Willy56.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Stay I to agrea with Willy. I try many gaps and the Bayley gap would make a great spark gap, and i would be happy to make and use one myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza pants (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Pizza pants (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: Mega volt2 (talk • contribs), Willy56.5 (talk • contribs), and Pizza pants (talk • contribs) have all only made contributions to this page, and have all !voted "Stay"(is that like "Keep"?). ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V, as no one at all (other than User:Omaga99) appears to have written about this. Deor (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 3 ghits, none for g-news. Fails at WP:N & WP:RS. All the "keep" er "Stay" comments seem ...umm... read them yourself. Faradayplank (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The source is not there. But the Bayley gap is being published in you-tube for anyone making a tesla coil. In a few years other people will be using and refering to Bayley. If the Bayley gap was not anywhere else i would vote to destroy. Here is the you-tube video i found.[11]— Mr.ZAPY! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Youtube is not a reliable source - anyone can post anything there. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: There is no way an invention in 2008 will have passed peer review, let alone the WP:V threshold, barring it being done by a Nobel laureate. Someone should also explain to the article creator about WP:SOCK. Ravenswing 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - absolutely no reliable, independent source. Wikipedia is not a place for first publication. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the supporting editors Mega volt2 (talk · contribs), Willy56.5 (talk · contribs), Pizza pants (talk · contribs) and Mr.ZAPY! (talk · contribs) all edited for the first time on this AfD. Such other edits as they have made consist only of adding the occasional dot. Mr.ZAPY! also removed an earlier note by Wakanda's Black Panther!, which I have restored, pointing out that the first three were SPAs. I have filed a suspected sockpuppet report here. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is a hoax and passes the 'duck' test with flying colours ('This page is protected by Omaga. Vandals will be reported and the page will be reloaded with original context.'). It is obviously nothing more than pseudo-science. David873 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think it's a hoax as such; rather the contributor's design of triggerable spark gap with a fan for cooling and arc extinction. Fails WP:N and WP:OR, and the sockpuppetry is a little annoying. — BillC talk 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Mmm, I'd be much more comfortable with the notion of article creator = skilled inventor if the article wasn't semi-literate. Turns of phrase like "For the Head is were the spark will occur ... The heat sink can be purchased or made with a price of sheet melt" put hoaxes in mind.
- Delete I'm not even sure this "Baylay Gap" exists. Even if it does, it obviously hasn't achieved substantial independent coverage to pass WP:N. To the author: Simply existing isn't a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not even for a scientific discovery or electronics product. And while, sure, this "Bayley Gap" might be known around the world in a few years, to include it in Wikipedia now would be in violation of WP:Crystal ball. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A search on Google for 'Bayley Gap' reveals nothing relevant and Google Scholar returns no results. Furthermore, some of the terms used in the article do not seem to exist. Judging by the external links and his user page, the person who came up with the ideas for the article in the first place may even be guilty of fraud. David873 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm also dubious it even exists. Even if it does, it isn't notable. Alberon (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced (well, YouTube-sourced) nonsense/hoax, support votes are all from SPA/socks. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Smells of a hoax.PB666 yap 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Swami Sarasvati Yoga Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable yoga center advertisement written like a biography of its owner. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable. 17 g-hits, none reliable secondary sources.-Samuel Tan 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete "Recently nominated for the Australian of the Year Award."? One magazine source on the leader, not distinguishing her much. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G2 by Gwen Gale, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David Charles Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Not sure why it wasn't tagged as such but I'm tagging it now. Accurizer (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (should have been proposed for speedy deletion). Just a school kid having fun. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect and merge to Lyme disease. This has clearly been a hard fought discussion but there does seem to be an overriding consensus on two points: firstly, there is sufficient notability for the subject to be included in Wikipedia; secondly, the article as it stands is far from ideal and it may be better to start from scratch. My decision is therefore to redirect the page to the main Lyme disease article, so that editors more knowledgeable on the subject than I can merge the good material from this article's history. This doesn't mean the Lyme disease controversy cannot be re-created at a later date - as long as the new article adheres strongly to WP:NPOV. Waggers (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Lyme disease controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominated per WP:NOTE and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Article does not clearly establish what the title controversy is. A long table implies equal weight for contrasting views of a condition called chronic Lyme, but the guidelines grouped under IDSA are the views of most of medical community not just IDSA. ILADS is a relativly small advocacy organization who's membership is open to many people not just doctors, scientists so the table is undue weight. The section on CDC is not a controversy so misplaced, the long-term drug section is too detailed review of primary literature and controversy is not obvios. All relavent information covered in Lyme disease so IMO this is a POV fork to advance views which don't make it at the main article. RetroS1mone talk 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or, as an alternative, Stub and rewrite from scratch using reliable sources and reining in meatpuppetry: Horrible, horrible POV fork and a focus of extensive meatpuppetry. There is probably enough material for a good, encyclopedic content fork on the controversies surrounding Lyme disease, but this article isn't it. It should be stubbed and material should be added piecemeal with reference to specific reliable sources. Additionally, extensive administrative oversight is needed to address the serious problems with agenda-driven meat- and sockpuppetry which make this article and Lyme disease nearly uneditable. MastCell Talk 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, merge encyclopedic content into a short section on Lyme disease. Then keep the Lyme article semiprotected and appoint two experienced editors to guide improvement there. JFW | T@lk 06:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect and merge, hasn't there been a NEJM article on this? I think there is a debate but the article is a POV fork so let's rewrite it properly, preferably in a separate article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and place salvageable material in section within Lyme Disease, using (a) verification of all claims at the point of editing them into the article using (b) citations of reliable sources, with (c) care and attention being paid to NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If this section becomes too large (and only if this happens, given the quality of the sources that should be used) consider splitting off the section into main article of its own. DDStretch (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect and merge, as a patient, this Wiki is for me. I can go to the CDC site for orthodoxy. Here, I expect to find, and have a right to see, all responsible, researched, fact based recommendations, pros and cons, and not only or mainly the prevailing policy of the medical establishment (no criticism intended). There clearly are areas of uncertainty and there are suffering people who fall into those areas who have to make hard choices. We deserve full disclosure and well presented POVs from both sides. The original article presumed the CDC's POV. I needed the table in this branch to visualize how the recommendations compared. Both sides are pretty scary.LeoBellew (talk) 2008 07 08Jul 04:58Tue (UTC) — LeoBellew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Editor's first post, and there has been off-Wiki recruiting on Lyme advocacy websites. [12], [13], [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Wikipedia is not written for patients. See WP:MEDMOS#Audience and the medical disclaimer. The mere fact that some patients find this information convenient is not proof of topic notability or its appropriateness for an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor's first post, and there has been off-Wiki recruiting on Lyme advocacy websites. [12], [13], [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, POV fork giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't necessarily have to be so. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think giving this "controversy" its own article overestimates its notability. It can certainly be mentioned in the main article, but this isn't something like the creation-evolution controversy where the debate itself is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't necessarily have to be so. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cover the social and political impacts and history, not the fringe claims except as necessary background. Lyme disease says that there are enough people barking about this to reduce the pool of researchers, which would seem to be sufficient for WP:Notability. I am not a doctor - does anybody not associated with ILADS promote this idea? If not, it might be appropriate to treat the idea there instead. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete, or merge and redirect if necessary. This is nowhere near as notable as, for instance, researchers shying away from animal testing. The conjecture and its social consequences are adequately treated in Lyme disease. Kudos to Tim Vickers. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for several reasons:
- Content forking. We don't want two articles, Orthodox scientific views of Lyme disease and Alternative interpretations of Lyme disease. That, BTW, is what the article really is about, in its current form: it's not actually about the various political actions and, well, controversies. The article is not accurately titled. The two views should be represented in the same article with due weight (= less attention on the widely rejected "alternative" idea).
- Notability. The alternative view of Lyme disease is not particularly notable. Important enough to mention in the article? Yes. Important enough to merit an entire article, with a careful comparison of the POV of each side? No. As Tim pointed out, this isn't like creationism vs. evolution; this is much more like Multiple chemical sensitivity spinning off an entire article for the sake of a point-by-point comparison of the differences between the mainstream and alternative views. Although I know a bit about the alternative interpretation of Lyme disease for professional reasons, I've never heard a regular news story about "chronic Lyme". (I see that exactly two are cited in the article; both are entirely critical of the "chronic Lyme" idea.) I have, however heard and read many stories on the mainstream view of Lyme disease. I therefore conclude that readers are not going to come looking for information about the controversy itself.
- Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. This article feels like it was created by someone with the specific agenda of drawing additional attention to this idea, with the hope of giving it additional credibility or at least raising awareness.
- Undue emphasis on an idea that is rejected by mainstream researchers. I realize that this is inconvenient for agenda accounts that want to push minority viewpoints, but all Wikipedia articles, taken individually and in aggregate, must reflect the mainstream view -- the "orthodoxy", as one patient put it in comments above. This is the meaning of NPOV. If you consider these articles together, the aggregate attention dedicated to the rejected viewpoint and a few political actions is really not appropriate.
- Wikipedia is WP:NOT your webhost. If a pro-chronic-Lymer wants to make this information available somewhere, that's fine. Grab a copy right now. There are no copyright restrictions to stop you. But put it up on your own website, not here. The fact that you want this information to be somewhere on the web does not oblige Wikipedia to be that place.
- IMO the existing summary in the main article is perfectly adequate to describe this controversy. I think therefore that deletion is a reasonable action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've been uncertain about whether or not to maintain this subarticle. On balance, the controversy is by itself sufficiently notable, and sufficiently virulent, that it would probably be agood idea to have this as a separate article, keeping the main one for the scientific aspects. DGG (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The controversy itself, as a separate entity from the disease, is notable. It must be addressed, since it has significant media coverage; so if this page were deleted, it would bloat the main article. The controversy has two aspects - the media/cultural issues, and the actual medical controversy. I'm not familiar enough with the scientific issues to know whether the alternative ideas about it are a fringe theory or not, but there is no doubt that whatever those issues are, there has been significant debate about it, too much to simply ignore. From a purely policy standpoint, the controversy as a topic meets WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The controversy is notable enough to have an article of its own. As it stands, it contains far too much technical detail for an encyclopedia – for example listing the ten specific serologic bands in the CDC Western Blot IgG surveillance criteria tells you nothing about the controversy – I would have said something like "delete all except the first four paragraphs" but this is not an option in AfD. Jll (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/plea: Would it be possible to get a commitment from participants here, if this article is kept, to watchlist it to help deal with serious and ongoing agenda-based meatpuppetry surrounding this article? MastCell Talk 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've radically shortened the article by removing sections that were either unrelated to the controversy, or gave undue weight to fringe claims. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lyme disease and
deleteRedirect; with Tim Vickers tightening of the article, and accounting for duplicate text in the two articles, I believe the main article can now incorporate a merge (in terms of WP:SIZE as measured by Dr pda's page size script). The controversy does need to be mentioned somewhere on Wiki, but the coordinated meatpuppetry, fringe theory, and sockpuppetry issues can be more effectively dealt with by having all of the content in one article. Per Mastcell's plea, I see no evidence that some of the "keep" declarers will help maintain the separate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I'm afraid we can't merge and delete, Sandy, as that would violate the terms of the GDFL by failing to credit the contributors of the merged text. You'll have to pick one :) Skomorokh 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arrrrgh, this is why I rarely come this way :-) The correct term, I believe, is Merge and Redirect. Thanks, Skomorokh. 04:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we can't merge and delete, Sandy, as that would violate the terms of the GDFL by failing to credit the contributors of the merged text. You'll have to pick one :) Skomorokh 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV fork. B.Wind (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - POV fork, deserves a line or two in Lyme disease but that is all --T-rex 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - POV fork, subject adequately covered by Lyme disease#Controversy and politics.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Subhash Patri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable soruces for a stand alone article. Possible redirect and/or merge with Pyramid Party of India. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He does lead a minor Indian political party and seems to be the founder of a movement with a number of centres. Notable enough for a short article. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. He does not appear to even have been elected, nor nothing to suggest he was a prominent candidate. Cannot find any non-trivial sources regarding the person. His party is borderline itself, most of its media references relate to candidates failing the screening criteria to contest election (though at least two passed from what I saw). I would just redirect his page to his party article, not notable enough for his own article. -- R45 talk! 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, lacks non-trivial sources to support existing content. JBsupreme (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: Non notable charachter. The entire article is an advertisement for Pyramid society and Subhash Patri. 6000 pyramid societies????? Never heard of them. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Killeroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
All episodes covered in Mighty Boosh series articles 1, 2 and 3. Episodes not notable on their own. No reliable sources. For example, in the The Mighty Boosh (series 2) article, "The Nightmare of Milky Joe" has its plot explained fully. On the "The Nightmare of Milky Joe" article, all that is different is the addition of cast and trivia.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
- Mutants (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bollo (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tundra (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jungle (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Charlie (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Electro (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hitcher (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Call of the Yeti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Priest and the Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nanageddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fountain of Youth (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Legend of Old Gregg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Nightmare of Milky Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Eels (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Journey to the Centre of Punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Power of the Crimp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Strange Tale of the Crack Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Party (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Chokes (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These episodes do not appear to be notable in their own right. See also Talk:List of The Mighty Boosh episodes for an earlier discussion of this. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to The_Mighty_Boosh_(series_1)#List_of_episodes, The_Mighty_Boosh_(series_2)#List_of_episodes, etc, as per WP:EPISODE.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect, per Fabrictramp and said guideline. Alai (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge whatever useful information and redirect per Fabrictramp. There won't be much to add to the targets as the trivia should be stripped and the synopses and cast lists seem to be there already. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Numerous arguments by new editors who did not address the pertinent issue of notability as defined on Wikipedia, or who made assorted weak arguments, were discounted. Sandstein 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because your vote was solicited by this blog post, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- ThatGuyWithTheGlasses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Internet producer. No independent sources and no news sources found (none in article and not found in Google search). Fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost no YouTube "producers" are notable, and I see no evidence that this one is. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. no claim to be notable --T-rex 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, not notable, I edit on here and I'm no way notable! Bevo74 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This YouTube producer is very notable, he has his own site, and is in a "war" with the Angry Video Game Nerd...besides, I just added some new sections and cited some references and sources. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — 75.62.124.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment Your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is somewhat lacking. You can't use postings from the guy's own website to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Links to the person's own entries on his website and a non-notable site isn't enough to meet the criteria.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence whatsoever of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here are places that know who he is: http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/01/nostalgia-critic-is-back.html http://pokgai.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/nostalgia-critic-does-pokemon-the-movie/ http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=223028 http://digg.com/music/The_Nostalgia_Critic_reviews_the_movie_The_Wizard http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jsessionid=0C1C55227203DBC1C66E521B11F9F654.app05_06?topicId=7116276547&sid=1 Also, Cinemassacre is notable. It's the Angry Video Game Nerd's own website...he's notable, so it is too. Happy now? 75.62.124.115 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that should go as well 192.28.2.6 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Let's see: two blogs, two webforums, and a post at digg.com. Nope; that's nothing (and just because the AVGN has a website, doesn't make his website a reliable source (or notable, incidentally). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here are places that know who he is: http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/01/nostalgia-critic-is-back.html http://pokgai.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/nostalgia-critic-does-pokemon-the-movie/ http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=223028 http://digg.com/music/The_Nostalgia_Critic_reviews_the_movie_The_Wizard http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jsessionid=0C1C55227203DBC1C66E521B11F9F654.app05_06?topicId=7116276547&sid=1 Also, Cinemassacre is notable. It's the Angry Video Game Nerd's own website...he's notable, so it is too. Happy now? 75.62.124.115 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even though I am a fan of TGWTG, I would probably agree with deleting an article about him if he was still on Youtube. However he is no longer a Youtube producer and is independent. Not only that but he was the one who created the "5 Second Movies" meme. That Guy has also done sketches and interviews with other internet notables. 70.53.123.207 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 70.53.123.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- KeepThere's also the fact that the Angry Video Game Nerd, another YouTube celebrity and somebody with a Wikipedia page has acknowledged him and the "fued" between the two has already become a popular Internet phenomenon. If 2 Girls 1 Cup can get a Wikipedia page, so can somebody like ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, who has produced more than just disgust on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estefan (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Estefan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That may be perfectly true, and I hate to keep repeating myself, but without reliable sources it can't be verified, and verifiability is so important to an encyclopedic article that it is right in the five pillars, which are Wikipedia's most important policies. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That Guy With The Glasses is just as important as The Angry Video Game Nerd and deleting this page would mean that, to be fair, every single article on Wikipedia about a YouTube producer would also have to be deleted. -King SweaterHead (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - blogs, forum posts and Digg links do not convey notability at this time. Also, just because other stuff is on Wikipedia doesn't mean this gets to be as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/226338/ http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-nostalgia-critic/984176898 http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/800736 http://digg.com/comedy/Nostalgia_Critic_Captain_Planet http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/03/nostalgia-critic-speaks-truth.html http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=435691 http://www.tv.com/the-nerd/avgn-responds-to-the-nostalgia-critic!/episode/1208886/summary.html http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lPZdFWC6D38&feature=related http://forums.gamernode.com/showthread.php?t=19175 http://my.spill.com/video/video/show?id=947994%3AVideo%3A316772 http://forums.earth-2.net/index.php?showtopic=4026&mode=threaded http://www.xomba.com/user/thatguywiththeglasses (site where he had bum reviews for a short time) Come on! This guy IS NOTABLE. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 75.62.124.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep More and more "YouTube producers" are notable, citing G4's list of "Who's on youtube" and Spike recent signing of the AVGN, a "YouTube producer". The person in question has a long standing feud between a notable producer, James Rolfe, and has claim to be notable himself via Cinemassacre.com, and TheGameHeroes.com websites. Cparsley (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Cparsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete none of the links provided do anything to assert notability. AVGN has enough sources to get by with an article. Getting in a flame war with a notable person doesn't make someone notable. JuJube (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What about these links? http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece http://www.lepost.fr/article/2008/06/20/1211673_voir-un-film-en-5-secondes.html The 'feud' with the AVGN is not a flame war; it's nothing more than a fake created rivalry by two people who respect each other work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemvs (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Mikemvs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strong Keep* As per the reasons above. ThunderPower (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion everything deserves a goddamn page in wikipedia, nc is not that bad except his annoying slogan - I will remeber it so you dont have to - that's awful even though its kinda coll and it reminds you of him......damnit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd90022 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Sd90022 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep per sources and reasons provided above. Blacklist (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is the origin of the "Five Second Movie" trend. This is to the extent of even having The Times UK newspaper write an article on him: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece 82.69.9.61 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WHAT ARE YOU DOING! Seriously Keep this article, deleting this article is just wrong. Should we remove articles of other celbrities, as TGWTG is to some extent a celebrity. not to the level of george clooney or edward norton, but still pretty famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.133.139 (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — 216.118.133.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - If AVGN and has his own wikipedia entry, why not this guy?... if "ThatGuy" is removed, maybe AVGN should too. Nubita (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Nubita[reply]
- That's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, a notably invalid argument for retention of an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your WP:JNN vote was equally worthless. SashaNein (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, a notably invalid argument for retention of an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Is the subject of secondary reliable independent sources as cited above, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. Once again, some WP users have it in for Youtube celebs. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - once again: blogs, online forums and the like do not constitute reliable sources; nor does mention in such places constitute notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Times isn't a blog and the coverage is more than a "passing mention".--76.79.244.92 (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the website Kotaku a blog? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotaku) yet it has it's own wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.89.89 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Users responding based on the request at ThatGuyWithTheGlasses website please note:
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.-Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#cite_note-4
- http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece may be considered a trivial source. The article subject is Hyperediting (editing films (or entire tv series) into bite-sized chunks). It only mentions the subject of the article as one of the pioneers of doing this on the editing. However, this is commonly known as a trailer and just because of its shortness is an internet fad and is correctly listed as a "Microtrends". --Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Five Second Movies are not trailers. Very different. 82.69.9.61 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That Guy With the Glasses is an internet celebrity. If Chris Crocker can have an article, it's only fair if other internet celebrities get the right to have articles. Lightman2 (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — Lightman2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, nothing but spam if people want to use YouTube why should they clog up Wikipedia. Youtube celebs a contradicition in terms I was amazed to see there's a template. It looks like the bloggers have talking to each other. 86.163.86.6 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) - 86.163.86.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Deleted comment pasted back in by Bevo74 (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeeeeeeep Please I think Wiki can handle this article. That guys is becoming more and more popular and you'll be re-adding him if you delee him now! 217.226.239.26 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Internet celebrities DO exist. Think about it: What is Paris Hilton famous for? Being rich...and other things I won't mention...but she hasn't showed any real TALENT. ThatGuy, on the other hand makes videos that people like. He and his brother write the scripts for them. This shows TALENT. ThatGuy, while not as a famous as Paris Hilton, is still online and is notable. He's going to get even bigger, so you might as well just keep the page we have now. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Talent does not equal notability. Sure, ThatGuy and company might be more talented than (insert tabloid celebrity here) but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are enough reliable sources to prove anything. The only way Wikipedia can maintain a high level of accuracy and quality is if every statement written in the encyclopedia can be proven with some sort of evidence, be it unbiased media coverage, a book, or a web site that fits the notability guidelines. If standards like these weren't regulated anyone could write anything and it would stick as long as it sounded plausible. That's the biggest issue when it comes to Internet celebrities -- you or I might know that something is true, but we can't necessarily back that up with a source. -Spectere (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - there is no more useless argument for retention than, "He's up-and-coming/They're gonna get bigger/If you delete her now, you'll have to create a new article when she becomes more famous." All of these are really just different ways of saying, "I tacitly admit this subject is not yet notable; but I believe the subject will become notable." --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, The article obviously needs some work, but then again no article in this category is initially well written. But of course that's not the issue.
- Keep, Let his site grow and their will be more need for a Wikipedia page.
At the moment, I think it's a bit of a balanced arguement as to whether the article has significant importance to remain on wikipedia. Several websites have written articles about or mentioned Thatguywiththeglasses' work, and of course there was the interview with Handome Tom on Video Game heroes. But at the same time it's still very underground and most 'casual net users' only know him as 'that guy who makes 5 second movies'. Thatguy and the other writers/admins on his site have talked about turning the website into an actual internet company, getting the investment to secure a location to film what is touted to be 90 different shows, each with lengthy running seasons. Maybe when that actually gets underway, and these numerous projects gain popularity around the internet (in a fashion similar to 'The Whitest Kids you Know'), then there will be no arguement that the site deserves a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigis (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The subect's photos are in use, but sufficient sources about him have not been found to meet WP:BIO. If they are found, then the article can be recreated. Ty 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David Taylor (Photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Autobiographical article by a Sydney fashion photographer; COI issues, and lack of notability. I put a db-person tag on a first version of the article; he removed it and added some detail including one link to a Sydney Morning Herald article. I looked to see if I could find more: googling "David Taylor Photographer" produces at least three different British ones; narrowing it to "David Taylor Photographer Sydney" we are down to this article, a photographers' site called ftvstudio.com, and a couple of his images on photo.net. I don't think notability is established to the standard of WP:BIO. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem has more to do with the name than the person, David Taylor is like John Smith and consequently difficult to search for. Also the larger part of his work has been through print media in Australia. A photographers search at http://www.wireimage.com/ or http://gettyimages.com shows to some degree the extent of his work. Which accordingly presents a problem for searching as most wireagency images are credited to the agency not the photographer.
- Also
- http://www.theimagedistillery.com/
- http://thisisthefirstfloor.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-am-eyes-runway-presentation.html
- http://www.honeyhartley.com/page/page/4606357.htm
- http://k9pincushion.blogspot.com/2007/07/david-taylor.html
- http://photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1718986— Tweekme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, he has taken photographs and they are on show, but has he been "the subject of published secondary source material" (i.e. about him, not by him) "which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." See WP:CREATIVE for the notability standard for creative professionals. JohnCD (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is probably original research and fails notability guidelines and that a merge is not appropriate. Davewild (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chinese Pinyin Simplification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, removed by author. WP:OR. Author of the article is mentioned in the text, so it's a WP:COI as well. Borders on WP:ADVERT with the mention of an invention. Given references are not secondary sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Pinyin. I was not able to find reliable sources in English. I also could not find sources from Chinese g-hits, although my Chinese is not good enough to be sure about that. I suggest merging it to perhaps a "simplification" section in the Pinyin article.-Samuel Tan 02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure there's all that much to merge here, to be honest. Nothing is referenced, and I'm not sure that we want to add possible OR text to an already heavily developed article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources used, and it reads like a proposal and, as such, Original Research. If it had been published so that a number of reliable sources could be used, and it was created and edited by someone without a conflict of interest, then perhaps it could be merged with Pinyin. But as it is, just delete. DDStretch (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With no reliable sources, there's no reason to keep this rather odd "how to" article, which suggests that you save keystrokes by typing "tag" instead of "tang", or "tio" instead of "tiao", or, worst of all, "hug" instead of "huang". I don't know of any person who would omit a letter from a word in order to make it easier to type; I think it would take longer to remember to not type "n" instead of to type "ng". No point in "keepig" this article. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Take your choice - behind Door #1 we have Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide; and behind Door #2, it's original research. Either way, this "article" needs to be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This list doesn't really surve a purpose, and I really doubt anyone's going to search for a title like that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That is one unlikely title alright, what the hell is a "pseudo-blend"? I can't find it here or at Wiktionary.I don't think "initialism" is a very common term either, although it is at least an actual word. Anyway, it's a pretty flimsy concept for a list article. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also there's already a perfectly good list here. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Beeblbrox. "Pesudo-blend"? That's a new one. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and redundant to List of environmental organizations. I am also perplexed by the use of "pseudo-blend" so I googled it. This page is the top result. Also "initialism" gives me a red squiggly line under it when I type it in, so it's not a word Firefox recognizes. I think they were going for "abbreviation". Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant pedantry. An initialism is an abbreviation that's pronounced as a series of letters (like FBI), whereas an acronym is an abbreviation that's pronounced as a word (like NASA). I have no idea what a pseudo-blend is. Deor (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to be funny with the whole "red squiggly line" bit. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another randomly assembled, non-encyclopedic list. I am sure it was created with the best of intentions, but it doesn't fit into Wikipedia's requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per User:Beeblbrox. WP:NFT on the title. WP:PAPER means we can write out the full words at List of environmental organizations --T-rex 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I think, frankly, that this is an WP:POINT nomination. RGTraynor 09:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please elaborate on that, I don't understand your reasoning. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I did not get that either. Nsk92 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The potential for vandalism in this one is obvious, but the main point is, as Tenpound says, who would look here? Wouldn't it be easier to type in "APLC" in the search box if you didn't know what the APLC was? Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we can have List of environmental organizations and List of acronyms and initialisms, then why not this? -- Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to the article "List of acronyms and initialisms", a pseudo-blend is "an abbreviation whose extra or omitted letters means that it cannot stand as a true acronym, initialism, or portmanteau (a word formed by combining two or more words)." According to the article "Blend": "In linguistics, a blend is a word formed from parts of two other words. These parts are sometimes, but not always, morphemes."
- -- Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting interesting. I see that in the linked article, but I don't think I see a source backing it up and [15] seems to contradict that assertion. We may have a whole other problem on our hands at that article, but of course that is a seperate discussion not related to AfD. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I used Wikipedia's search function in a search for "acronyms" and I found the following.
- (with the "Go" button)
- (with the "Search" button)
- Recursive acronym
- Three-letter acronym
- List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions
- List of U.S. Navy acronyms
- Oil field acronyms
- Pseudo-acronym
- List of astronomy acronyms
- Glossary of military abbreviations
- List of government and military acronyms
- List of waste management acronyms
- European Union Acronyms, Jargon and Working Practices
- List of medical abbreviations: Overview
- List of Indonesian acronyms and abbreviations
- List of acronyms used in arts and crafts
- List of U.S. Marine Corps acronyms and expressions
- Law enforcement jargon
- List of business and finance abbreviations
- Vehicle acronyms and abbreviations
- List of Singapore abbreviations
- List of dosage abbreviations
- -- Wavelength (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok now we're getting way off the topic of the AfD. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, this is not off the topic, because I am showing that Wikipedia has other lists of acronyms. (They are useful, and they are not especially prone to vandalism.) Also, those lists are not superfluous to these lists.
- List of marketing topics
- Lists of health topics
- List of Philippine-related topics
- List of laser types
- List of basic astronomy topics
- List of waste management topics
- List of European Union-related topics
- List of Indonesia-related topics
- List of basic visual arts topics
- List of basic crafts topics
- List of basic law enforcement topics
- Topical outline of business
- List of finance topics
- List of basic finance topics
- List of basic economics topics
- List of basic vehicles topics
- List of transport topics
- List of Singapore-related topics
- In like manner, List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend is not superfluous to List of environmental organizations.
- On the contrary, this is not off the topic, because I am showing that Wikipedia has other lists of acronyms. (They are useful, and they are not especially prone to vandalism.) Also, those lists are not superfluous to these lists.
- Comment - Before I started List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend, I was preparing to start an article List of environmental acronyms (which I still might start eventually), but when I discovered that many of them involved environmental organizations, I decided to list them separately. If the title is too long or too strange, it can be changed to something shorter and more familar, such as List of environmental organizations by abbreviation.
- Its usefulness is not limited to helping people find names of environmental organizations and articles about them. Yes, it is true that one can more easily find the full name of "APLC" by using the search box. But this list is much more helpful when people want to examine many environmental organizations' acronyms together. I can think of two kinds of situations where one might want to do that. In the first, one may simply be interested, from a linguistic perspective, in examining patterns and tendencies in choosing names and acronyms for environmental organizations. In the second, one may be about to start an environmental organization and want to avoid choosing an acronym already in use for another environmental organization or an acronym too easily confused with one already in use. For both those kinds of situations, a list of such acronyms and names on one page is definitely helpful and not superfluous.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — MaggotSyn 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evalyn Parry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Try and stick with me on this one as it might get a bit hairy. I don't believe this page passes WP:BIO. The sources given are only links to the specific festivals, none of which seem to be very notable in themselves. Also, the "gay twist" presents a bit of a NPOV problem in the beginning of the article. Her albums are non notable as they are not connected with a major company so that fails WP:BAND. Her written works have recieved little to no coverage so the article fails in that aspect too. There are no citations given too. Delete Undeath (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Has written plays, received awards, released records &c. "Her written works have received little to no coverage": Coverage of Clean Irene and Dirty Maxine, Coverage of Francis Mathilda & Tea I don't suppose she is a major figure and the article is badly written but no reason for deletion. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I immediately recognized the name. Has won non-trivial awards and is widely known. Article needs some revamping, but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article does need some cleanup, certainly, but valid sources are available. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom did not make clear what search strategy was used for researching in advance of this AfD. There are articles in The Georgia Straight [16] Vue Weekly [17] Xtra! [18] the Edmonton Journal [19] the Toronto Star [20] – all found with a quick glance at Google News search results. Keep per WP:N, or WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. No prejudice to anyone creating an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rachel Shattuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another political candidate. NN because she doesn't yet hold an office and has done nothing else to merit a biographical article. Google search brings back only campaign-related sites and stuff like Facebook. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Myers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Loyd. The results of these AfDs was to delete the articles and create a redirect to the political race each is involved in. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BIO#Politicians, being an unelected candidate does not confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. No newscoverage of her that I could find. GoogleNews gives 37 hits[21], but on closer inspection they all appear to be false positives, that is, to refer to some other people of the same name. Nsk92 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, does not quite pass WP:POLITICIAN at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asim Akhter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Proded twice, but basically, "a production assistant and a bunch of other random jobs doesn't seem to be notable enough." Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nothing in the article's text indicate actual notability per WP:BIO, plus there are no sources. Nsk92 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete no references. Chikwangwa (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep as withdrawn. — MaggotSyn 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Federer versus Nadal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Arb name (ie. why not "Nadal versus Federer"). Not notable for own article. All details are simply forked from each players respective articles. Some of this can be moved to 2008 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the notability of this article is without a doubt and don't see why it shouldn't qualify if it is well written and referenced. Federer vs Nadal capital letter first I don't think that is a POV issue. Do we have an article on Sampras vs Agassi or Bjorg vs McCanroe? This are undoubtedly important rivalries in tennis. I don't think it is suitable to move it all to 2008 chamionship as Wimbledon 2008 was only a part of the history between the two which goes back 5 years at least. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no other tennis rivalry articles. The article is not reliable sourced, with some links to YouTube. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But there are numerous other rivalry articles. IE:Boston Red Sox vs New York Yankees, Celtics vs. Lakers, ect. Federer vs Nadal has shaped Tennis for the last three or four years and has been notable due to the public's reaction and attention to it. As to why its Federer vs Nadal instead of Nadal vs Federer, that's fairly simple, Federer comes before Nadal in the alphabet.JohnWycliff (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, the fact that other sports rivalry articles exist is no argument to keep this one. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The rivalry easily satisfies the two main pillars of a Wiki-article: WP:RS and WP:V. Notability is already established via the reporting by said reliable sources. This isn't a rivalry conjured up in someone's blog. According to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, whether a tennis rivalry article exists or not is no valid argument for or against inclusion. --Madchester (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was answering the question by Blofeld of SPECTRE ("Do we have an article on Sampras vs Agassi or Bjorg vs McCanroe?"). I wasn't using it as an argument. I don't see how the notability is backed up by reliable sources, that is not to say that the nature of this rivalry is reliably asserted. I.e. matches played, won/lost. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:OSE refutes the argument that b/c something does/doesn't exist it deserves/doesn't deserve an article. As for sourcing issues, that can be addressed via a simple {{unsourced}}/{{refimprove}} template; not by jumping to the AFD process. --Madchester (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Federer-Nadal rivalry. Clearly notable enough for an article, especially after today. However, it should be moved to match the other rivalry articles mentioned. I agree that some references aren't reliable and this could use some cleanup, but these can be fixed and are not reasons to delete. Also, I don't see how this can be merged into 2008 Wimbledon Championships when only one line is about today's final. I'm not worried about this being a fork since both players' bios are overloaded with tournament details. Giants2008 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Move to Federer-Nadal rivalry. PRRfan (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For all the reasons Madchester gave above. Thecomaboy (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For all reasons above. --Sli723 (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This will go down as one of the absolute greatest (if not the #1 greatest) tennis rivalry of all time. They have been #1 and #2 simultaneously for the longest time ever, competed in 3 consecutive French Open and Wimbledon finals, along with several other records. This is extremely notable and it would be wrong for this encyclopedia not to have an article devoted to this storied rivalry. The number of articles that pertain directly to their rivalry is a testament to its notability. Supertigerman (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Acknowledged as one of the greatest rivalries, if not the greatest rivalry, in tennis. However, article should be renamed to "Federer-Nadal rivalry" to match other rivalry articles like Red Sox-Yankees rivalry. —Lowellian (reply) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't having a single rivalry article better than having a (potentially large) rivalry section in each player's article? Toomai Glittershine (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above NewYork483 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - these two guys have made plenty of headlines playing against each other. As such it clearly passes both notability and verifiability --T-rex 04:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smuckers (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Just don't understand why this article should be removed. --Jorditxei (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For all the reasons above. -- Nick C (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep for all reasons above and just end this Frank Anchor Talk to me 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Federer-Nadal rivalry, as above. Axl (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Solid collection of information that will greatly benefit visitors to the website. I found it far more useful than the respective pages or the Wimbledon page itself. Yanksox (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily satisifies WP:N, there are several realiable sources referring to this rivalry as perhaps the greatest ever in men's tennis, for example, here and here.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and yes, rename to Federer-Nadal rivalry. Reasons as Supertigerman said. Jr888 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - keep (per consensus) - Okay already! Perhaps I was getting fogged by the article name, which seems a bit strange. I also felt this was a kneejerk reaction to contemperary news story, but I didn't realise this went back a bit. Can we all agree on a name change for this article to Federer-Nadal rivalry? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Darla Farmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not assert notability of the band. Green caterpillar (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to locate non-trivial coverage from reliable sources as required by notability guidelines for music. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't meet WP:BAND as it has had only one release on an independent label. No assertion of notability. B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per unanimous vote thus per WP:SNOW --JForget 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee Molyneux (footballer born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Non-notable as the subject hasn't played in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Without meeting WP:ATHLETE he falls under general notability guidelines, and I don't see multiple independent reliable sources. Giants2008 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --John (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When he's famous, then the article can be recreated. In the meantime, delete. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW --JForget 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Single property website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable and obscure topic seemingly added as an advertising method. Lots of recent additions by realtors removed. Article has barely any wikilinks and no reliable third party citation. Mfield (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT: For the reasons stated above, this would be no great loss to the world...Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, the text looks mostly like OR. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. currently it is a bit of a how-to, but notability is the reason for deletion --T-rex 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not a notable topic at all. The whole thing is mostly self-promoting OR written by various realtors with clear WP:COI. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Stealth spam with a commercial agenda. Somebody wants to sell you a way to set up these websites, and hopes to use Wikipedia to get more business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The topic is not notable, which is made clear by the fact that there are, apparently, no reliable third-party sources to be found. It might warrant a sentence or two in a real estate article. --Bonadea (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. — MaggotSyn 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A viuvinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability EE 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added a couple of references. Seems to pass at least a couple points of WP:BK. Zagalejo^^^ 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely notable, as a quick GoogleBooks search[22] demonstrates (651 hits). Quite a few reliable sources there, discussing the book, e.g. [23][24][25], etc. The article needs further work, but that's not a good reason for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This notable book is used in FUVEST, the entrance exam of Universidade de São Paulo. Zero Kitsune (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue Bird Vienna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advert for non-notable festival. "Blue Bird Vienna" gets 6 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. The 6 gnews hits aren't about this festival. Prod contested with no comment by IP user. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Disgraceful advert. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails any kind of notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Monash Residential Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete, nothing but a dumping ground for vanity and completely unsourced (and unsourceable) original research about student dorms at Monash University, Clayton campus. It was already the subject of an AFD a couple years ago, where at least the decision was made to merge in the articles on the individual halls. Since then, it has remained completely without any references (apart from the MRS and hall official websites) and even with the student vanity garbage removed ("Farrer Hall is the most adventurous hall at Monash. Since the start of 2008 Farrer Hall has not slept, and most residents are on a first name basis with the security guards."), it is still mainly puffed out with unencyclopedic, insignificant information. Without any secondary sources, there's no indication that it has any independent, substantive notability, so there is no basis for it being a stand-alone topic from Monash University, Clayton campus or the main Monash University article. Postdlf (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If the article is bad, deletion is not the answer. Monash is a major university and its Halls of residence (they are not called dorms in Australia) could well be notable on their own, as for example are the Colleges of the older university in Melbourne. The decision to merge them together was sensible, but this combined article should be retained and improved. --Bduke (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could" be notable? Now's the time to show that they are, by providing reliable secondary sources that attest to their notability. If that can't be done (and two years after the prior AFD, there should be no excuse), then this should be deleted and the dorms shouldn't merit more than a mention of their names (if that) in the university's main article. Postdlf (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing to indicate any encyclopedic value of the subject, such as architectural of historical significance of the dorms. The article reads like a promotional brochure and it is hard to imagine it being anything else. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notable content that couldn't be adequately covered within the Monash University, Clayton campus article. Murtoa (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Entirely unremarkable and non-notable. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per all above. Procedural. Five Years 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was labeled "needs sources" just this month. What's the rush in nominating this based on lack of sources so soon? The sources for this story seem to be included in the article (referenced Webpages.) Notability? Some of these structures have been standing for over 40 years. They are notable in THAT community, certainly, although it fails the "Notoriety on the Internet" standard of some Wikipedians, I guess. Articles on each of these dorm halls would be kind of silly, however, but I see they don't have separate pages anymore, which is fine. I'd point out OTHER articles listing college dorms, but I suppose I'd risk getting the "other crap exists" Deletionist essay thrown at me. As if lists of MIT's dorms are "crap" (not to mention, and I won't, Notre Dame, or Boston University, or Sarah Lawrence, or Harvard.) But I'll skip over that.
Finally, nominating an article every month until Wikipedians "get it right" (this was nom. just 4 weeks ago) is abusive.Stub it, fix it, or leave it alone. - Nhprman 02:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It was nominated two years ago. Postdlf (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability "in THAT community", if that were a criteria, seems to be restricted to the absolute minutiae of the day-to-day happenings of present residents. I appreciate that the current state of the article shouldn't be an absolute guide, but I would hope commentary for Notre Dame or Harvard would be somewhere exceeding Newspapers are delivered directly to the Hall every morning or Each flat is fully furnished to include all the necessities of student life, such as chairs and a table. I have serious doubts about the existence of secondary sources that would lift this article to a sufficient level. If it were distilled to a strip list of the various halls, then surely that could be a part of the Monash University, Clayton campus article. Murtoa (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making comments about the quality of the article, and that's fine, but please feel free to fix it. I'm not opposed to merging this, but the fact that other precedents exist for breaking them out into their own articles does count for something in this discussion. - Nhprman 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken up your suggestion to fix it. There's not much left, and some is hardly notable, but perhaps a base for improvement, if that's possible. Murtoa (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Monash University, Clayton campus can easily incorporate it, to the extent it's verifiable. Postdlf (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge that what remains be merged into that article and that the AfD be ended. - Nhprman 16:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Monash University, Clayton campus can easily incorporate it, to the extent it's verifiable. Postdlf (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken up your suggestion to fix it. There's not much left, and some is hardly notable, but perhaps a base for improvement, if that's possible. Murtoa (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making comments about the quality of the article, and that's fine, but please feel free to fix it. I'm not opposed to merging this, but the fact that other precedents exist for breaking them out into their own articles does count for something in this discussion. - Nhprman 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above - no independent sources, no evidence of notability is even likely. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no different from the residential services at a million other schools. The listing of the dorm buildings can be merged into the article on the college in general. --T-rex 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- St. Catharines Wine Tasting of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Wine tastings like this happen all the time. May be of interest to a trade journal or local paper but hardly merits an entry in an encyclopedia. Other than the two sources (one of which seems to have been copied from the other) there is nothing to indicate any wider significance. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. no claim of notability --T-rex 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- hic err, delete per nom. nn local winefest. Resolute 01:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this event was not significant other than an attempt to promote the Canadian wine indsutry, which as stated by another user, happens all the time in different places. I checked WineSpectator.com to check for an article on the event and one doesn't exist so in the end this event fails WP:Notability.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Put the cork back in and Delete Non-notable local event. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although I know of at least one other major publication that likely covered this (Wine Access magazine), the fact is there's nothing to suggest this tasting was any more notable than the many others held in this location in other years. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the project page of WP:WINE. -- Tomas e (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete passing mentions in two articles aren't enough. - Merzbow (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete some. Consensus here and precedent previously has been to delete football clubs below a certain level deemed automatically notable. Clubs playing below that level can demonstrate particular notability; none of the clubs nominated but not struck seem to do so. This is important, because if any of the articles to be deleted are in future worked up to demonstrate particular notability (e.g. a significant FA Cup appearance would do the trick nicely) they would overcome this hurdle without the need for promotion through the league system. Dweller (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overton United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete) – (View AfD)
Football club that fails to meet the generally accepted notability standard, i.e. having played at Step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup or FA Vase (see this AfD for the last similar AfD). Was originally prodded, but removed by IP without explanation. To avoid wasting editors' time, I'll also add A.F.C. Stoneham, Bishops Waltham Town F.C., Clanfield (Hampshire) F.C., Colden Common F.C., Fleetlands F.C., Hamble Club F.C., Otterbourne F.C. and Paulsgrove F.C., all of which play in the same league and are in the same position regarding their history, and none of whose articles extends beyond five sentences. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear, these are the articles that are still part of this nomination:
- A.F.C. Stoneham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Clanfield (Hampshire) F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hamble Club F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Otterbourne F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've only reviewed the first two teams (well second and third actually), and it's clear that Bishops Waltham Town F.C. have played at level 10 - and here's a contemporary link stating this. This is the problem with these multiple deletes, as trying to eliminate a half-dozen articles at a time results in a lack of proper review of them. I've previously noted that bundling articles like this doesn't meet the guidlines for bundling in WP:AFD ("If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately."). Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- The website appears to be mistaken - they were at level 11 in 2006-07 - see Tony Kempster (Wessex One is level 10 and BWT were in Wessex Two). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it appears that they did play at Step 10 in previous seasons though, so I shall withdraw them. However, I have double-checked on the FCHD and none of the others have played above Wessex 2/3 (renamed in 2006-07, hence the confusion) (see Overton, Stoneham, Clanfield, Colden C, Fleetlands, Hamble Club, Otterbourne and Paulsgrove). пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't gone through all the teams, but it appears Colden Common F.C. played at Level 9 in 1999/2000 according to http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/archive99-00/hampgrid.htm - in the Hampshire Premiere league which is listed as level 9 at http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/archive99-00/gridsindex.htm. I'll stick to a keep, but I think this would be best dealt with team-by-team. Though as many of these teams did play for years in the old Hampshire League, and Hampshire Premier was Level 9, and presumably Hampshire 1 was Level 10, I'm concerned that some of these other ones may also be notable.Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove Colden Common. However, prior to the creation of the Conference North/South (2004) every league was one level higher, so I think we should see Level 10 in 1999 as Level 11 today (otherwise this could lead to all teams playing in county leagues prior to 2004 being classed as notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed three more following an explanation of the league history here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that my work has been mis-represented! It was an attempt to show that these clubs are not notable, rather than the other way around. Since the Wessex League was formed, only one Hampshire League club ever got accepted for the Vase, and that was the special case of Petersfield after they got relegated from the Isthmian League. The participation in the Vase was the basic reasoning behind the border between Level 10 and Level 11 being the presumed split between notability and non-notability (Special circumstances of individual notability not withstanding). Level 10 now is at about what Level 8 was 20 years ago, it's local football, just a step up from the bulk of county competitions. I'd certainly deem all those clubs whose nominations have been withdrawn as non-notable. Top division of the Hampshire before 1985 - OK, but I'd have difficulty supporting any other Hampshire League clubs. I've been to some of those mentioned here and have seen many other Hampshire League games before it merged into the Wessex, and have a reasonable idea of the standard of play as well. - fchd (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed three more following an explanation of the league history here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove Colden Common. However, prior to the creation of the Conference North/South (2004) every league was one level higher, so I think we should see Level 10 in 1999 as Level 11 today (otherwise this could lead to all teams playing in county leagues prior to 2004 being classed as notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't gone through all the teams, but it appears Colden Common F.C. played at Level 9 in 1999/2000 according to http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/archive99-00/hampgrid.htm - in the Hampshire Premiere league which is listed as level 9 at http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/archive99-00/gridsindex.htm. I'll stick to a keep, but I think this would be best dealt with team-by-team. Though as many of these teams did play for years in the old Hampshire League, and Hampshire Premier was Level 9, and presumably Hampshire 1 was Level 10, I'm concerned that some of these other ones may also be notable.Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it appears that they did play at Step 10 in previous seasons though, so I shall withdraw them. However, I have double-checked on the FCHD and none of the others have played above Wessex 2/3 (renamed in 2006-07, hence the confusion) (see Overton, Stoneham, Clanfield, Colden C, Fleetlands, Hamble Club, Otterbourne and Paulsgrove). пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The website appears to be mistaken - they were at level 11 in 2006-07 - see Tony Kempster (Wessex One is level 10 and BWT were in Wessex Two). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis that all these are pretty minor teams, I don't think any of them are notable. Even those which may have had brief spells in the top division of the old Hampshire League are difficult to find substantial, multiple, non-trivial reliable sources about. Even the likes of Bishop's Waltham Town. I would be inclined to Delete all - fchd (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The four that are left have played at Step 6, but not recently. However I am not fully comfortable in removing them as they seem to meet criteria. Where is this "criteria" defined? Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria is defined by the consensus of numerous past AfDs (more than 10),including:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton Electricity F.C.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Express F.C.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matlock United F.C.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Deportivo Galicia
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookham Dean F.C.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stansfeld O&BC F.C.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakley United F.C. (England)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Chelmsfordians F.C.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spelthorne Sports F.C.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnoldswick Town F.C.
- And was previously part of WP:CORP until it was unilaterally removed here, as well as being repeatedly covered in the WP:FOOTY talk page, including here. As explained above, the four in question played at Step 6 before the current Step 2 (Conference North/South) was introduced - it was the county league level of the time. Using the argument that they played at Step 6 prior to 2004 would mean that most clubs currently at Step 7 are notable, when past consensus states that they are clearly not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not 100% sure the striked through ones oughtn't be deleted, but I'm willing to follow precedent in allowing them. The remaining ones should definitely be deleted per accepted precedent, the lack of reliable coverage at that level, and a general lack of notability. Vickser (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete those remaining per fchd. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The club itself is fine, were there to be any non-criteria players created out of it then they would have to go. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "the club", which one(s) are you actually referring to? I'm completely confused now as to which article(s) are still covered by this AfD..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which goes to why we shouldn't be bundling articles into an AFD when there is going to be debate about their notability. It would also help if people followed step III of the WP:AFD#How to list multiple related pages for deletion, which would make the AFD a lot clearer. I've just done this now at the top of the article - I hope everyone is okay with that. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The bundling is not the issue - the articles are identical in terms of content, and it was only confusion over the history of the Wessex/Hampshire League which has caused the problem. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of knowing which club this user is referring to, I think the bundling is the issue. I don't think they are identical. Three clubs date back to the 1990s, but one dates back to the 1960s, and I'd be a lot more comfortable if the history of that one was known. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The bundling is not the issue - the articles are identical in terms of content, and it was only confusion over the history of the Wessex/Hampshire League which has caused the problem. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which goes to why we shouldn't be bundling articles into an AFD when there is going to be debate about their notability. It would also help if people followed step III of the WP:AFD#How to list multiple related pages for deletion, which would make the AFD a lot clearer. I've just done this now at the top of the article - I hope everyone is okay with that. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "the club", which one(s) are you actually referring to? I'm completely confused now as to which article(s) are still covered by this AfD..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful information to Hampshire Premier Football League. While these teams have played at level 10 historically, I've been convinced that the level 10 criteria should only apply to after the creation of Conference North and Conference South a few years ago, and that level 9 would be more appropriate for the years these teams were level 10. However as they are borderline, then any useful material should be merged into the Hampshire Premier Football League article. Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. At the very best, notability is shaky. College athletes, even starters, have regularly and definitively been deleted as "non-notable". This particular player, even for a highly watched, high profile team, got busted with drugs (allegedly? not sure of a conviction even, doesn't look like it), which stirred up a whir of marginal AP releases, and a (reliable) ESPN story. (By the way, the arrest involved three players that had playing time, James Ingram and Ed Collington don't have articles, or I would include them in this deletion). If Holmes' playing time has been deemed non-notable by Wikipedia precedence and guideline, his personal issues don't suddenly make his playing time notable, any more than his playing time make his drug bust encyclopedically notable. WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLP1E, apply. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- John Holmes (football player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable college football player per WP:ATHLETE. Not a professional, and no awards as a college player. Really only notable for being kicked off the team. DarkAudit (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Clearly NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable using the same arguments referenced above, except they have been mis-applied and called "clearly NN" (non-notable). Please read WP:BIO a little more carefully. Also, if you're going to quote WP:ATHLETE please remember to quote all of it, including the part that states "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" ... college football is the highest level of amatuer football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- further comments I'd like to see this article given some time to develop. The controversy over the drug charges appear to have been resolved as a "wrong place/wrong time" issue, and steps have been taken to restore him back to the team. His new coach is standing up for him and it appears he's going to be a starter once again. There's a lot on the news cycles about him, mostly related to the drug charges, but he did perform well in the Gator Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl with at least borderline noteworthy achievements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment College football is not the highest level of the sport. The NFL, CFL, etc is. He has not won any pre or postseason awards. If not for the drug charges, he would have received little of the press he is currently receiving, which is basically WP:BLP1E. And in the interest of full disclosure, I'm local to WVU (I can see the Coliseum out my front window). Don't let your fannhood trump guidelines here. Not every Mountaineer deserves a page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can't speak for the NFL, but the CFL is fully professional, so isn't the highest level of amateur sport. If college football is indeed the highest level of amateur sport, then surely he meets WP:ATHLETE. Are there no national-level amateur teams? Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The "highest level in amateur sports" is generally regarded as those sports that do not have a fully professional league. College football does not fit that description. A couple of good games and a cluster of stories centered around a drug bust do not rise to the level of notability required here. DarkAudit (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's nothing in WP:ATHLETE that says that the second clause about amateur sports is an OR statement. And reading the rest of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that would not be the case. Nfitz (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply College football is not considered an amateur sport because there is a fully professional level of competition. He is not played in a professional league, so does not meet the guideline. Even as a college football player, there isn't much here but a lot of peacock words that make him sound more notable than he is. Nothing here to show that he is notable even on his own team. The majority of the references are for the drug bust and the aftermath. Not only is it a single event, the coverage is all local. Local as in towns of 20,000 or less local. There is coverage, but mere coverage is not sufficient per guidelines. It needs to be significant coverage. It isn't. DarkAudit (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply "College football is not considered an amateur sport because there is a fully professional level of competition.". That defies logic - if you used that logic one would say amateur soccer doesn't exist because there is a fully professional level of competition; but in any park on any evening it is full of amateur players. Obviously there is amateur football. But is college football the highest level? What about University football? What about this amateur league - North American Football League Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Break and indented for lots of replies from one editor
- Reply-Amatuer? College football is most certainly an amateur sport. It is widely accepted to be the highest level of the amateur sport for American football. Sure, the NFL exists, but that absoloutely does not mean that college football does not, nor would it negate its amateur status.
- Reply-Not played professional by that rule, only NFL players would ever be notable and there would never be notable college-only players like Pete Dawkins, Knute Rockne, Tim Tebow, etc... yet consensus says that just isn't the case.
- Reply-Peacock terms agreed, the article could stand a good re-write--but not a deletion. As stated in WP:PROBLEM, "Even a poor article can be of benefit, and not so bad that Wikipedia is better off without it." Unless the article is harmful in some way, it likely should be improved instead of deleted.
- Reply-not notable even on his own team 48 tackles his Sophomore season, significant play time his Junior year and strong efforts in two bowl games--yet you expect us to beleive that even his teammates don't know who he is? That's ridiculous.
- Reply-Majority of references about the drug bust Sure, if 3 of 6 is a majority (hint: it isn't). Agreed more inforamtion should be added (but again, that's no reason to delete)
- Reply-Single Event There is significant detail for his sophomore and junior years. That is clearly not a "single" event but two seasons and details on two bowl games.
- Reply-Local Coverage since when are USA Today and ESPN "local coverage"?
- End of Break thanks for reading!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's nothing in WP:ATHLETE that says that the second clause about amateur sports is an OR statement. And reading the rest of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that would not be the case. Nfitz (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The "highest level in amateur sports" is generally regarded as those sports that do not have a fully professional league. College football does not fit that description. A couple of good games and a cluster of stories centered around a drug bust do not rise to the level of notability required here. DarkAudit (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DarkAudit's claim that college football players cannot be notable under WP:ATHLETE because the NFL is the "highest level of competition" or because "amateur sports" are those which have no professional league is wrong. WP:ATHLETE links to Amateur sports which has a section Amateur sports#North American collegiate athletics which discusses American college football as an "amateur sport." A college football player, particular one on a top national team, or one who wins national awards, can certainly be considered notable, since there are multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N as well. Edison (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply For the purposes of WP:ATHLETE, college football is not considered an amateur sport. Your lawyering aside, the player still does not meet the previously established guidelines for college football players. The player has not won national awards. The ESPN article is about the drug bust, and the other articles about the incident are from local media. That is WP:BLP1E, and is not "susbtantial". The other national coverage is for the team, not a feature on the player. So yes, the majority of articles that feature the player instead of a passing mention in a wider article is about the drug bust. Bringing up Rockne and Tebow is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rockne is a national championship winning coach from the era where the NFL was a sideshow at best. Dawkins and Tebow won the Heisman. This guy hasn't even rated a Player of the Week. There are higher standards for college football players than "significant play time his junior year". DarkAudit (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply' To you, "lawyering" seems to consist of saying you are wrong and citing the Wikipedia article that proves you are wrong. Deal with it. You are wrong. Edison (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seriously, you're going to have to really explain how I am "lawyering" by stating that college football is not considered an amateur sport for the purposes of WP:ATHLETE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Let me cite Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Players here. "Went on to play in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)" No. "went on to be a head coach in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)" No. "Were inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame" No. "Won major national awards such as the Heisman Trophy, Outland Trophy, Wuerffel Trophy, Doak Walker Award, or other similar trophy" No. "Completed a special noteworthy play or achievement" No. "Otherwise achieve notability outside of college football." No. By your own wikiproject's standards he fails to achieve the required notability. The examples cited for notability outside football are former Presidents Ford and Reagan. A local drug bust does not compare. DarkAudit (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey you read the essay! Thanks! Four points here: 1) I'm willing to leave room for the argument that his two seasons of play, two bowl game appearances, and the controversy may qualify as a "speical noteworthy play or achievement" and would like to hear arguments both for and against it (other than just "No" if you don't mind), 2) the player notability guidelines are going through a major discussion right now on the notability essay's talk page (why not participate?), 3) Those notability guidelines are not meant to "take away" notability from a player that has already clearly achieved it; and 4) all of the other arguments for deletion were seriously flawed and should not be considered reason to delete: saying that college football is not an amatuer sport when the whole planet knows that it is; asserting that the article covers only a single event when it obviously provides details of two seasons of play; and saying that the player isn't notable even by his teammates--all those were totally invalid and inappropriate arguments that reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it shows a bias against the subject which is not grounds for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I wasn't saying that college football was not an amateur sport at all, but for WP:ATHLETE purposes, because there is a professional level beyond college, it is not in the same category as the other "ameteur" sports. That's for Wikipedia article purposes, not the world as a whole. I cited WP:BLP1E because most of the references for the player and not the team were for the bust and subsequent dismissal from the team. The "not notable even on the team" was not that he wasn't known amongst his teammates, but that he is not that well known amongst the less-than-rabid WVU fans (I'm certainly a fan... I've got a WV shirt on and I can see the WVU Coliseum from where I'm sitting right now). The rabid ones would know him certainly, but the rest of us wouldn't if not for the bust, not like Boo McLee, Johnny Dingle, or Scooter Berry. (Schmitt, Slaton, and White are on a whole other level... practically cult figures, especially Owen Schmitt \o/ _o_ \o/ _o_) DarkAudit (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for clearing that up--it sure read like you were saying it isn't amateur. Well, maybe not at certain colleges in Texas in the 1960's...--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I wasn't saying that college football was not an amateur sport at all, but for WP:ATHLETE purposes, because there is a professional level beyond college, it is not in the same category as the other "ameteur" sports. That's for Wikipedia article purposes, not the world as a whole. I cited WP:BLP1E because most of the references for the player and not the team were for the bust and subsequent dismissal from the team. The "not notable even on the team" was not that he wasn't known amongst his teammates, but that he is not that well known amongst the less-than-rabid WVU fans (I'm certainly a fan... I've got a WV shirt on and I can see the WVU Coliseum from where I'm sitting right now). The rabid ones would know him certainly, but the rest of us wouldn't if not for the bust, not like Boo McLee, Johnny Dingle, or Scooter Berry. (Schmitt, Slaton, and White are on a whole other level... practically cult figures, especially Owen Schmitt \o/ _o_ \o/ _o_) DarkAudit (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey you read the essay! Thanks! Four points here: 1) I'm willing to leave room for the argument that his two seasons of play, two bowl game appearances, and the controversy may qualify as a "speical noteworthy play or achievement" and would like to hear arguments both for and against it (other than just "No" if you don't mind), 2) the player notability guidelines are going through a major discussion right now on the notability essay's talk page (why not participate?), 3) Those notability guidelines are not meant to "take away" notability from a player that has already clearly achieved it; and 4) all of the other arguments for deletion were seriously flawed and should not be considered reason to delete: saying that college football is not an amatuer sport when the whole planet knows that it is; asserting that the article covers only a single event when it obviously provides details of two seasons of play; and saying that the player isn't notable even by his teammates--all those were totally invalid and inappropriate arguments that reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it shows a bias against the subject which is not grounds for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia certainly does not need articles on every college football player who ever played the game. This person has done nothing to distinguish themselves from hundreds of thousands of other non-notable players. "Highest level of amateur sports" can be interpreted far too broadly for any sort of reasonable inclusion notability standards. That would include anything from this guy, to a 3rd string punter who sits on the bench, to a 3rd string volleyball player. None merit a page. Let's leave the pages for people who actually did something notable, such as those who go on to play professionally or won a college award, please. VegaDark (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see one argument here, and one non-argument here.
- First, the argument: done nothing to distinguish from other non-notable players Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd make the argument that the player has indeed separated himself from a third string punter who sits on the bench by... well... not sitting on the bench and actually playing and making tackles and stuff... Is it enough for notability? Maybe. Is it more than a third string punter who sits on the bench? Definitely.
- Second, the non-argument: Too Many Articles See WP:EVERYTHING -- Wikipedia should not be about everything, yes. That does not mean that a particular college football player may not be notable. WP:Everything states that the Wikipedia community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. This means that not every college football player should have an article--but that also does not translate into an argument that any given article about a college football player should be deleted. Because there may be a question about notability, there should be a specific reason to delete or not to delete. At the college football project, we have found that one editor's "everything" argument is another editor's "surmountable problem"
- What I see from your statement is that you think the player has not done enough to be notable, and you may be right... but comparing the player who has played in games, has recorded tackles, has generated statistics, and has articles written about him to a player who has none of that is a seriously flawed argument and I think shows prejudice.
- Bottom line is this: The player is either notable or is not notable--somebody else being not notable doesn't mean this player is also not notable. The notability arguments should stand on their own merit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability for play in a bowl game is dicey when another play in the same game earns a name. Google Runaway Beer Truck. Four tackles pales by comparison. DarkAudit (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to go with "so what" on that one... okay someone did something spectactular in one game, sure. Someone else has played fairly regularly for two seasons. It's not even a fair comparision--of course, if you drop all of one season and almost all of another, then compare one bowl game performance to another, then YEAH... but you gotta look at the entire content of the article and subject at hand here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I did not argue "too many articles" - I stated that Wikipedia does not need articles on such players. That's two different things. "Not needed" does not equal "we would have too many articles" - For me it meant that this player is not notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, as I later explained. Further, the fact that a starter vs. a 3rd string punter are completely different is exactly my point in that "highest level of amatuer sports" can not reasonably be used as the standard for inclusion, since that standard could include any people in my example, or any college athlete in general (3rd string women's bowling athletes, for an even more extreme example). I'm saying that the standard of "highest level of amatuer sports" should not be used here (or ever) for that reason. Instead, we must look at this from a reasonable point of view. I would argue that it is not reasonable to have pages on all college athletes who have recorded statistics (or even started) for a team, as you apparently support. There are around, what, 70 to 100 players on any given college team? Over 4 years, let's say 75% of them record statistics. That times 119 (FBS schools only) would mean somewhere inbetween 8000 and 9000 players every 4 years would deserve articles. And that's only FBS schools, and that's only football. Imagine if this standard were applied over all NCAA sports. Hell, let's increase the standard to being a starter (this in itself presents problems...is someone who replaces an injured player a starter? How about people who only start on special teams?). That right there would allow for articles on about 25 players per team initially, adding about 10 on average per team per year for new starters. That amounts to about 6500 articles for football players from FBS schools alone over a 4 year period. Now, I am not pointing this out to say "Too many articles!", I am pointing this out to ask how we can consider this that notable? I fully support pages for college athletes who go on to the pros, or win a college award. I even support allowing pages for All-Americans. But simply playing in a game, or simply playing as a starter, is not notable enough for someone to get a page on an encyclopedia. I would further argue that winning all-conference honors should not make someone notable enough for inclusion. VegaDark (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, lots of stuff there... I'll take a stab at those!
- Comment--Too many articles/articles not needed okay, we'll go with that. What exactly does "needed" mean in Wikipedia? Well, that goes back to the five pillars I guess... but the bottom line is that we are not here to decide if this article is needed in Wikipedia, but if it is a noteworthy subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is far from complete, and there are many articles that certainly would be more worthy than this one for inclusion--but that does not negate this one (or any one other) just because it isn't as important.
- Comment-"highest level of amatuer sports" is unreasonable Maybe, but that's what it is on Wikipedia:BIO and Wikipedia:Athlete--which was reached by consensus. If you don't like that (and there's nothing that says you do have to like it), then shouldn't your argument be made there and not here? Why this player?
- Comment-all college athletes unreasonable agreed. But we're not talking about all college athletes, we're talking about this college athlete. (Someone's going to reference it, so I will: See WP:BIG for some enlightened reading).
- Comment-all starters is too much also agreed. But again, we're not talking about all starters, just this one.
- 'Comment-wrap up This player has met the guidelines for notability based on the news articles published from local, regional, and national sources. He's been the subject of both on and off the field issues--some flattering, some not. He's been referenced as a key player and contributor for the team by leading experts in the field. The only thing I see wrong with this article is that it needs some cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a guideline, not policy that must be followed at all times. ESPN and SI.com and whatnot always publish articles on when a player gets arrested or kicked off a team. School websites usually have player bios for every team member. Local papers have articles on lesser-known players all the time, and national sources regularly cover bowl game results. A culmination of some or all of these does not make one notable enough for Wikipedia IMO. This is a case where multiple third party sources alone does not establish notability enough for a page, and I would argue that for almost all college athletes. VegaDark (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it's a guideline, but there's a reason it's a guideline--it works quite a bit. Sure, exceptions can be made--why in this case? The argument seems to be that "this player is not notable because all those news sources would obviously carry news articles about such noteworthy events and therefore since it happens a lot it isn't notable" --- I really don't understand your point. He's not notable because of all the press he's gotten? Local papers and school websites can be good supplemental material for an article, as is the case here. And ESPN and SI do publish articles when players are removed from the team for charges because its ... well... a noteworthy event... and the bowl games are ... well... noteworthy events... but they don't count? Why not?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, lots of stuff there... I'll take a stab at those!
- Notability for play in a bowl game is dicey when another play in the same game earns a name. Google Runaway Beer Truck. Four tackles pales by comparison. DarkAudit (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The current debate in the CFB notability discussion is wary of listing even All-Americans. This guy isn't one. He wasn't even all-conference. It doesn't even look like he won a player of the month or week. The way I read the standards, a college football player must be an award winner, an award candidate, on the cover of a video game, or garnering national notice on his own for his play, and not for unfortunate off-field incidents. The play may be solid, but when the NFL and CFL are the next step up, solid doesn't cut it for a Wikipedia article as a college player. DarkAudit (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response yes it is, and I'm one of those wary people of granting a notability "blank check" to "all-Americans" because there really isn't any clear-cut definition of exactly what is an "all-American"--which brings us right back to this athlete. If the athlete qualifies for notability under WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE (and I believe this one does), then the college football notability guidelines certainly wouldn't "take away" the notability that has already been established. This is one of the reasons that specific guidelines have yet to be developed in that essay. It's more than just solid performance, it's the coverage of two seasons worth of solid performance coupled with the legal issues. Heck, the player could have had lousy performance, but with news coverage like that over time he'd still be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply With "news coverage like that" over time he'll be doing hard time. The coverage where he is the subject, and not the team as a whole, is solely about the drug case. In other words, except for the drug bust, he's mentioned only in passing as part of a wider article. That does not meet the guidelines of WP:BIO, let alone the athlete subsection. Notability has not been established for his performance on the field. When the WVU Sports Information office doesn't have any record of him being named all-anything or even getting a player of the week or month (yes, I called them) notability isn't there. DarkAudit (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your last comment makes it sound like you are trying to exclude the article because you are a WVU fan (which you admitted above) and that you may be thinking that it looks bad for the team to have an article about someone you believe is headed for "hard time" ... yes, he's mentioned in passing in some articles and featured in others--some on the drug bust, at least one on his restoration back to the team--indicating mutliple events and not a single event. As a stand-alone player, probably not notable. Factor in the other issues, and notability comes to the surface.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Not at all. I called them to confirm if he had been named to any of those accolades because if he had, it would have shown notability that without it just isn't there. I just was following up on your "news coverage like that" statement. The bust and hoped-for return is still the same case. Take away the stories about the bust, and there are no stories where he is the feature. You'll note that I also argued in favor of deleting the Willie Edwards (a member of the 1988 Fiesta Bowl team) article a few months back, and his record is impeccable. Just being a member of a top-25 football team, even a starter, does not make one inherently notable. Solid play does not make one notable, one must stand out. He does not. My support for WVU does not change the fact that the guidelines in WP:ATHLETE and the College Football Project as they currently stand are not met, and no amount of claiming "yes he is" over and over again in spite of that will change it. Slaton's in the NFL. White's a Heisman candidate. Devine has ESPN drooling. Schmitt's on the cover of NCAA '09. Those are the type of player the project deems article-worthy. Not everyone who takes the field, starter or scrub. DarkAudit (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, one must "stand out" as you say, but that "standing out" as a player with great ability and results is not the only notability guideline. Daniel Ruettiger and Katie Hnida come to mind--only a handful of plays for them, yet they both achieved noteworthy accomplishments that brought them above the average player to warrant articles. Rudy's was positive (a movie) Katie's was mixed (first female to score in Div IA, then the CU rape controversy). My point is that not all notability issues are positive about the topic. Sometimes notability can come from a negative event, and I believe that is the case here.
- Additional Comment VegaDark says that the WP:ATHLETE standard is unreasonable, DarkAudit says that WP:ATHLETE has not been met. Can you get together on this one, or do you want to maintain opposing points?
- And one more comment I never just say "yes it is" and have given multiple arguments to support the points I make. A cursory review of this page will show that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Not at all. I called them to confirm if he had been named to any of those accolades because if he had, it would have shown notability that without it just isn't there. I just was following up on your "news coverage like that" statement. The bust and hoped-for return is still the same case. Take away the stories about the bust, and there are no stories where he is the feature. You'll note that I also argued in favor of deleting the Willie Edwards (a member of the 1988 Fiesta Bowl team) article a few months back, and his record is impeccable. Just being a member of a top-25 football team, even a starter, does not make one inherently notable. Solid play does not make one notable, one must stand out. He does not. My support for WVU does not change the fact that the guidelines in WP:ATHLETE and the College Football Project as they currently stand are not met, and no amount of claiming "yes he is" over and over again in spite of that will change it. Slaton's in the NFL. White's a Heisman candidate. Devine has ESPN drooling. Schmitt's on the cover of NCAA '09. Those are the type of player the project deems article-worthy. Not everyone who takes the field, starter or scrub. DarkAudit (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your last comment makes it sound like you are trying to exclude the article because you are a WVU fan (which you admitted above) and that you may be thinking that it looks bad for the team to have an article about someone you believe is headed for "hard time" ... yes, he's mentioned in passing in some articles and featured in others--some on the drug bust, at least one on his restoration back to the team--indicating mutliple events and not a single event. As a stand-alone player, probably not notable. Factor in the other issues, and notability comes to the surface.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply With "news coverage like that" over time he'll be doing hard time. The coverage where he is the subject, and not the team as a whole, is solely about the drug case. In other words, except for the drug bust, he's mentioned only in passing as part of a wider article. That does not meet the guidelines of WP:BIO, let alone the athlete subsection. Notability has not been established for his performance on the field. When the WVU Sports Information office doesn't have any record of him being named all-anything or even getting a player of the week or month (yes, I called them) notability isn't there. DarkAudit (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response yes it is, and I'm one of those wary people of granting a notability "blank check" to "all-Americans" because there really isn't any clear-cut definition of exactly what is an "all-American"--which brings us right back to this athlete. If the athlete qualifies for notability under WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE (and I believe this one does), then the college football notability guidelines certainly wouldn't "take away" the notability that has already been established. This is one of the reasons that specific guidelines have yet to be developed in that essay. It's more than just solid performance, it's the coverage of two seasons worth of solid performance coupled with the legal issues. Heck, the player could have had lousy performance, but with news coverage like that over time he'd still be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The drug bust is a local story. ESPN picked it up because of the notability of the program, not the player. Notability is not inherited or conferred by association. Just starting for a top 25 team does not meet the established guidelines. The bust and it's aftermath is WP:BLP1E. The CU rape controversy made national headlines for weeks, and destroyed the credibility of the coach. They made a movie about Rudy. Again, no comparison. DarkAudit (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-local story? If it was a local story, why was it covered at the national level? If it was a local story, it would remain a local story. Like this one. But it wasn't, it got national headlines. Are the news sources of ESPN and SI and USA Today so full of dunderheads that they can't tell a national story from a local one?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional All the examples you have cited, in addition to being WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is classic apples to oranges. All have made a significant impact on their team, the sport, or society in general, where Mr. Holmes has most definitely not. DarkAudit (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- HURRAHHH! Which is why I keep coming back to "judge the article based on its entire topic" instead of coming up with all kinds of generic non-applicable arguments. Get back to the topic at hand. It's not just an article about the player's playing ability, but about the player--the good and the bad, on the field and off.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As has been said before, ESPN and SI, et al., cover college football. That's their job. Someone, anyone, even the 9th-string long-snapper getting kicked off a top-25 program is news. Especially when it involves players being arrested. That does not immediately make that player notable or encyclopedic. Being a starter or near-starter doesn't make it any more important. Especially when the coverage starts and ends with arrested and kicked off the team. When all is said and done, even if he gets back on the team today and has a similar season to last, he'll still be just another linebacker/defensive back who played big-time college football and went on with their lives. The bust will have been long relegated to the mists of time. DarkAudit (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course a 9th string long snapper with a drug bust wouldn't be notable. A 9th string long snapper wouldn't have national articles covering play time either and probably wouldn't even dress for two bowl games. But this isn't a 9th string long snapper, it is a starting linebacker with two years of serious playing time coupled with another issue that is still getting coverage. Those unique combinations over several years time make a strong argument for notability. Evidently not enough for you, and I get that--but please stop making up arguments that just don't apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Let's see here... ESPN's article is just a reprint of the same AP story that everyone got. The USA today article has a grand total of 5 words about Holmes, and 2 of those were his name. Bob Hertzel is a local Morgantown writer. CBS just picked up the story his paper put out on the wire. And there are only 6 words about him in that one. Bowl game writeup? One sentence. Most of *that* was about the other team fumbling. That is as obvious an example of "in passing" as you get. The Fairmont paper and the Clarksburg-Weston TV station cover the team because it's their market. The "combination makes him notable" is very much you saying "yes he is" over and over again when the guidelines quite clearly show that he is not. DarkAudit (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need more participation in this discussion, because it's degrading into a "Wabbit Season--Duck Season" Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck-Elmer Fudd thig (which is fun to watch on TV, but not so much in in an AFD)--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Duck season! Agreed. At this point it's either going to be relisted or close as No Consensus and need a renom. DarkAudit (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've never done a "re-listing" but I'm sure someone will come along and close this as "no consensus" shortly...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Usually an admin comes by and does either one. There's still a couple days left, but it's buried three days deep in the log where few choose to look. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need more participation in this discussion, because it's degrading into a "Wabbit Season--Duck Season" Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck-Elmer Fudd thig (which is fun to watch on TV, but not so much in in an AFD)--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Let's see here... ESPN's article is just a reprint of the same AP story that everyone got. The USA today article has a grand total of 5 words about Holmes, and 2 of those were his name. Bob Hertzel is a local Morgantown writer. CBS just picked up the story his paper put out on the wire. And there are only 6 words about him in that one. Bowl game writeup? One sentence. Most of *that* was about the other team fumbling. That is as obvious an example of "in passing" as you get. The Fairmont paper and the Clarksburg-Weston TV station cover the team because it's their market. The "combination makes him notable" is very much you saying "yes he is" over and over again when the guidelines quite clearly show that he is not. DarkAudit (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course a 9th string long snapper with a drug bust wouldn't be notable. A 9th string long snapper wouldn't have national articles covering play time either and probably wouldn't even dress for two bowl games. But this isn't a 9th string long snapper, it is a starting linebacker with two years of serious playing time coupled with another issue that is still getting coverage. Those unique combinations over several years time make a strong argument for notability. Evidently not enough for you, and I get that--but please stop making up arguments that just don't apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As has been said before, ESPN and SI, et al., cover college football. That's their job. Someone, anyone, even the 9th-string long-snapper getting kicked off a top-25 program is news. Especially when it involves players being arrested. That does not immediately make that player notable or encyclopedic. Being a starter or near-starter doesn't make it any more important. Especially when the coverage starts and ends with arrested and kicked off the team. When all is said and done, even if he gets back on the team today and has a similar season to last, he'll still be just another linebacker/defensive back who played big-time college football and went on with their lives. The bust will have been long relegated to the mists of time. DarkAudit (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after reading through all this debate and looking at the article and linked stories, I don't think there's enough to sustain an article under either WP:Athlete or WP:Bio. The ESPN article is really the only thing that could count as significant coverage. If it had been picked up by nationwide papers, I'd be swayed, but the evidence presented doesn't seem to say it was. The USA Today short mention of "losing . . . John Holmes to legal problems" [26] doesn't count as enough for me. Vickser (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Halelujiah! at this point, I'm just glad to hear from someone else, even if their opinion differes from mine!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - being a college player doesn't automatically make him (or anyone else) non-notable --T-rex 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply But by the accepted general biography guidelines and the project guidelines, he is non-notable. DarkAudit (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Let's examine the sources to see if he passes W:V, irrespective of ATHLETE, N or whatever. Bear in mind, that as with our rules on murderers etc, reference to the crime is not the same as reference to the person (see ref 7 vs ref 6 for a good example of heading toward showing notability). Remember, I'm looking to see if the references help decide notability/verification, not whether they support the specific point being made in the article.:
- Ref 1 - Unreliable, I think, which fatally undermines what's otherwise a very very strong reference to Holmes
- Ref 2 - Looks reliable. Not a really strong reference to Holmes himself though. ("He will fit into the equation somewhere." sounds like a definition of 'not yet notable')
- Ref 3 - No idea about source reliability, but irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes
- Ref 4 - Seems to be an RS. However, fairly irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes
- Ref 5 - passes RS, totally trivial reference to Holmes
- Ref 6 - Is WDTV.com an RS? Fairly irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes
- Ref 7 - passes RS, does make some good reference to Holmes
- Ref 8 - totally trivial reference to Holmes
- Ref 9 - Is The Times West Virginian an RS? If so, this is a solid reference
So, regardless of whether college football passes the acid test of automatic notability (I'm disinclined to see it that way) there's still the excellent point that notable college players will be able to show notability anyway, even if not caught up in drugs busts. This guy doesn't seem to pass WP:V, as the one solid reference (#7) is insufficient for the usual test of multiple, non trivial references in RS. I am fairly ignorant of American football, so I may have made some incorrect assumptions about what's RS. If #1 or #9 are reliable, I'd certainly reconsider. But for now, all in all, I argue for Delete. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking at The Times West Virginian source, it appears to be reliable, so there is just enough coverage to keep the article. However, if the subject of the article wants the article deleted, I would change my vote. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Reply The Times West Virginian is the daily paper of Fairmont, WV, and Bob Hertzel is the former Sports Editor of the Dominion-Post. WDTV is the CBS affiliate in the Clarksburg-Weston market, so reliability is a non-issue. The issue I have with those two sources is location, location, location. For all intents and purposes they are covering a local story. WVU is a mere 40 miles from Clarksburg, and is the 800-pound gorilla in the area. You can't throw a rock without hitting something or someone associated with the university in a three-county area. WVU is part of their beat. There is or will be a feature story done on nearly every player who starts for the Mountaineers between now and the end of the bowl season (then we switch to basketball players). Such has been the case for decades. They're the only game in town. Even so, the articles are not about his play or projected play. They're about one incident, the bust, with a couple of followups regarding his dismissal from and hoped-for return to the team. *All* the articles that feature him, instead of mentioning him in passing, are about the bust. That is a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. DarkAudit (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - concerns relating to WP:BLP1E per DarkAudit.--PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leicester Banks CC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete. Fails notability and verifiability; in addition it is believed to be a hoax article. BlackJack | talk page 17:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It doesn;t look like a hoax to ne, but it certainly fails on notability grounds. JH (talk page) 09:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability and verifiability. AlwaysOnion (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it does not cite its sources; as a result most of the content is unverifiable. The club does exist, but coverage is local news or not substantial [27] [28] [29] [30] so it does not appear to meet the notability criteria. --Snigbrook (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pak-Afghan Confederration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Part conspiracy theory, part original research, all unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Article fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. Also, the spelling is sub-par. L0b0t (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Sub-par spelling is a reason for improvement, but I agree with L0b0t on every other point. Edward321 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per the million policies that User:L0b0t listed. Also given the formatting, I suspect a copyvio --T-rex 05:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not encyclopediatic. --Soman (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Halo (series)#Film adaptation. Although it is not at all clear if the movie will still be released in 2009 (or ever), It's not at all unlikely that this will be used as a search term for a quite a while. Even after 2009, it might be used as a search term based on the IMDb article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Halo (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article warrants deletion because it contains no sources and a portion of the content is merely a word for word copy of the material found at Halo (series)#Film adaptation. There is no new evidence that the film has gone back into production or is at least no longer cancelled, aside from a currently removed linked to a YouTube fan video which seemed to be the original basis for creating the article. As such, there is no indication at this time that the movie will ever be made, let alone be ready for a 2009 release (which is why a simple redirect would be impractical), and so the article isn't needed. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deltete per nom. Blackngold29 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- I can't help but agree, I recently edited out the youtube link, but having read the material found at Halo (series)#Film adaptation, I believe there is no particular need for this article for the time being. Perhaps if the film is continued and more information is brought into light then a seperate page could be warranted. But in the meantime I say bin it. - Deathbycheesedrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbycheesedrum (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Halo (series)#Film adaptation - this has a long way to go before anything is even close to verifiable --T-rex 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above.... since we won't see Master Chief in big screen anytime soon. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Halo (series)#Film adaptation tabor-drop me a line 21:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; this has been stuck in development hell for a long, long time, and there is zero guarantee that it will ever begin production. The "Film adaptation" section suffices. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- For those here who have opted in favor of the redirect, I must remind you that I do not believe that is the best option. What if the movie never comes out in 2009? There would be no point in searching for a Halo movie that was released in 2009 then, because none would exist. To avoid any confusion or premature assumptions about the movie's release, the article would be better off deleted. If it has to be recreated, it will be, but there is no point in having a redirect no one is likely to use or that would be inaccurate. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per T-rex. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree that it is an unlikely search target so redirecting it won't be useful. Halo (film) and Halo film already redirect to the relevant section so I think that they suffice. It was supposed to be released in 2008, not 2009 anyway so the title is misleading. James086Talk | Email 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and SALT ukexpat (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A "salt" until the end of the year would be appropriate. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Muslim outrage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article was just restored by DRV after an improper speedy was overturned. Article fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:SYN, WP:NOTDICDEF, and WP:INFO. L0b0t (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. non-encyclopedic. An arbitrary word compination. No content beyond derived from separate words: Muslim and outrage. Mukadderat (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-- seems like a poorly written dicdef, and besides, it fails WP:DUH! L'Aquatique[review] 18:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a nonencyclopedic dicdef/OR. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the nomination says it all, really. :) Terraxos (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator's alphabet soup. Resolute 01:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Debate 木 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm outraged that I cannot think of a clever response to top the nominator's be-all/end-all explanation! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This REALLY pisses me off!!! I get angry every time I think about it. Abdul Mohammed Hussein al-Mandsfordi (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every time I see this article title I want to start singing The Sweet's "Teenage Rampage". Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POLICY. Eklipse (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a self-evident definition of a common phrase. I have been unable to find independent sourcing of this as a unique topic. Anything we could write on the topic would appear to violate WP:SYN. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Bless sins (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. No irremediable core policy violations (which would mandate deletion regardless) are plainly evident, so default to keep. Sandstein 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet brigades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Note: I failed to find the first nomination. Different article title? Mukadderat (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. While there is seemingly plenty of referenes, they are just a collection of various things to promote a neologism. There is virtually no google hits that define the term in the meaning of the aricle. The definition is self-made and often contradicts the references provided. While there is no doubt some governments attempt to put internet under control, the term in question is not established yet. In the previous nomination I voted to "keep" this page, but now I see it just gradually becomes an indiscriminatecollection of various facts, mixing real government internet control and conspiracy theories in a form of original essay which attempts to promote the virtuslly non-existing term. At best it may be split into a series of articles kind of Government intervention of the internet in China, Government intervention of the internet in Russia, Government intervention of the internet in the United States, etc. Mukadderat (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per argumentation in previous 2 AfDs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since previous AfD, this article has been improved by providing references to BBC News, Reuters, and other publications in reliable sources (please see list of references). There is no original research here; everything was taken from sources. If something was not, please tell what it was, and let's fix it.Biophys (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: With all due respect, please find me sources which (1) use the term and (2) define it as it is defined in the wikipedia article. This is a classical example of original research: to make a definition and then to collect newspaper articles whivch fit it. Mukadderat (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those particular sources are not relevant to the subject, unless you believe that petty vandalism and Oprah Winfrey are somehow tied together in a propaganda campaign. WillOakland (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. In the current version, sources 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11 cite specifically the term "Internet brigades". The corresponding article in Russian WP is also called "Internet brigades". Note that you and others just deleted nine reliable sources on this subject including BBC News and Reuters. The deleted sources are relevant even though they do not tell a combination of words "Internet brigades", because this article is about phenomenon, not about a combination of words. I restored these sources to allow others decide if they are relevant or not. Let's be polite and keep the article as it was until the end of AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited are russian sources which present russian conspiracy theory, an example of putinphobia very fashionable today. `'Míkka>t 15:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. In the current version, sources 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11 cite specifically the term "Internet brigades". The corresponding article in Russian WP is also called "Internet brigades". Note that you and others just deleted nine reliable sources on this subject including BBC News and Reuters. The deleted sources are relevant even though they do not tell a combination of words "Internet brigades", because this article is about phenomenon, not about a combination of words. I restored these sources to allow others decide if they are relevant or not. Let's be polite and keep the article as it was until the end of AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article still is a mess, but it is not an entirely unsourced mess. I have removed the sources that do not deal with state propaganda. WillOakland (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe rename to "Government propaganda on the internet," with sources that discuss this subject per se (rather than the typical laundry list of what some editor thinks is propaganda). WillOakland (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand the intent of the artcle, its subject is not propaganda: it is active intervenstuion and subversion of internet forums by secret services. Mukadderat (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe rename to "Government propaganda on the internet," with sources that discuss this subject per se (rather than the typical laundry list of what some editor thinks is propaganda). WillOakland (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well sourced and per past consensus. Ostap 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I challenge you to list sources which use and define this term as in wikipedia article. Mukadderat (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable topic, valid title per WP:COMMONNAME. Martintg (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "COMMONTITLE? You must be kidding. there is no such term in English language. `'Míkka>t 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - invented term. Coatrack OR, i.e., synthesis of a new term unduly internationalized: At very best the term may be applied to translate the russian conspiracy theory given in Russian language references. `'Míkka>t 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment. So, you have deleted nine valid sources again. Well, perhaps the inclusion of CIA was questionable, but this should be established by consensus. So far, all three people who discussed the matter had come to an agreement that, yes, they belong there, and I do not see any valid objections, a discussion and consensus building at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter what is your consensus, it is a cconsensus of original research. There is no such english term. How difficult it is to understand? The term is legal in wikipedia only as applied to about Russian conspiracy theory. `'Míkka>t 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps the expression came from Russian. However, this "conspiracy" theory is Russian, Polish, Chinese, and American, as one can see from the text and references, unless you delete them again.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have deleted all recent edits again, in violation of WP:3RR rule. So, that is your final and decisive argument?Biophys (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps the expression came from Russian. However, this "conspiracy" theory is Russian, Polish, Chinese, and American, as one can see from the text and references, unless you delete them again.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter what is your consensus, it is a cconsensus of original research. There is no such english term. How difficult it is to understand? The term is legal in wikipedia only as applied to about Russian conspiracy theory. `'Míkka>t 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment. So, you have deleted nine valid sources again. Well, perhaps the inclusion of CIA was questionable, but this should be established by consensus. So far, all three people who discussed the matter had come to an agreement that, yes, they belong there, and I do not see any valid objections, a discussion and consensus building at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SYN, seriously this article has only one purpose to make a WP:POINT --Kuban Cossack 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have read the translation of the original article by Polyanskaya , "Commissars of the Internet" and have to say that it looks like a conspiracy theory. It is written with serious claims not backed by serious references, only mentions some "protected polls" etc. Her conclusions are naive at best in many times (e.g., why liberal tone of runet (russian internet) changed: an easier explanation is that in older times internet was available to intellectuals only who are mostly liberals even in America, and now "average russian" speaks). I have also browsed google for the term and have to conclude that the article is an unreasonable self-made generalization of a new theory KGB scare. The chinese example is competly different flavor. China has long and consistent and documented history of manipulation with internet. I would suggest the author to salvage the reasonably referenced russian part of the text into tyhe exact translation of the russian term, web brigades, and start with the explanation that this is alleged phenomenon, not proven yet. Wikipedia had already done its piece of "manipulation with internet" by proviking titles like Does the pentagon have 'internet brigades' like the russians , so this must be stopped now. Laudak (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One source (Yusupovsky) claims this to be a "conspiracy" theory. At least ten other well informed sources claim this to be real. But even if you are right, this is a content matter, not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. We have a lot of articles about different conspiracy theories. That is not a valid reason for deletion. Renaming this as "web brigades" is also not a reason for deletion. Please explain what is exactly the difference between Russian and Chinese teams per cited sources? I do not see any differences. P.S. You apparently never visited discussions at certain Russian language sites, such as grani.ru, so you did not see such teams in action.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to disagree here. It is your job to provide sources which say that Russian web-brigades and Chinese Internet secret police are one and the same. Saying so without references is exactly WP:SYNTH of various material into a new notion, i.e., original research. Laudak (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, you wrote "Renaming this as "web brigades" is also not a reason for deletion." I am not talking about renaming. I am talking about writing a separate article based on good sources about Russian web brigades. And about deleting the non-existent term which unduly attempts to generalize. Laudak (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If you suggest to exclude materials about Chinese teams from this article, that is a content dispute, not a reason for deletion. We can discuss this matter at the article talk page if you wish.Biophys (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you seem to be restoring much more stuff others are trying to delete... Anyway, you are still missing the major objection: you introduced a neologism. A completely new article must be written which do not mix and match notions and it must stick to Russian context -- where the term "web-brigades is used. And you don't really need my help: all what you have to do is to cut and paste the corresponding text into a new article with a non-objectionable title. I admit I was tempted to do this myself, but I don't want to steal the authorship/priority from you. :-) Laudak (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you are telling that "Internet brigades" should be deleted, but "Web-brigades" is fine. Then one should simply move this article rather than copy and paste. This is not an AfD is about. If this article will be deleted, and someone recreates it under a different name, it should be "speedy deleted".Biophys (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you seem to be restoring much more stuff others are trying to delete... Anyway, you are still missing the major objection: you introduced a neologism. A completely new article must be written which do not mix and match notions and it must stick to Russian context -- where the term "web-brigades is used. And you don't really need my help: all what you have to do is to cut and paste the corresponding text into a new article with a non-objectionable title. I admit I was tempted to do this myself, but I don't want to steal the authorship/priority from you. :-) Laudak (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If you suggest to exclude materials about Chinese teams from this article, that is a content dispute, not a reason for deletion. We can discuss this matter at the article talk page if you wish.Biophys (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Oh god, not another one of Biophys' pet WP:OR/WP:SYNTH WP:POINT articles.--Miyokan (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the reason is me. Thanks. Please note that I do not own this article. I only contributed here.Biophys (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure a personal attack is not a valid argument in an Afd discussion. Ostap 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, this is not a valid argument. However such deletions of sources from the article, in combination with claims of OR can indeed affect results of an AfD. Note that deletion was done in violation of 3RR rule.Biophys (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure a personal attack is not a valid argument in an Afd discussion. Ostap 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the reason is me. Thanks. Please note that I do not own this article. I only contributed here.Biophys (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Kuban Cossack, nothing but a collection of WP:Synth to make a WP:Point, only one or two references are actually used in context and even they are barely credible, written by known conspiracy theorists. Regarding so called "personal attacks" on Biophys, I don't think that's a personal attack at all. This is just dejavu and the regular editors on these subjects are becoming understandingly annoyed. It's completely valid to note certain negative and disruptive tendencies of particular users and their editing habits when their disruptiveness is recurring endlessly. I can't count how many non-factual, blatantly biased, WP:SYNTH/WP:OR filled conspiracy theory articles and sections that this user has created (many of which have already been deleted or revamped). It's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia. We should not let it turn into a propaganda vehicle to brainwash and misinform unsuspecting readers. This is potentially the most dangerous aspect of wikipedia. Krawndawg (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, how many "conspiracy theory articles" have I created? I can count only a couple among at least 300 other articles created by me. Even if I did, such articles are allowed by WP policies.Biophys (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A very interesting subject on a current phenomenon, all that it needs is expansion. Tymek (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And where did you read about "internet brigades" besides wikipedia to conclude that such a phenomenon exists? Mukadderat (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the sources provided say, this phenomenon does exist, and it does not take a vivid imagination to admit it. As for the name - it might as well be changed, but I am leaving it for users involved in creation of the article. Tymek (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable neologism - but an important, real subject and not a bad article so keep. A more dignified name would not be unwelcome. And if there's another article on the exact same thing they should be combined. But yes, the phenomenon is notable and the article has encyclopedic content.Wikidemo (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Severel "delete" voters agreed that the topic makes sense as a specific russian web-brigades conspiracy theory, but the current article title is a neologism and everything beyond Russian context is original coatracking into this theory. Other suggestions about salvaging its content are also suggested. But as it is the article violates WP:SYNTH. Mukadderat (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the only problem seems to be with title, whereas the subject is notable and sufficiently sourced. Note that we also have two articles in Russian and Chinese wikipedias about these "Internet brigades". I think Chinese users know this better. There are some content disagreements. But an AfD nomination is not the way to resolve content disputes.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Severel "delete" voters agreed that the topic makes sense as a specific russian web-brigades conspiracy theory, but the current article title is a neologism and everything beyond Russian context is original coatracking into this theory. Other suggestions about salvaging its content are also suggested. But as it is the article violates WP:SYNTH. Mukadderat (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. First, may I please ask "delete" voters to stop attacking Biophys? "Comment on content, not on the contributor." And also may I ask that attempts to silence criticism of the Moscow regime — a government that perpetrates brutal killings, torture, abuse and violence, that carries out unlawful killings, politically motivated abductions, and disappearances in Chechnya, Ingushetiya and elsewhere in the North Caucasus, that has dramatically weakened freedom of expression and media independence by shutting down television networks, harassed, intimidated and even killed journalists (and for that matter set up Internet brigades), is rampantly corrupt, and has turned the Duma into a rubber-stamp while centralizing vast powers in the President (or now his eminence grise) — not be made through blithe, dismissive references to "Putinphobia"? Yes, a man who does all that absolutely is to be feared! OK, now to the policy reasons for keeping this article. First, no matter how much some may deny this, the phenomenon has been documented in reliable sources, the martyred Politkovskaya not least among them. Second, with expansion of the article to cover Red China and Western nations, we see this is not a Russia-only phenomenon, but one that has been found in other places too, again in reliable sources. Third, this may be the best name we have - though if someone comes up with a better one, by all means let's consider it - but a bad name is not a rationale for deletion. Biruitorul Talk 03:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and are also aware that in Russia winter is all year round and armed bears walk the streets? --Kuban Cossack 08:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of turning this into a forum: the killings, torture, abuse, violence, abductions, disappearances, harassment and intimidation of media, and centralizing of Presidential power are not a laughing matter - right? Biruitorul Talk 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Told by a real expert such as you they are, much like the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam was so surely meant to have... Tell me Biruitorul when was the last time you visited Russia? --Kuban Cossack 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. This discussion has nothing to do with Saddam, though for the record, intelligence agencies from various countries (UK, US, Denmark, Italy) all said he had WMD (which may have been transported to Syria by the Russians). 2. Visiting a place has little bearing on whether one can be considered an expert in that field. Joseph Needham never visited Ming China; Stanislas Julien never visited China, period. Ronald Syme never visited Augustan Rome. Champollion never visited Ancient Egypt. Clyde Tombaugh never set foot on Pluto. Yet all were undisputed experts in those areas. I've never claimed to be a Russia expert, but I'm astute enough to listen to what the experts tell me are the dark happenings going on there. 3. TVS? Mass graves? Skyrocketing corruption? Politkovskaya? Litvinenko? Centralization of power? Torture? ? These are forceful ghosts that will come back to haunt Russia; they can't just be waved away. Her men are dying. Fascism and Islam are spreading. It pains me to see it; it's a country I love very dearly, that could be doing so much better. But laughing off its manifold problems is not really a solution to them. Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you've never been to Russia and your primary sources are all western. Well congratulations, you're a victim of propaganda and brainwashing. But even western press tells us that Politkovskaya's murderer has been found out. Even her own magazine editor says those pointing the finger at the Kremlin are doing so unjustly. Do yourself and the rest of wikipedia a favor and stick to subjects that you have actual experience and knowledge in, we don't need self-proclaimed "experts" like yourself spreading hearsay and propaganda. Taking your word seriously would be like taking a communists lessons on free trade seriously. Oh, and I really do resent your attack on the Islamic faith. You pair Islam with Fascism? That's blatant, ignorant hate speech, and you probably don't even realize it because you watch so much Fox news that it's become normal to think of Islam that way. The cold hard truth is that you are completely clueless and have no business involving yourself in such subject matters.Krawndawg (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. This discussion has nothing to do with Saddam, though for the record, intelligence agencies from various countries (UK, US, Denmark, Italy) all said he had WMD (which may have been transported to Syria by the Russians). 2. Visiting a place has little bearing on whether one can be considered an expert in that field. Joseph Needham never visited Ming China; Stanislas Julien never visited China, period. Ronald Syme never visited Augustan Rome. Champollion never visited Ancient Egypt. Clyde Tombaugh never set foot on Pluto. Yet all were undisputed experts in those areas. I've never claimed to be a Russia expert, but I'm astute enough to listen to what the experts tell me are the dark happenings going on there. 3. TVS? Mass graves? Skyrocketing corruption? Politkovskaya? Litvinenko? Centralization of power? Torture? ? These are forceful ghosts that will come back to haunt Russia; they can't just be waved away. Her men are dying. Fascism and Islam are spreading. It pains me to see it; it's a country I love very dearly, that could be doing so much better. But laughing off its manifold problems is not really a solution to them. Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Told by a real expert such as you they are, much like the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam was so surely meant to have... Tell me Biruitorul when was the last time you visited Russia? --Kuban Cossack 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Even if we concede Politkovskaya, Litvinenko and many others remain, like Fatima Tlisova (chased out of the country after being beaten). 2. Counterpunch itself is a propaganda site. And anyway, it's not hard to be popular when you've destroyed the opposition. As I asked earlier, "the killings, torture, abuse, violence, abductions, disappearances, harassment and intimidation of media, and centralizing of Presidential power are not a laughing matter - right?" You may call me brainwashed, but that doesn't wave away those realities. 3. As I pointed out, going to a place does not make one an expert in it - or was Stanislas Julien not an expert in China? And as I also pointed out, "I've never claimed to be a Russia expert". 4. Islam, like any other religion, is just another ideology, although one that a billion or so people hold rather dearly. I will however reserve the right to criticise this ideology as I do, say, fascism or Marxism, without paying much attention to spurious charges of "hate speech". Why would it be "hate speech" to criticise a religious ideology but not a political one? And anyway, an ideology that is still going around killing people should be hated. Not the adherents of that ideology, but the ideology itself. Or shall we exclude atheists from Wikipedia? (Also, we do have an article called Islamofascism - the connections are there.) And speaking as an Orthodox Christian, it pains me to see Russia, once Orthodoxy's strongest champion, slowly fall to a great, intractable rival. So I do lament the spread of both fascism and Islam there. Biruitorul Talk 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem seems to be that what is essentially a conspiracy theory is presented in the article as solid fact. None of the cited sources provides any tangible proof that the phenomenon of "internet brigades" exists, but they all rather speculate on their existence, make assumptions and allegations, and then draw conclusions. For me, this is a red flag showing that the topic covers a theory, not a fact. While the sheer number of cited sources asserts the notability of this theory, none of these sources looks at the phenomenon objectively or studies it academically. Until such sources appear, the subject does not have encyclopedic value, and hence my opinion is that, in its present form, the article should be deleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, "verifiability, not truth". The subject of this article satisfies the WP:Notability because it has been described in multiple reliable sources. What else "encyclopedic value" do you mean?Biophys (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: the article talks about "internet brigades" as if they were a fact of life, but no tangible evidence to that effect is presented either in the article or in the sources cited. Hence, the logical conclusion is that the article does not describe a fact, but a theory (and a conspiracy theory at that). As there are no sources dealing with this theory from the academic standpoint (no objective analysis, no proof, only assumptions, allegations, and speculation), the theory has no encyclopedic value, which is why the article should be deleted. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The theory has immense encyclopedic value as it describes efforts of the most influential authoritarian government in the world to dominate Internet(and therefor the world's access to free information)-so therefore I have to disagree with that argument. As to articles about Russian attempts to censor internet and manipulate information there-they are plenty, including academic ones. Although Wikipedia isn't limited to academic sources per definition.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Plenty of academic sources"? If that is indeed so, please note that none of those sources is cited in this article's reference section. All I see is a vast collection of newspaper clippings, some more relevant than other, and every single one providing nothing more than speculation, not proof or analysis. As currently presented, the subject has as much encyclopedic value as your average alien abduction report. Please note that our notability criteria explicitly ask for the subject to have objective evidence, and that a "burst of news" does not constitute evidence of sufficient notability. As for Wikipedia not being limited to academic sources, that only works well when non-academic sources supplement academic ones—otherwise I'd be able to post and keep an article about my own backyard (the existence of which is verifiable through numerous county assessor's records and which has some newspaper coverage from the times when my residential community was being built).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The theory has immense encyclopedic value as it describes efforts of the most influential authoritarian government in the world to dominate Internet(and therefor the world's access to free information)-so therefore I have to disagree with that argument. As to articles about Russian attempts to censor internet and manipulate information there-they are plenty, including academic ones. Although Wikipedia isn't limited to academic sources per definition.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: the article talks about "internet brigades" as if they were a fact of life, but no tangible evidence to that effect is presented either in the article or in the sources cited. Hence, the logical conclusion is that the article does not describe a fact, but a theory (and a conspiracy theory at that). As there are no sources dealing with this theory from the academic standpoint (no objective analysis, no proof, only assumptions, allegations, and speculation), the theory has no encyclopedic value, which is why the article should be deleted. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, "verifiability, not truth". The subject of this article satisfies the WP:Notability because it has been described in multiple reliable sources. What else "encyclopedic value" do you mean?Biophys (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the arguments of Laudak. 1 != 2 14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Split in two and delete this one per Laudak et al. I've looked at the references and it looks like none of them group these two phenomena. The information about alleged web-brigades in Russia (some of which is perfectly sourced and notable) should be moved to another article. It should also be noted that the current article is extremely unbalanced with only a paragraph about China where internet control and censorship is much more strict (and proven) than in Russia. Alæxis¿question? 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- China is far more visible to journalists and media then Russia Alaexis-consider the amount of media coverage and tourist reports during Russian military invasion of Chechnya compared to police crackdown during Tibet riots.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? - No reporters were allowed into Tibet or Chechnya. Anyone reporting from either of those locations were doing so in secret. The difference is that China controls all of its press, whereas you can go to any newspaper stand in Moscow and find papers calling Putin a murderer and a tyrant. Krawndawg (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Alaexis suggests to keep Russian/Polish portion and split Chinese portion, even though Chinese users made an "Internet brigades" article in Chinese wikipedia. Then why delete? What names would he suggest for the splitted articles?Biophys (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep-the article describes a real life actions of Russian authoritarian government to influence Internet opinion and content as well control over its citizens, as well as manipulate in other countries. This has been studied and exposed. The article uses respectable sources and covers a subject of political events in the world as well as development of governmental attempts to control Internet. There is nothing for its deletion.--Molobo (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- False. The article describes allegations. And it was already suggested by several people that the Russian part must be saved under an appropriate title and clearly stick to Russian context and Russian term , web brigades. `'Míkka>t 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you simply suggest renaming. But what is the difference between "Web brigades" and "Internet brigades"? I thought "internet" and "web" are the same.Biophys (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you demonstrating great inflexibility by reverting the removal of original research, I still vote for deletion. `'Míkka>t 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you tell: "this is personal". Please remember: this is NOT my article. This is good faith work by many good wikipedians.Biophys (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you demonstrating great inflexibility by reverting the removal of original research, I still vote for deletion. `'Míkka>t 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you simply suggest renaming. But what is the difference between "Web brigades" and "Internet brigades"? I thought "internet" and "web" are the same.Biophys (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research, and clear violation of WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is notable and well sourced. Of course it can stay. I notice many agenda pushing Russian nationalists are trying to get it deleted now. It could however be expanded. There's only a small section about China even though they're probably the king at internet censoring. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not-so-subtle insinuations nonwithstanding, could you clarify how this article is "well-sourced"? Our notability guidelines specifically state that news is not an acceptable source to establish notability, and news reports is all the reference section of this article presently contains.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Journalism always falls under "news"? If so, then what's left? - PietervHuis (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Books, encyclopedias, journals. ACADEMIC refrences not that of articles in yellow press.--Kuban Cossack 08:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't go as far as to label most of this article's references as "yellow press", but otherwise Kuban voiced my point precisely.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Books, encyclopedias, journals. ACADEMIC refrences not that of articles in yellow press.--Kuban Cossack 08:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Journalism always falls under "news"? If so, then what's left? - PietervHuis (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not-so-subtle insinuations nonwithstanding, could you clarify how this article is "well-sourced"? Our notability guidelines specifically state that news is not an acceptable source to establish notability, and news reports is all the reference section of this article presently contains.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a neologism. Also there is just a handful of sources, most of which are news publications. In my view this thin coverage suggests that the subject is not notable. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "A handful of sources, most of which are in news publications" is good reason for a keep. This is a neologism, sure, but a notable one. Used for a notable topic, with extensive documentation. the actual existence of them & their nature is not even necessary to be demonstrated, as long as they are being talked about. One of the comments above urged us to delete it on the basis of people putting in OR material. But that's an editing question. Agreed,m this is the sort of article where difficult editing questions arise, but we can and indeed are obligated to deal with that. DGG (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Much suggests that the internet has become an important battleground for competing national and private entities. The topic is therefore a notable one. As with any article on a notable topic, this one too will need to be judiciously edited and refined, including perhaps its title. But there is certainly no justification to delete this article. And... proponents of deletion: please do try to stay on-topic and forego ad hominem attacks on other participants in this discussion. Nihil novi (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only is a conspiracy theory presented as a fact, but the article mainly contains original research coupled with referenced opinion pieces in a novel synthesis, thing against Wikipedia policy. Something can be salvaged, but certainly not the article in its current form.Xasha (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines and there is no verified content to merge to any other article. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oakbank Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unremarkable and non notable park. Paste (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable, and Wikipedia is not a guidebook or directory. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JohnCD. I might have said "merge to Oakbank Primary School", where this topic is covered, but there are two problems: The content is possibly not verifiable as it strikes me as original research (sample: "The climbing frame is the same as it was since the park was built and there is a spinning thing that was added four years ago"), and I think it is dubious that the primary school's article actually meets notability guidelines. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JohnCD. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge to Oakbank, Scotland. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original research. Now if there were coverage by reliable sources, the topic can be incorporated into Oakbank, Scotland (and possibly Oakbank Primary School). B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW delete; was already deleted by me previously because it appeared to be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YHWH aleim, YHWH's Council of Elohim. Sandstein 17:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- YHWH Aleim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is original research; seems to be an essay. Cites no sources; fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article looks like WP:OR, and shouldn't be here unless there's the addition of serious reliable sources to verify the assertions. -Toon05 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An essay related to translation or a particular hebrew phrase from bible; a series of OR by the author. Mukadderat (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. BradV 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as alternative spelling of Elohim --T-rex 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, wrong: "Aleim" is a suppesed version of Elohim. YHWH is Yahweh. Mukadderat (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Article seems to be synthesizing various fringe sources to construct an argument not found in any of them, and seems to be essentially original research. --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's worth noting that the article makes a number of claims that are obviously and easily refutable and couldn't be made by a legitimate reliable source. An example is the claim that "the Masoretic text resulted from Christian David Ginsburg's Massorah compilation." There are numerous Torah scrolls, Hebrew Bibles, etc. written before the 19th century that are still in existence. The fact that the text is older than Ginsburg is easily verifiable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The basic claim this article makes is that the tetragrammaton in this phrase was changed by Levite scribes to something else. Anyone who reads Hebrew will know that this is false. The written text continues to have the tetragrammaton. The customary oral pronunication substituted a different word when reading the Hebrew Bible, and English translators have tended to use the traditional spoken rather than the written words, but this custom of readers and translators in no way emended the text. The article's basic claim is simply nonsensical. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's worth noting that the article makes a number of claims that are obviously and easily refutable and couldn't be made by a legitimate reliable source. An example is the claim that "the Masoretic text resulted from Christian David Ginsburg's Massorah compilation." There are numerous Torah scrolls, Hebrew Bibles, etc. written before the 19th century that are still in existence. The fact that the text is older than Ginsburg is easily verifiable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the subject matter sounds real and interesting i wish somebody would just erase those claims that no source is given but the overall subject seems worth for an encyclopedia.--YY (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE -- This is a blatant content fork of articles Names of God in Judaism and Elohim, uses highly non-standard transliterations of Hebrew (such as "Aleim"[sic!] for the word more correctly transcribed "Elohim"), and refers to "capital" and "small case" letters of the Hebrew alphabet -- something which has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, since the Hebrew alphabet has no upper-case/lower-case distinction... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Forked original research. Jayjg (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above reasons. IZAK (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Levite Scribes the Sopherim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is original research; seems to be an essay. The citations given are WP:SYN and rely on other articles created by the author. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete a part of a series of OR by the author. Mukadderat (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. BradV 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete author is engaging in a pattern of posting non-notable OR, and could benefit from some tutoring. Niczar ⏎ 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research and/or non-notable fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe I need to disclose a conflict of interest before commenting on this one: my family has a tradition of Levite descent. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The conflict of interest having been disclosed, this article appears to be unsourced WP:OR, substantially more so than the other two articles in this series. It seems to be a content fork of the Levite article. It seems to be an attack article with the general theme that Levites throughout ancient history have been bad, bad dudes -- mangling and forging the scriptures, slaughtering rival clergy, etc. etc. etc. The article's subjects are not living, so BLP is not in order. But nonetheless religion is a sensitive subject and careful sourcing, a neutral and balanced perspective, an encyclopedic tone, and an avoidance of sensationalism are particularly important for claims about the history of religious subjects, particularly ones which are likely to be controversial. We need to be able to verify claims individually. Among many other problems, the content seems to be casually interspersed with epithets. (An example is the repeated references to "Levite butchers".) Any legitimately sourced content can go in the Levite article and needs to be carefully sourced and be expressed in an encyclopedic tone. Academic perspectives are somewhat underrepresented in the Levite article, which currently consists mostly of religious perspectives. I would caution that content on academic historical perspectives needs to be balanced. There is no justification for creating a content fork to enable undue weight to be given to fringe or poorly sourced perspectives. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been posted to the WikiProject Bible Biblical criticism work group discussion page. --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the few references provided here are generally unreliable and do not support a number of the claims attributed to them. The few cases where sources are provided suggests that the article is riddled with original research syntheses. For example, the statement Jeremiah wrote concerning the scribes in his own time "Trust not in words of falsehood (because) they say; the temple of YHWH, the temple of YHWH, the temple of YHWH...How can you say; We are wise for we have the law of YHWH, when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" (Jer. 7:4 & 8:8) This verse was altered to read "vain pen" instead of "pen of falsehood" as it still stands in Hebrew is sourced to the website [31]. This website turns out to be a simple religious Bible study website for Bible study in English, and in addition to not meeting WP:RS for an historical theory, doesn't seem to contain any statement at all about the passage in Jeremiah having been changed. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because any such topics should be in Levi. IZAK (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Levi is the article on the person (the son of Jacob and Leah). Perhaps you mean Levite, the article on the group? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per OR. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fringe original research. Jayjg (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. — xDanielx T/C\R 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Karl Strauss Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is a corporate timeline and there's no evidence from RS coverage that its a notable company. Ghits confirm its existence but there's nothing to establish notability there either. Appears to be an active brewery but nothing that sets it apart per WP:CORP. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A Pint of Keep A Google search of "Karl Strauss Brewing" (sans the "Company") turns up some more coverage: [32]. The article needs referencing, of course, but I think notability can be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, albeit weakly. This is a brick and mortar business selling consumer goods, and as such, as Ecoleetage has shown, non-trade third party sources exist and could be added for it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There seems to be some technical glitch with this AfD. The link to the AfD discussion at the article's page is still red-linked even though the AfD discussion page exists. I could not quite understand what the problem is. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, just seems to need references and a little work on the content as well.--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it exists, I'm not doubting that but I'm not seeing any evidence it passes WP:CORP. What am I missing? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." This looks more like an ad for beer than history. --Edie777 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plural verbs with Elohim as God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is original research; seems to be an essay. Cites only one source for a small part; the rest is unsourced. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete a part of a series of OR by the author. Mukadderat (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. BradV 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Based on comments left on the talk page [33], it is a content fork as well. BradV 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Muk Niczar ⏎ 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Elohim. Agree this article seems to be a content fork of Elohim and its contents belong there. The basic argument that some academic scholars have hypothesized a polytheistic origin because the word is normally used as a plural seems reliably sourced, but this perspective is simply one view of Elohim and belongs in the perspective of the other views reflected in that article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been posted to the WikiProject Bible Biblical criticism work group discussion page. --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because any such topics should be in Names of God in Judaism. IZAK 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per OR. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like an OR essay. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE: This is a blatant content fork of Elohim, and the basic view that it was created to express (as seen from the comment at Talk:Plural verbs with Elohim as God) -- i.e. that the word Elohim referring to the God of Israel is very frequently used with plural verbs, plural adjectives, and plural pronouns -- has been rejected by the consensus of mainstream scholarship in the ancient Hebrew language. The fact that garbled and/or completely non-standard transliterations of Hebrew are used doesn't help. The idea of a divine council in the Old Testament deserves some treatment on Wikipedia, but article Elohim probably isn't the best place for it, and this article does very little to provide a useful description of the (rather limited) evidence for it. AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced original research. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jordan Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bringing this here as there is a disputed prod in the history. This simply does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:MUSIC. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried searches in Google News archives, and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but have not found any sources to help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources appear before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - no evidence of musical notability. Mukadderat (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - his label, JayRo, seems to be a small one. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete both as they fail the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Howls of Imagination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Paul Williams (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per Wikipedia:Notability (books), the book has not been the subject of any independent writing, won no award, not an academic tool, and the author is not major. I also suspect conflict of interest, as the creator, User:Wehrwulf, is also apparently the author Paul Williams (writer), as evidenced by this website. Yahoo! seach [34] returns nothing of interest. --Tombstone (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the book and its writer for failing notability for books and biographies, respectively. I'm finding nothing reliable about the writer and/or their book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both if WP:RS and meeting some part of WP:BK & WP:CREATIVE aren't added. Faradayplank (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by SchuminWeb per CSD G7 as only author requested deletion. WilliamH (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great latitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Likely hoax; zero Google hits. Article creator has a history of making speedily-deleted pages. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw, as article has now been deleted per CSD G7. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry (Jonas Brothers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:Music. Has not charted on any charts, and article has very little verifiable information. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn. non-single. non-charted --T-rex 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- any useful info to Jonas Brothers. --Cameron* 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC, not charted or single. Since it does not have an album does not look like it needs to be redirected. Orfen T • C 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shelf (Jonas Brothers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:Music. Has not charted on any charts, and article has very little verifiable information. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 13:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC for notability. Seems a little WP:CRYSTAL to me, unverifiable release date and it says it will be released as a single but in some time in 2008. Orfen T • C 20:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per all the reasons mentioned above. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete without prejudice. For now, this song/single has't shown notability, but it might in the future. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. All the info is true.
- Love Bug (Jonas Brothers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:Music. Has not charted on any charts, and article has very little verifiable information. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "Released August 22, 2008" is a bit too crystal ballsy for me --T-rex 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC for notability. While the source does say it will be released as the second single, the date is not sourced. Article seems a little WP:CRYSTAL to me. Has not yet charted. Orfen T • C 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to album for now. Deletion violates GFDL policy. If it's not a single, then it'll stay as a redirect. If it does become a single, then it can easily be recreated with previous content intact. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete as an obvious hoax per WP:CSD#G3 - Kevin (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Takes One To Know One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
HOAX film article. IMDb knows nothing about it. There is also no trace of the supposed animation company Doodles Animation Ltd; and the author is suspected of a third hoax at The Patrick Star Show. I bring this to AfD to save time, because an IP removed the PROD from one of the author's other hoaxes and might well do the same to this. JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ~~ [Jam][talk] 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I too was unable to find anything to substantiate this article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted, WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent National Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Promotional piece for Stormfront (website). The term "Independent National Socialism" gets 7 g-hits, one of which is from Stormfront and the other six of which are derived from Wikipedia. All of the sources in this article are from Stormfront and about half of them are direct quotations of some guy's message board post on the forum. This is a promotional piece for a non-notable philosophy. -- B (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:V. No evidence that this is a recognized philosophy. Pburka (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, and seemingly the view of one stormfront forum poster. No sources that mention the philosophy apart from those from stormfront, and in particular from the forum posts of a single user. As per nom, no sources revealed by google search apart from those from Wikipedia, and those from a stormfront forum post. No google news hits, or on the blog search, or google groups, or google scholar. Similar results for yahoo search, and at dogpile. Only 3 hits at google books, one of which definitely unrelated, and the others don't appear to be. Silverfish (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable, non-verifiable due to no reliable sources - a forum posting is actually used as a cite. Looks to be promoting this organisation. -Toon05 16:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doing a google search, I couldn't find any reliable third party sources, seperate of the topic, to verify the informationj in the article. It does appear to be the view of one poster on the primary source (Stormfront site), and as these sorts of posts (self published sources, forum posts, or blogs), aren't permitted to be used as sources, I feel this should be deleted. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per B and Steve Crossin. As well, searches on Yahoo, Microsoft and Google News return an equal paucity for the phrase "Independent National Socialism". Tabercil (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Patent nonsense. Article fails WP:RS, WP:V. A great deal of the article body is copied verbatim from internet forum postings. Sole cited source is the forums section at Stormfront's website. L0b0t (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. — MaggotSyn 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DJ Clay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC. His two released albums are on a non-notable label. ScarianCall me Pat! 12:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tending towards a Keep. The label, Hatchet House is a sub-label of Psychopathic Records, which is easily notable enough for the releases to pass WP:MUSIC. He has been the subject of a 15-minute WBLQ interview on their Rotten Radio show, and has toured as a DJ on several Psychopathic tours. The article could use more sources, which is the only problem I see with it at the moment.--Michig (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Michig. I tried to find some more sources but was unsuccessful, just a few directory-like newspaper listings for performances in various cities around the US. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep DJ Clay is widely known to underground hip-hop fans as well as ICP/Psychopathic Records fans, there are sources such as www.djclay.com to find more info about him.
User:Crackaveli —Preceding comment was added at 03:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bassmint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
IP-contested an endorsed PROD. Original concern was: "Non-notable musical venue. Fails WP:ORG. Entirely unreferenced, failing WP:NOR." There were no improvements made to the article to support the removal of the PROD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cites no secondary sources or gives any reason why it's notable. Fails WP:V. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete No assertion of notability.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy had been attempted previously, but declined. I'm not sure the declining administrator is correct; {{db-corp}} might have made more sense at the time of nomination. Regardless, I'm not sure that WP:CSD#A7 applies here because having multiple notable bands and a notable label associated with the place appears to be an assertion of notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grumpy snort I think I have a stricter notion of what assertion of notability means than most other Wikipedians, I guess. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy had been attempted previously, but declined. I'm not sure the declining administrator is correct; {{db-corp}} might have made more sense at the time of nomination. Regardless, I'm not sure that WP:CSD#A7 applies here because having multiple notable bands and a notable label associated with the place appears to be an assertion of notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Patrick Star Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod; rationale was "No evidence that this is a real show. Not notable. Few results on Google search, and nothing official in that capacity." Google returns nothing besides a few forum posts speculating about ideas for a SpongeBob SquarePants spinoff. Suggest deletion as a probable hoax with no sources to establish veracity or notability. Muchness (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Author Riccosimba6 (talk · contribs) has contributed other suspected hoaxes - Doodles Animation Ltd and Takes One To Know One. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I thought I'd submitted this for AfD, but seems TWINKLE had a hiccup. ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - would it also be worth taking the other articles to AfD that have been created by Riccosimba6 (incase their Prods are deleted)? ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Doodles Animation Ltd has been speedied, but I have taken Takes One To Know One to AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I could not find any reliable sources to verify notability or even truthfulness of this show. Thus, it seems to fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. User indef'd. -- Alexf42 13:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doing a Google search, I couldn't find any sources that would suggest this subject is real, if it were, the sheer lack of sources would show the subject isn't notable. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoaxy garbage, plain and simple. I'd think we'd hear about this through the AP first based on the appeal of SpongeBob. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kind of sad when someone's idea of a brilliant hoax is a spinoff of SpongeBob. Some people's horizons extend no further than the edge of the remote. Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leviathan World (comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod; rationale was "Comic with no referenced assertion of notability; suggest deletion per WP:N." The article was expanded after the prod notice was removed but still does not establish notability. The subject lacks coverage in third-pary sources and the article's only reference is a promotional press release. Muchness (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. No third-party coverage. Pburka (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any secondary sources on this one. Only ~800 ghits, and no notable news articles. Fails WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. Seen your comments: for the moment this is what I found about this comic book limited serie (by Italian authors, but published only in English edition) and I'll verify if I can find more info in the future about it to complete references with independent and reliable sources (holding attention to your comments). In many years I found in the web a big quantity of works concerning Leviathan (my research file) without serious basis. This comic is surely not important but appears reliable. --Summerman (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snow delete, even the most potentially notable game will not be notable on the day of its creation. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Domestic Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is nothing to suggest that this newly-invented game is notable; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or rulebook for a game made up one day. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; unreferenced article on a made up game with no assertion of notability. --Muchness (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources, no reason to even think the game is notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:NOTMANUAL. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as G1 - the article notes that the game was invented today! Clearly not notable. Nfitz (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article appears to be something made up, and I can't find any sources to suggest otherwise. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Born on "July 6 2008"?? Rubbish. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly made up and non-notable. Giants2008 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article itself says the game was invented today (by my clock). I wish I could find a speedy category for this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT. Resolute 01:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. triwbe (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eve Adler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria. Weak notability and no supporting refs. Can some one improve it or should it go? triwbe (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I added a link to an obituary from her college, plus a link to the Weekly Standard review of her book on Virgil. This book is shown to be in at least 6 university libraries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassedethe (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Keep According to the obit a gifted teacher, but I am afraid that there is nothing that meets the notability criteria of WP:Academics. Changing vote to weak keep following info found by Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, although with a bit of trepidation. It is difficult to judge people in humanities since GoogleScholar and WoS are terrible at recording the relevalnt info for these fields. However, a WorldCat search shows that several of her books are widely held in various academic libraries. E.g. her book "Vergil's empire: political thought in the Aeneid" went through 4 editions and is held by at least 213 libraries in North America:[35]. Apart from the Weekly Standard review mentioned in the article, I also found this one:[36]. Her book with Vladimir Shlyakhov, "Dictionary of Russian slang & colloquial expressions" had 3 editions and is held at 123 libraries[37]. Her book "Catullan self-revelation" also went through 3 editions and is held at 58 libraries in north america [38]. GoogleBooks gives 149 hits[39]. Given that we are talking about humanities and classics, I would count these results as indicative of passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks Nsk92 (talk · contribs) this is more than sufficient. I am happy that we can improve the article and I withdraw the AfD. If someone does not agree they can re AfD. --triwbe (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Advanced Electron Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability guidelines and web guidelines, no independent, non-trivial coverage to show notability. Google news shows nothing and a Google search throws up nothing source-worthy. Naerii 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed, and can understand. This article was the first one that I started and at the time. I understood that there was a chance it might be nominated for deletion (which was why I was so paranoid about it at first) since becoming an active part of Wikipedia I have learned quite a bit about what the standards on such a thing are. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 15:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:WEB with a perfect score. 9Nak (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should make it clear that this article is not about a website but instead is about a software platform. I still feel it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion yet (and most likely never will) but all the same it should be judged as an article about software and not about a single website. It should not be deleted because it fails the standards of WP:WEB. Instead it should be deleted because it fails to meet the requirements of WP:R and WP:N. Either way I agree that it should be deleted. All the same, the reason I feel this is important to mention is because in the future the subject may become notable and a deletion now based on the wrong standards could hurt it's ability to be covered in the future %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know, this makes me feel they should have a wikipedia:timebox for articles already written on non-notable subjects which might be notable so people don't have to rewrite from scratch. But they probably already have something like that. Anyway, I agree this should be deleted. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:R & WP:Note (I figure I should put in an official vote here| btw, that's a good idea Noian) %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just wanted to mention that I am currently working with the people involved in the development of AEF about a possible reference. I havent seen the article myself yet, but appearantly a magazine called Thinkdigit published something about the software. I am asking the people of the community that uses and works with the software to try to give me specific info and quotes that I could work with in the article. My hope is that they can get me this info before the article gets deleted, in case it helps the discussion any. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately, there is no real WP:SOFTWARE any more and it ultimately leads to WP:COMPANY. We have to go by general WP:N and I feel that it has not passed into the area of "encyclopedic".--Pmedema (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GayNZ.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails our website notability guideline as well as our basic notability policy. The two sources given are (1.) a directory of LGBT websites and (2.) a passing mention in the NZ Herald. No independent non-trivial coverage. Naerii 10:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This does seem to be the leading LGBT newsite in New Zealand and there articles seem to be picked up by others and they have been quoted by other sources as well. The article as is needs a lot of improving but AfD is not clean-up. If an article can be improved through regular editing it's not a good candidate for AfD. Banjeboi 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say that the article needs cleaning up and/or that the need for a cleanup was a reason to delete? *blink* And as for the other aspect, being cited by other websites is all very well, but how are we supposed to write an article about them if there isn't any non-trivial third party coverage? See WP:N. Naerii 15:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't think you did state that but that does seem to be the problem, the article needs a lot of improving, general editing, including adding sources. As for non-trivial references, these may help, Television New Zealand, Scoop.co.nz, New Zealand Herald, NZ Edge. Banjeboi 00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Telivision New Zealand seems to be pretty trivial, it's a profile of a journalist that has one sentence where it says he writes for gaynz.com. Not sure if scoop is that good a source, but I guess it's non-trivial. NZ Herald is the passing mention I mentioned in my nomination. And how is NZEdge non-trivial? The only mention is "The article quotes GayNZ.com writer, Craig Young:". Naerii 11:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent coverage. The little coverage that there is trivial, and only says that the site exists. fails WP:WEB --T-rex 19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied above that may address this concern. If I feel I have time to add these I will. Banjeboi 00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because it's the leading GLBT website in New Zealand, and was in the same position the previous year too. That makes it notable.-gadfium 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability appears to be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to meet notabiliy criteria, as there are numerous articles about it and verifiable contraversies surrounding it such as the one covered in this article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per gadfium. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in addition to sources found so far, GayNZ has been the subject of a controversy over the reporting of a politician's son's comments on a social networking site (I've just added a section to the page on this). --Zeborah (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. BJTalk 02:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gay Youth UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails our website guidelines as well as our basic notability guideline, in that there aren't multiple, independent non-trivial sources. Naerii 10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete despite venerability. The real-world meetings suggests it should also be evaluated under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) – which it fails. Google News has never heard of it, and in almost four years nobody has managed to add a valid secondary source reference. 9Nak (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article reads like an advertisement. This information should be displayed on Google, not Wikipedia. — OranL (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Donald D. Conant, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self bio by User:Conantidabitur, who's only edit record history seems to relate to this one article and issues associated with it. I did a Google check, and searching the term "Donald D. Conant" returns 9 hits, all related to this one wiki article. Deletion on grounds of lack of notability; secondly a self-bio. Trident13 (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Annotation Of An Autopsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Maybe just enough assertion of notability to avoid a speedy, but they don't meet WP:BAND. No references supplied; those I find seem to be mostly Myspace, Youtube and the like. JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - since posting this I notice that the title is mis-spelled - under their proper name of Annotations of an Autopsy they have been twice speedied. Also their EP Welcome To Sludge City is at AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:BAND, per nom and per above. Victor Lopes (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the first paragraph of the article is nothing but a copy & paste from their facebook page. Should it be considered a copyright violation? Victor Lopes (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Angie Gregory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Anonymously contested prod. Currently fails to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER (One lead role in one episode of a basic cable anthology series, otherwise minor parts in minor productions). Maybe later. - Richfife (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant roles, no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soxred 93 08:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She fails WP:ENTERTAINER; I can't find anything resembling "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Maybe later as her career develops more. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
- Delete without prejudice against recreation. I see no independent RS's, and I don't have high hopes someone will find them, but if she is more notable than it seems, recreation should be allowed. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bamboo (military slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD; I feel this page fails WP:NOTDICDEF. It had been previously deleted, and from the summary it may be a recreation of such content. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G4 and A5
Strong DeleteFails WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:RS, and WP:V. Sole cited source is a Wikipedia article about an episode of a television cooking show. L0b0t (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Vote changed due to presence at Witionary. L0b0t (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete - per WP:NOTDICDEF --T-rex 19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I remain unconvinced it's not simply a neologism imparted with an artificial history. Even if it's not, it's already in Wiktionary verbatim, so there's no reason to keep it here. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Me too. Doesn't seem to have enough foul language to be navy slang. I knew people who got out to go to Thailand and no one ever called it "going bamboo". The plural of anecdote isn't data, so I can't make a positive claim based on that (besides, maybe this was an old crusty navy term). The the very least WP:NOTDICDEF applies and the veracity of the claims can be judged by wiktionairy, should this be transwikied. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jill Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable actress, with chorus/bit parts in 3 films in the 1930s, and a bit part, farther down the cast list, of a non-successful 1945 film. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely non-notable actress that probably never will be notable. I'm guessing this article was created to eliminate redlinks in 29 Acacia Avenue, the only notable production she was involved in, but she fails WP:ENTERTAINER regardless. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 29 Acacia Avenue itself is barely notable, and one credited role doesn't cut it by itself. 9Nak (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Tracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a haox, and those who are familiar with the Falklands War can see this is a pretty far-out claim. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nomination probably a hoax as well. JBsupreme (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article's history, it was created by TheGreatTraycini, which rather gives the game away. Emeraude (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I could not find anything looking at academic and military encyclopedias I have on hand. Thus, it seems to fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:V. Pburka (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An obvious hoax, and doing a Google search I found no hits other than the Wikipedia entry itself. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:V. Even if it's not a hoax we're unlikey to get any verifable sources for a long, long time given the secrecy around Special Forces in general and something like this in particular. Dpmuk (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious hoax. Justin talk 10:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'll roll with the rest of the snowball and say it is definatly a hoax. Narson (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael ihemaguba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO... 36 g-hits for the name, no news, just hospital directories... 0 g-hits for 'Obazo National Convention'... Adolphus79 (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nom, nothing relevant available. JBsupreme (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to assert notability. If the Obazo National Convention is that assertion, then there is no notability to assert. 9Nak (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily gone, copyvio. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Jones (Television Commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, copyvio. Eric Idle's name is even misspelled identically. - Eureka Lott 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So tagged.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily gone, creator username blocked. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Use-it (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertisement for a organization/service. Notability not established. Damiens.rf 05:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. — MaggotSyn 00:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strings (Unix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article fails to establish notability an consists solely of original research and how-to information. Any number of references are available describing how to use the command, but very few are available describing the history of the command, the evolution of the software, and so on -- that is, no references are available which would result in an encyclopeidc article. Since none of the material here is referenced, merger is not an option. Mikeblas (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I certainly don't see any unsolvable problems with this article. References could probably be found if someone had requested them (hint, hint), and I don't see any significant original research or how-to material in the article. It's a short stub - there simply isn't room for that in it right now. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The program is reasonably notable, and I could add to it myself. For example, strings is a great way to find passwords or other secret text compiled into a binary program. It's a reasonable stub as-is. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The program comes with every Linux distribution. It is on millions of computers. It is notable. Perhaps the article could be expanded to include some history though. -- Frap (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite Passes WP:N, fails WP:NOTGUIDE. I think that we can make a useful article here. Give it a chance. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we hold for 24 hours to allow a chance for rewrite? strings is used in forensics and troubleshooting, password retrieval, a bunch of other applications, it's definitely notable even though the article isn't really portraying that. Kate (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that will be really necessary, since this isn't going to get WP:SNOW closed as delete and AfDs run substantially longer than that in the nominal case. I'd go ahead and start rewriting, maybe add a {{rescue}} tag too. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - poorly written article, but a notable piece of software --T-rex 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - historically part of Unix OSs, limited scope but handy tool that every sysadmin has to use once in a while. Niczar ⏎ 19:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rewrite Agreed, the article's subject is notable but its current presentation is problematic. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite per Mendaliv. --Mperry (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candle zombie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This word was made by some people who are opposed to demonstrations which were held by people who are against the Korean government's decision about importation of U. S. beef. It was made to abuse people who participated in demonstrations to oppose the decision. It is just a Korean slang used by few people. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myungbaksanseong.) ..TTT.. (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In ko.wikipedia, the article(ko:촛불좀비) was deleted at least two times by speedy deletion, and now blocked to create.--..TTT.. (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, it has a NPOV issue. This word describes people who participated the demonstration as thinkless ones. I think it has to be deleted like Myungbaksanseong.--..TTT.. (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —..TTT.. (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no reliable source about this term. (see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms)--..TTT.. (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Article fails WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOTDICDEF. Wikipedia is not for something made up at the umpteenth-thousandth Korean protest one day. L0b0t (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NEO as an article on a non-notable neologism. (As far as I can tell, anyway - there are virtually zero sources about the term in English at least, and the fact that it's been deleted on the Korean Wikipedia suggests that they don't think it's notable either.) Terraxos (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neologism etc per above. The derivation is unsourced, and the gallery and external links are mostly irrelevant. EyeSerenetalk 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per all the above, especially L0b0t ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE - I guess the creator seems to wish the unpopular term to be popularized through Wikipedia. (This is the first time for me to know it). It is even not comparable with the case of Myungbaksanseong which was deleted and remains as a just redirect. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMMEDIATE Delete - It was created in the Korean version twice before deleted, with no disputes.Vnvnfls (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Last Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This group does not meet WP:MUSIC in any way and completely lacks referencing let alone non-trivial third party references. JBsupreme (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails WP:V, WP:MUSIC. dissolvetalk 04:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Dissolve. Blackngold29 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article fails to establish notability through third party sources, as required by WP:MUSIC. A Google search didn't provide any sources apart from a MySpace website. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Paul Diamond (lawyer). Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete, Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, covers it nicely. Note it's also been deleted once under the same criteria. Creator has been warned. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord belmont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Clearly a hoax. The titles of Viscount Belmont and Earl of Dublin haven't been used in over a century. It is highly doubtful that there is any such person at all. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Almost certainly a hoax. I did a bit of googling, just in case, and found nothing to verify any of the info in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, is it a hoax? It certainly looks like one. The article states "Lord Belmont stood for Castlefield in the local election on May 1st 2008...." but there is no Castlefield ward in Manchester. Manchester Council election, 2008 makes no mention of any Lord Belmont. However, it does list a candidate called Colin Power in the Fallowfield ward, so this may not be a total hoax after all. Emeraude (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was my error when writing the page, the ward should have read "Fallowfield". Lord Belmont actually lives in Castlefield and has never stood for Castlefield as part of Castlefield falls under Hulme and the other part under the City ward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuanga01 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That may be, but there is no Viscount Belmont, nor is there any Earl of Dublin, so this is still false information. Even if there is such a person as Colin Power, there is no other reason why he would be notable. Wikipedia is not your personal web host.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is claiming that it is my personal web host. However the information given on this page is correct and accurate. It is not up to you to determine what is accurate, and the last time I checked, the Roll of Peers in the United Kingdom had not changed it's name to either "Google" or "Wikipedia". So unless you can prove that you have researched such records then there is no reason as to why the entry can not remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuanga01 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you embarrass yourself further, you should read WP:V and WP:RS. Corvus cornixtalk 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I find it amusing how the article is changed to try to cover the gaping flaws. Obvious hoax that has "Lord belmont" as its only source. Edward321 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Colin Power is not a Lord / Viscount or whatever he calls himself these days he is a compulsive liar. I was aware of him and ever since I knew him things did not add up. He constantly 'lords' it about making these false claims. He even had the audacity to set up a facebook name Colin Power and using the email address: lordbelmont@hotmail.com.
He also has recently been on BBC4 Money Box after his employment as a Para Legal at Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors aka Cartel Client Review: He was terminated because he was incompetent and then went whistle blowing against him former company. He also has been spotted stumbling out of 'fetish' gay clubs in Manchester in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings looking as if he were under the influence of drugs.
If you ever meet this person be careful he tells people as well he has 100K worth of shares due to pay out and that he needs to borrow some money....... Guess what borrow money, never see it again.
WARNING PEOPLE: Do not borrow money (more like giving), to this person he has no intention of paying it back. He probably uses it to feed his heavy lifestyle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.164 (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Waggers (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- John Mark McMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(was an incomplete afd)Non-ntable and notability not asserted? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Over a year ago, when I was still new to Wikipedia, I created this article on a musician that performed at my school and was discussed in several of my classes when I noticed that there was not an article on him. At the time, I wasn't really aware of the notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles, and I'll admit that this article probably needs to be deleted. If others here agree that the article should be deleted, I certainly won't object. —MearsMan talk 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are 26,200 ghits (viewable here). I looked at about thirty; none are clearly WP:RS, but some may be. Matchups 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or redirect) Google Archive shows only three brief "play listings" from 2003 in the Charlotte Observer, and if that's all the coverage he got in his home paper... But they do mention that he was affiliated with MorningStar Ministries, so a redirect is possible. Currently, MorningStar Ministries redirects to Heritage International Ministries and Morningstar Ministries redirects to Rick Joyner. On the other hand, the article dates McMillan's career to 2005, and describes him as indie rock. His own website says he left in 2006 to start Worship Arts Revival. Hmm... --Groggy Dice T | C 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Going to speedy redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Selden Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable middle school. No media coverage. Malinaccier (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Middle Country Central School District per WP:SCHOOLS and precedent. There's nothing to merge and no indication these are notable schools. Doesn't need to be at AfD, these aren't going to be deleted. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect both to Middle Country Central School District#Middle schools. (Dawnwood does have some mergeable content.) TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Braydn Michael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
PROD endorsed by two editors was removed without comment by the article creator. This article is about a subject who, to date, has only appeared in films/TV as an extra or extremely minor roles which have not garnered any third-party coverage. It therefore fails the Wikipedia:Notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. If he were notable, these references wouldn't even appear, let alone constitute the bulk of the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, very minor appearances that seemingly weren't even credited most of the time. Barely verifiable and certainly not notable. Additionally, the article's creator seems to be pretty much a single-purpose account that's done nothing more than create this article and add this extra's name to the various productions he briefly appeared in. ~ mazca t | c 15:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the roles in question are pretty minor, would not seem to meet the Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER notability guideline, which states that an actor should have "(had) significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, (or) other productions". Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Per WP:N. Five Years 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- nn actor. - Longhair\talk 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sign of notability. --Stormie (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Diane Herrmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(was an incomplete afd) Non-notable and not asserted? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That the person holds a major teaching position at a university is at least an assertion of notability. I note it's not a research position, but the people in charge of the undergraduate courses in large science departments at major universities are significant academics as teachers,. DGG (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is no significant coverage of her. I am not sure where we draw the line in the sand for notability. Do we need articles on teaching positions or should be draw the line at research positions, professorships, heads of departments? If we allow this one do we open the floodgates for thousands of similar articles? What size should WP be? What is the meaning of life? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete (sadly) I'd like to keep articles on academics, but there's no real reason to differentiate this one from another. Papers written? Books? Major lectures? Find me a reason and I'll be quick to change my stance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with DGG that the teaching position is at least an assertion of notability. However, as I read WP:Academics, that still falls far from achieving notability. The Web of Science lists 2 publicaitons for "Herrmann D and address=Chicago" (12 citations), Google Scholar lists 14 entries (maximum 24 citations). Unless other evidence of notability turns up, I cannot vote keep. --Crusio (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Crusio. I also did a MathSciNet search and found absolutely no publications by her listed there, so I think that the few hits Crusio mentions are probably false positives. It could be that there are some significant accomplishments in the educational area, but there is no info in the article to indicate that either. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think that merely being a good lecturer undergraduate amounts to the sort of notability that WP:PROF aims to assess. Failing the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject required to meet WP:BIO I think that encyclopedic notability has not been established. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable according to standards of WP:PROF. But moreover, not an interesting or informative article, and with little scope for improvement. I happen to know Dr. Herrmann personally (or I did, in my student days), and I think her job is very important and that she is excellent at it, and has been for many years. But wikipedia is not a fan site -- you shouldn't just write an article on someone as a show of approval or enthusiasm. The trend of students creating pages about the instructors they liked should be discouraged, I think. Plclark (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Plclark[reply]
- Delete unless more is added, showing notability in research and teaching. I don't think we usually consider "Director of Undergraduate Studies"—normally a temporary position lasting about two or three years—is what we usually consider notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines, no prejudice against an appropriate redirect being created. Davewild (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kathy Shao-Lin Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(incomplete afd) Non-notable and notability not asserted? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not claim to be notable --T-rex 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Possibly redirect to sister Georgia Lee, who casts her in her shorts and films. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, default to keep. — xDanielx T/C\R 09:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark J Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(was an incomplete afd) Notability? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A legal scholar with a large number of good publications for the field.DGG (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep unless someone can explain to me why the number of professional publications doesn't establish notability. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep widely published, warrants at least a stub article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, unless more information to indicate academic notability is provided. Simply having published a good number of research papers is not indicative of academic notability; publishing is a part of the job and that is what academics do. Nothing special about that as such and simply having a good publication record was never considered enough for satisfying WP:PROF in the past. He seems to be a fairly recent PhD since the publications go back only to 2000 and his first academic appointment is 2002. I looked up his web page at Sheffield:[40]. I don't really see anything unusual or particularly distinguished in the data listed there (no particular awards or honors). The most impressive thing there is a big grant he has from the European Commission. That's good but I'd like to see something more definitive, such as academic awards/honors or evidence of substantial citability of his work. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that page to his article. Did you note that there are two more recent publications listed on that page but not in the article? Not sure what number of additional citations aid notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per NsK92. I put the (excessively, for a WP bio) long list of published papers (once pruned of book reviews etc) from the biography through google scholar. "Problems of practice and principle of[sic, I fixed the typo] centring law reform on the concept of genetic discrimination" and "Durant in the Court of Appeal: identifying a better approach" each cited once, none on the rest. I see no evidence of notable impact here to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ectopusses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable fictional creature. Delete per WP:FICTION Tavix (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Article fails WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:FICTION, et al... L0b0t (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. No real world notability, no evidence it's likely to be so per WP:V. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Badd guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable wrestling "stable." The name of the article is not official, and it's spelled wrong. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As non-notable. -- iMatthew T.C. 09:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable yet. WP:CRYSTAL. Nikki311 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although I am curious to see how the "Turning on AJ" section turns out. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont Delete beacause it might be right and for turning on aj it will be deleted ok.Koolmanduncan20 —Preceding comment was added at 11:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beer Money Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable wrestling tag team. They have existed for just under a month and have done nothing notable enough to warrant an article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it should be deleted but they have been around for longer than a month. Storm and Roode have been tagging together on and off for about 6 months.--WillC 07:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, same as The Badd guys. -- iMatthew T.C. 09:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I say keep. Since the article on Beer Money has already been made, and they're already involved in a major angle, shouldn't we take enough time to see where this goes before jumping the gun of deletion here? Because if we do, and they end up teaming regularly for almost about as long as another team made up of two singles stars, namely Rated-RKO, managed to team up, and the article has to be created all over again, that's unnecessary hassle, don't you think? 74.233.7.247 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(And don't give me that crap about how since I'm not a logged-in member my say doesn't count under Wikipedia guidelines, because that quite frankly is a bullshit excuse for invalidating a perfectly logical opinion. If people who aren't logged in don't matter, then protect the damn entry so they can't post their opinions in the first place, as opposed to letting them talk just to tell them they don't count, which is bottom line shady and rude.) - You may want to read Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those on being civil. You have nine edits on this one article, clearly you feel a level of ownership, but the risks of creating an article (an especially one with no sources) is that it may end up being deleted. Darrenhusted (talk)
- I say keep. Since the article on Beer Money has already been made, and they're already involved in a major angle, shouldn't we take enough time to see where this goes before jumping the gun of deletion here? Because if we do, and they end up teaming regularly for almost about as long as another team made up of two singles stars, namely Rated-RKO, managed to team up, and the article has to be created all over again, that's unnecessary hassle, don't you think? 74.233.7.247 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable as of yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nikki311 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable as of yet. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I say keep.PepsiPlunge13™ 16:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PepsiPlunge13 (talk • contribs)
- Delete not notable to have. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not DELETE!!! It's a good article about a pro wrestling stable.It shouldn't be deleted. --Tiberiu Balint (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others 1362talk 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (non-administrative closure). There is no consensus to delete. The subject is indeed notable. Here are some reasons of why this should be kept as per the discussion below: 1.) Even if there are very few English sources and many Japanese sources, that are reliable sources, that establishes notability. Even if there are no English sources at all out there and only Japanese reliable sources, that establishes notability. 2.) WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here as it states that unverified speculation cannot be added and the games existence and details about the game are clearly verfiable, and notable. 3.) The subject is notable. It may even be more notable when the game is has been released. But now, at this moment, there are reliable sources which shows notability, and that's what matters. If there are any complaints to my close, or if something needs to be clarified, my talk page is open for them. Thank you. -- RyRy (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tales of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article sites no refs. There is no way anyone could tell that the game ever will exsist. The only link is a unreadable image/box art or what ever it is(see page). Un announced game. In other words, a issue of notablilty Gears of War Go 'Skins! 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it be deleted? This has a clear indication of the title of the game and that it is in development, and lists some info about it as well. If an English confirmation of the title being announced is needed, I could list that as well. The game has just been announced, but Namco currently hasn't put up a site for it yet, in neither Japanese nor English.Rpgmonkey (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, give it a little time. It has technically been officially announced through Shounen Jump. Namco Bandai will end up putting it on its website in a matter of weeks or months depending...I remember on Famitsu's website, Namco Bandai stated before Knight of Ratatosk was released that the next Tales game would be ToH, which was obviously referring to this. The so called unreadable picture or whatever doesn't seem to be there anymore, since the higher quality scan is there (I'm assuming this meant the really low quality scan that was going around before). Cutepresea (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No the article should be deleted. The image is not helpful or even considered a ref! More like somethng to add to the VG infobox. Like i noted, should be deleted. Gears of War Go 'Skins! 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is very helpful. It is perfectly clear, shows what has been added to this article, and is a completely perfect way to show that the game has been announced, and that this game exists. Not every external link or reference has to be in English, and even so, I gave an English reference that lists most of the info we know, and used the scan as an external link to show other things, like the character design being by Mutsumi Inomata, and for things like the Japanese forms of the names and art of the characters that the English reference cannot show clearly. There's little reason this article should be deleted when it is a confirmed part of this series, there are references, and there is an adequate amount of info to get an article started.Rpgmonkey (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You just added that ref after I created this AFD. Can't trick me thank you. Gears of War Go 'Skins! 23:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to trick you, the reference was only put up to show proof that the game had been announced and exists. But if all you wanted was a reference, you could have properly asked for one in the discussion section or put one up yourself. Saying the article was going to be deleted or asking for the article to be deleted was a bit overboard when there's lots of references that can be pretty easily found.Rpgmonkey (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop being sore about it, Gears. There isn't anything that says you can't put up a ref after an article is put up for deletion. 67.232.244.124 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to trick you, the reference was only put up to show proof that the game had been announced and exists. But if all you wanted was a reference, you could have properly asked for one in the discussion section or put one up yourself. Saying the article was going to be deleted or asking for the article to be deleted was a bit overboard when there's lots of references that can be pretty easily found.Rpgmonkey (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You just added that ref after I created this AFD. Can't trick me thank you. Gears of War Go 'Skins! 23:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is very helpful. It is perfectly clear, shows what has been added to this article, and is a completely perfect way to show that the game has been announced, and that this game exists. Not every external link or reference has to be in English, and even so, I gave an English reference that lists most of the info we know, and used the scan as an external link to show other things, like the character design being by Mutsumi Inomata, and for things like the Japanese forms of the names and art of the characters that the English reference cannot show clearly. There's little reason this article should be deleted when it is a confirmed part of this series, there are references, and there is an adequate amount of info to get an article started.Rpgmonkey (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No the article should be deleted. The image is not helpful or even considered a ref! More like somethng to add to the VG infobox. Like i noted, should be deleted. Gears of War Go 'Skins! 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, give it a little time. It has technically been officially announced through Shounen Jump. Namco Bandai will end up putting it on its website in a matter of weeks or months depending...I remember on Famitsu's website, Namco Bandai stated before Knight of Ratatosk was released that the next Tales game would be ToH, which was obviously referring to this. The so called unreadable picture or whatever doesn't seem to be there anymore, since the higher quality scan is there (I'm assuming this meant the really low quality scan that was going around before). Cutepresea (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious strong delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Pete Fenelon (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Citing WP:CBALL wouldn't make sense, as this game apparently has already been released in Japan. If notability and sources, whether Japanese or English, can be found, then it should be kept. Sources from Famitsu can be a good start in establishing both. MuZemike (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:*Delete per WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing back to Keep due to recent article additions. Reminder, that AfD is not a substitute for a request for cleanup. MuZemike (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it hasn't been released yet, it was just announced in an article in Shounen Jump (the scan is linked in the article) and mentioned in this Famitsu article (before its title was announced, claiming the next Tales game would start with H). Cutepresea (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why does the article imply that it has already been released? (Don't answer that, just flustered.) MuZemike (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wp:crystal does not apply here since it states that unverified speculation cannot be added and the games existence and details about the game are clearly verfiable. The game is from a notiable series. The content may be a little thin at this point but the is not a good reason to delete. Also if the article is written in such a way to imply that is has been released it is a simple matter to rewrite it too clearlfy that it is a future release. I also don't see why the nominator is telling the deciding admin the the sources were added after the AFD because there is no rule against adding sources after an Afd is created and it would make no sense not to count them. It is a farly common occurance. --76.66.185.109 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be much clearer that this game is not released now. The future game template has been added by someone and I also changed the lattest title to an uncomming title to clearlfy that point. --76.66.185.109 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say Keep as per the same reasons 76.66.185.109 mentioned. Cutepresea (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I'm just kind of curious how an article with absolutely no speculation at all is speculative on any level (which is a requirement if you want CB to apply). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Because like I noted, when I first opened this AFD, all that was there to support the article was a confusing unreadable image. I dont see how something like that is notable. And if the game was announced, link to that so that users can know. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, are you saying it was unreadable because it's in Japanese or because of the quality? If it's the former, then some of us CAN read it. Cutepresea (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, just curious, do you have any one reason to disbelieve? Like, any reason in the universe? An image does not have to be able to be used to be trusted as a reliable image. To assume it's fake is assuming bad faith. And unreadable? Excuse me, are you implying that you not being able to read it means no one on this Earth knows how? "I don't know what it says, so it can't be used, despite the fact that content such as this is allowed to be used". The fact is that based on your reactions towards the image and the reffing of the page, you seem to WANT it to be deleted for reasons outside of notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, three things. One, Link, chill dude, I am assuming good faith and pleading my case. Second, I am saying it's unreadable because it's in Japaneese. And lastly, I only want the page to be deleted because of natablity. Now, you can take that how ever you want, but thats the staright truth. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it unreadable? The only way it could be unreadable is if every single Wikipedian could not read Japanese writing. Is this what you're implying?
- Well, we've clearly established it exists. And that it's a video game in an extremely well-known video game series. And it's made by an extremely well-known developer. And we've seen screenshots of it. And we've seen plenty of information about the game. Your only argument against the article is the language the information is written in, which is not a valid argument in a deletion debate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong again my friend. If "we"(who ever "we" are that you refer to) have seen so much info and news and etc. on this game, then why hasnt it been added to the article? King Rock (Gears of War) 04:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think "we" = the mass of people who know that having a release date, platform, several screenshots, coverage in the biggest Japanese video game ever made (a full page even), information, two confirmed characters, a notable developer, a notable publisher, a notable character designer, and character art = notability. Gears, just a little advice - admins don't bother to pay attention to people in AfDs when all they say is "despite all that, I still think it's not notable." Why? Got any reason to assume such a thing? - A Link to the Past (talk)
- And I actually just read your argument. An unannounced game? What, exactly, makes it unannounced? The only reasons I could see would be "Japanese announcements don't matter", which would be pretty bigoted of you to push as your argument, or "Famitsu is not reliable enough", but on that point, I can only think that them being Japanese would be the only concern, since Famitsu has been the first to reveal many, many games in its 1,000+ issues. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay look ALTTP. I dont care a rats butty who developed a game(my 12 year old grammar is kickin in), okay, one, who cares if the mass of people saw info, unless it's offcial and readable on the English Wikipedia, then I dont trust it, and if thats the only ref at the time, that article will be put up for deleteion by me or someone else. Now I dont have time to go bak and forth anymore. Good buy. King Rock (Gears of War) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, look, we're ALLOWED to use nonEnglish sources here as long as we give a decent translation--which HAS been done. Cutepresea (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would indeed thank you to end this "bak and forth". Your argument to delete has no place in the AfD at all. At no point on this entire Wikipedia does it say that a source has to be in English. So yes, please, stop this "bak and forth" of you citing no reason supported by policy and me repeatedly pointing out every wrong in your argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay look ALTTP. I dont care a rats butty who developed a game(my 12 year old grammar is kickin in), okay, one, who cares if the mass of people saw info, unless it's offcial and readable on the English Wikipedia, then I dont trust it, and if thats the only ref at the time, that article will be put up for deleteion by me or someone else. Now I dont have time to go bak and forth anymore. Good buy. King Rock (Gears of War) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so the unreadable thing goes right out the window there, because we're allowed to use sources that aren't in English as long as we give a decent translation, which was done in the article. Cutepresea (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, during my time away, when I retyurned to look at the artricle, I indeed agree that the article deserves not to be deleted. King Rock (Gears of War) 12:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was "deserving" before. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, during my time away, when I retyurned to look at the artricle, I indeed agree that the article deserves not to be deleted. King Rock (Gears of War) 12:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, three things. One, Link, chill dude, I am assuming good faith and pleading my case. Second, I am saying it's unreadable because it's in Japaneese. And lastly, I only want the page to be deleted because of natablity. Now, you can take that how ever you want, but thats the staright truth. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is little reason for this article to be deleted. I gave the reference I used to make this article, which is the scan I provided. The article I made is a near-perfect translation of what's said in the magazine, or provides the information given within the article. That's perfectly acceptable here. An English source is needed? I gave one that says exactly what is on the scan and what I read. You need more? There is a very large amount of other references that a google search can find, that will give the exact same information I just said within the article. It has also been changed to imply that the game is not yet released (I apologize if anyone thought otherwise). Deleting this article is only an act of redundancy when the official website for the game is open, and the exact same info that has been said will be put up all over again, if not even more information.Rpgmonkey (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Keep Yea, english sources would be nice, but a quick google search on the name brings up the usual English-based Japanese-gaming trend sites with magazine scans, translations, and the like. Even if the game doesn't come to fruition, it's been covered, thus notable. --MASEM 05:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I can confirm that everything stated in the article is accurately translated from the referenced scan, the scan itself is from a very reliable gaming magazine in Japan, which just announced the game only a few days ago (which is why there aren't many sources right now), in the scan is Tales of Heart's logo (written in roman letters, so even if you can't read Japanese, you can clearly see this), information about the game, character artwork for two of the main characters, and two in-game screenshots, as well as information, character artwork, logo (also in roman letters), and a screenshot for another new Tales game, Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology 2. Previous titles in the Tales series have also been announced in this way before. The official website is also under construction at this link, currently the only thing on the page is "In preparation" (準備中, Junbichuu). And as others have pointed out the Tales series is a long running very notable series with over 11 main titles, and numerous side titles, since the release of the first game on December 15, 1995. Aoimusha (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The official site is now up, you can see for yourselfs via
the link in my above postthis updated link. That should hopefully end this debate. Aoimusha (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep: Based on Famitsu info, the flakyness of the article is gone. And if it's a notability issue, it's the next game in a notable series, so I don't see how it applies. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge and redirect to List of Third Watch episodes. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alone Again, Naturally (Third Watch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Regular episode, fails WP:RS and WP:NOTE per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is this one article being nom'ed? Have all the other crufty, non notable ones been merged back into seasons, or were none ever written? Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I came across this one doing New Page Patrol on the stuff 30 days old. Since the author created it with the notability tag and then never did anything about it...here we are. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Third Watch episodes. No assertion of real world notability for this episode.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Third Watch episodes. Fails all requirements for notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no claim to any real world notability --T-rex 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete its a complex issue I'll give as detailed an explanation as possible. This discussion centered around notability based on being verified by reliable sources, what these three policies say is that for a subject to be notable the information must verifiable from multiple independent sources. The sourcing that was used in the article in its current form(at deletion) were MTV sources including a blog, MTV has a financial stake in the series and therefore its fails as being independent. The other alternative source Vevmo was discussed at Wikipedia:V/N#Vevmo where the discussion was clear that because there isnt editorial oversight the site does meet our policies on verfiablility and reliability.
Noting that in closing this afd I reviewed the discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_10, Wikipedia:V/N#Vevmo, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_The_Duel_II and the article talk page, content of each of these discussions where raised in the course of this discussion. Gnangarra 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is at Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16), it may not show up correctly here due to the slash in the title. This article is basically a recreation of Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II, which was deleted (see AfD here) for lack of reliable sources. I attempted to get it speedily deleted based on that criterion but an admin declined it on the basis that it "cites sources". Another editor attempted WP:PROD saying the "Entire thing seems to be sourced from rumors on blogs and the like" but that was contested. This article needs to be deleted because there are no reliable sources to support the information in it i.e. there is nothing about this season from the web sites of MTV, Bunim/Murray, IMDb, etc., and there is no acceptable version in the history to revert to as the information comes solely from sources that have not been established to be reliable Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article has been moved to Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Island --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 03:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep All Real World/Road Rules Challenges are considered noteworthy and this one is not an exception. Today, July 5th on MTV during The Real World: Hollywood marathon it was mentioned that Paula Meronek would be heading to a challenge after filming her side commentary for the show. If it is stated on MTV that there is going to be a challenge, then there is going to be a challenge (which would be the 16th in the series, and logically where the name of this article is derived.) This is in support of the sources provided that do state there is a challenge currently filming in Panama. There is also a photograph of the cast from an MTV talent coordinator in Panama that makes it easy to verify who is attending the challenge. We can also see Paula which lends credence to the photograph, being we know she is on the challenge from the previously mentioned broadcast. Each cast member in the picture is recognizable and can be matched to their iamonmtv.com profiles (an MTV Networks web property) if needed for verifiability. The fact that MTV makes mention of the challenge in a "Coralvision" episode (which is what the marathon was called) in collaboration with the cast picture and the historical track record of the source Vevmo in this genre is reason enough to keep the article while it is expanded and improved. The cast returns from Panama on July 11th which means that more information will be forthcoming. Are we really in that much of a hurry? I don't think that there is an argument to be made here about the notability, so deletion would not be the right step no matter the consensus. A template requesting better sourcing would probably be the correct route to take, which Latish redone did place on this article (along with making a variety of copy edits) before things got personal and he nominated the article for deletion. The previous AFD discussion was not much of a discussion at all and at that time there was not a photograph, the mention of the challenge on MTV or the mention of the challenge from the casting agency (MM Agency) who represents the people attending. Putting all these factors together lays a clear path in my opinion for keeping and the article and making it better.Zredsox (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not suggested that the new season is not notable. Deletion would be inappropriate if there were reliable sources to cite. But there aren't any. There aren't any now, and if there are reliable sources later, then the article can be recreated later. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are in agreement that the season is notable then I think that we are on our way to arriving at a consensus to Keep. No matter what was arrived at in the past, if everyone here can agree the article meets the requirement for notability then it is a "no-brainer" that we should move forward with making every available attempt to improve the article within a reasonable time frame. Zredsox (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not addressed the reliability of the sources. I have attempted to find reliable sources and have not found any, and other editors have probably done the same. If you would like for the article to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria, the article needs to cite those sources. Articles about past seasons were not deleted despite the lack of citations, because there are reliable sources available to cite. That is not the case with this season. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how much more verifiable we need to get than color photography, but we have already gone 12 rounds on this on another page so obviously we are not going to reach a consensus. However, for those without a personal stake in the outcome of this AFD discussion, I think that a photo of the cast is an excellent point of verifiable documentation as to the participants of this challenge and in combination with the mention on MTV gives us enough material to at least have a page about the challenge with the cast members in the photo.Zredsox (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from making personal attacks at other contributors. Comment on content, not the contributor. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how much more verifiable we need to get than color photography, but we have already gone 12 rounds on this on another page so obviously we are not going to reach a consensus. However, for those without a personal stake in the outcome of this AFD discussion, I think that a photo of the cast is an excellent point of verifiable documentation as to the participants of this challenge and in combination with the mention on MTV gives us enough material to at least have a page about the challenge with the cast members in the photo.Zredsox (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not addressed the reliability of the sources. I have attempted to find reliable sources and have not found any, and other editors have probably done the same. If you would like for the article to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria, the article needs to cite those sources. Articles about past seasons were not deleted despite the lack of citations, because there are reliable sources available to cite. That is not the case with this season. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW: As soon as MTV puts up the "Coralvision" marathon videos on MTV.com I will be sure to cite the appropriate one within the article that makes mention of the challenge, which I think will be a big step in the right direction to alleviating your concerns about sourcing. MTV would seem to be unimpeachable when it comes to its own content (as a source.)Zredsox (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And until MTV puts up that video then this article needs to be deleted. Also, even if MTV does put up that video this article can only have content that is supported by the video or another reliable source, i.e. if the video does not tell who the cast members are then you cannot have a cast list in the article, etc. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC
- Just because MTV has not yet posted the marathon online does not mean it did not occur. We could use TV Guide to prove that and I am sure a few hundred thousand people could vouch. A mainstream cable television show's content doesn't have to be online for it to be considered verifiable. As for your second point, I agree. No matter what, the article should be kept in some capacity, even if that is a much diminished one.Zredsox (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to argue about whether a TV show said something or not; that is not the issue here. If you would like to use the TV show as a source then please cite it in the article. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because MTV has not yet posted the marathon online does not mean it did not occur. We could use TV Guide to prove that and I am sure a few hundred thousand people could vouch. A mainstream cable television show's content doesn't have to be online for it to be considered verifiable. As for your second point, I agree. No matter what, the article should be kept in some capacity, even if that is a much diminished one.Zredsox (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And until MTV puts up that video then this article needs to be deleted. Also, even if MTV does put up that video this article can only have content that is supported by the video or another reliable source, i.e. if the video does not tell who the cast members are then you cannot have a cast list in the article, etc. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC
- If you are in agreement that the season is notable then I think that we are on our way to arriving at a consensus to Keep. No matter what was arrived at in the past, if everyone here can agree the article meets the requirement for notability then it is a "no-brainer" that we should move forward with making every available attempt to improve the article within a reasonable time frame. Zredsox (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not suggested that the new season is not notable. Deletion would be inappropriate if there were reliable sources to cite. But there aren't any. There aren't any now, and if there are reliable sources later, then the article can be recreated later. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the editor who proposed deletion before, I support this listing for deletion. The article lacks reliable sources. --Jenny 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the sources do need to be expanded, the article is noteworthy like the Fifteen Challenges that preceded it, which from what I understand would supersede the need for immediate deletion, but rather require that the article be improved by the community. Zredsox (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To write an article, we would need some verifiable information. --Jenny 09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
- Unless we are trying to be so haughty with the rules that we are forgetting common sense, the picture of the cast (as I have mentioned a number of times) is clear verification as to the participants in this challenge, and MTV's mention of the challenge is clear verification of its existence. If you do not feel comfortable with the other information on the page, feel free to delete that information - but these two facts (cast members present and existence of 16th challenge) would seem quite apparent to anyone looking at this in an unbiased fashion. If we want to go as far as to strip the article down to: MTV is having a 16th challenge (the end.) - so be it - but this article is notable as we all agree, and it should not be deleted.Zredsox (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the provenance of this purported cast picture? What does it verify? --Jenny 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have completed my vigorous defense of Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) and don't suspect that going in circles here is going to change your well established opinion on the matter. I think we should stick to the areas of consensus, which is that the article is notable and that the challenge exists - and build the sources and context from the ground up rather then delete this article of cultural significance. I know you are being coy with the photo and that is your prerogative, but I don't think it is going to help us work toward a solution and make this a better article (which I think we can all agree is the goal.)Zredsox (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I must have missed something. Where did we establish that season 16 exists? --Jenny 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The airing of the 11th Episode of The Real World: Hollywood yesterday. It airs again on Wednesday afternoon. The challenge was brought up by Host Coral Smith, along with Paula Meronek's participation in it. I expect that MTV will archive the episode online, but I am not 100% sure as I do not see it of yet. I tried my best to state that in the article, but I am not sure as to the best way to source what occurred on a cable television show. Any help would be appreciated.Zredsox (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's some progress. Now is anything concrete known, from reliable sources, about this proposed new series? --Jenny 17:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The airing of the 11th Episode of The Real World: Hollywood yesterday. It airs again on Wednesday afternoon. The challenge was brought up by Host Coral Smith, along with Paula Meronek's participation in it. I expect that MTV will archive the episode online, but I am not 100% sure as I do not see it of yet. I tried my best to state that in the article, but I am not sure as to the best way to source what occurred on a cable television show. Any help would be appreciated.Zredsox (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I must have missed something. Where did we establish that season 16 exists? --Jenny 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have completed my vigorous defense of Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) and don't suspect that going in circles here is going to change your well established opinion on the matter. I think we should stick to the areas of consensus, which is that the article is notable and that the challenge exists - and build the sources and context from the ground up rather then delete this article of cultural significance. I know you are being coy with the photo and that is your prerogative, but I don't think it is going to help us work toward a solution and make this a better article (which I think we can all agree is the goal.)Zredsox (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the provenance of this purported cast picture? What does it verify? --Jenny 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless we are trying to be so haughty with the rules that we are forgetting common sense, the picture of the cast (as I have mentioned a number of times) is clear verification as to the participants in this challenge, and MTV's mention of the challenge is clear verification of its existence. If you do not feel comfortable with the other information on the page, feel free to delete that information - but these two facts (cast members present and existence of 16th challenge) would seem quite apparent to anyone looking at this in an unbiased fashion. If we want to go as far as to strip the article down to: MTV is having a 16th challenge (the end.) - so be it - but this article is notable as we all agree, and it should not be deleted.Zredsox (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To write an article, we would need some verifiable information. --Jenny 09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
- Although the sources do need to be expanded, the article is noteworthy like the Fifteen Challenges that preceded it, which from what I understand would supersede the need for immediate deletion, but rather require that the article be improved by the community. Zredsox (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. L0b0t (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it passes this test: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This challenge is to take place. It was announced on MTV that there would be another challenge. I am relatively new, but isn't it considered uncouth to post links as reasons for deletion without a substantive argument to go along with those links? Zredsox (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is that the "Article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS". That is the argument. Also, if the event is "almost certain to take place" then why is there no citation of a reliable source saying so? --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I am not sure how to cite a cable television show as it is not like I can direct a hyperlink to it. I have pointed out the name, when it aired,the content of what was said and when it will air again (above.) If you could assist me in adding it to the article in an appropriate manner, I would appreciate it. Thanks!. Zredsox (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said that a citation had to include a hyperlink. Not all sources are Internet sources. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources. Note that the page says "If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." As for how to cite a TV episode, you can use the template {{cite episode}} for example. There are citations of TV episodes on The Gauntlet 3 page if you need examples of usage. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. That should do it. I appreciate the help.Zredsox (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said that a citation had to include a hyperlink. Not all sources are Internet sources. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources. Note that the page says "If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." As for how to cite a TV episode, you can use the template {{cite episode}} for example. There are citations of TV episodes on The Gauntlet 3 page if you need examples of usage. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I am not sure how to cite a cable television show as it is not like I can direct a hyperlink to it. I have pointed out the name, when it aired,the content of what was said and when it will air again (above.) If you could assist me in adding it to the article in an appropriate manner, I would appreciate it. Thanks!. Zredsox (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is that the "Article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS". That is the argument. Also, if the event is "almost certain to take place" then why is there no citation of a reliable source saying so? --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it passes this test: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This challenge is to take place. It was announced on MTV that there would be another challenge. I am relatively new, but isn't it considered uncouth to post links as reasons for deletion without a substantive argument to go along with those links? Zredsox (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural note: Zredsox (talk · contribs) and Latish redone (talk · contribs), major participants in this discussion, are currently both blocked due to an edit war on the page under discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a recreation and give Zredsox a final warning for disrupting Wikipedia. Not only has this been deleted before in the AfD listed above, he then recreated it as Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008 (with the same sources as the current one), which was G4 speedied. The DRV for that one (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 10) supported the deletion, upon which zredsox went on to nominate the other Road Rules Challenge articles as a WP:POINT violation. He now recreated this article again, with again a different title but the same sources as before... Since we can't salt it (he uses different titles each time), we should just block this editor if he or she continues like this. Fram (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural note: Zredsox (talk · contribs) did not create this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.43.13 (talk) — 24.163.43.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment This article was created by a SPA, which has not posted since Zredsox started working on the article, at least raising a reasonable question. Townlake (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At first glance Sims2man2008 (talk · contribs) may seem like an SPA, but if you look closer at the user talk page you can see they have been involved in other articles previous to creating this one. An administrator should be able to compare the IP addresses and put to rest any innuendo. It doesn't make sense to taint a discussion about verifiability with accusations that are not verified. 24.163.43.13 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — 24.163.43.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- All I'm saying is it's a reasonable question. Townlake (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I did not create this article. No, I did not create the first article that was deleted either. Yes, I took the time to make major improvements to both articles including adding tables, content and copy editing. Both were initially listed as stubs when I ran into them with the first already in AFD and without a single source before I started rewriting it. As for this one, I assumed when I saw Latish redone add a "verify" template to the article that he was requesting community action to make the article better, so I became involved. Yes, this article has more sourcing than the first incarnation including a photograph of the cast, a link to a casting agency statement that covers the topic and a citation from an episode of The Real World (that were not present in the original.) Zredsox (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though User:Zredsox did not create this article, I think that the point User:Fram is trying to make is that User:Zredsox's revisions to the article brought the article to essentially the same state as the article deleted at AfD. When I put the "verify" template in the original stub article I was expecting verification by reliable sources. Zredsox simply added the same Vevmo reference from the last article, which is why this article really should have been speedy-deleted under G4. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article history does not support your argument as Vevmo was listed as source previous to zredsox becoming involved. 24.163.43.13 (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 24.163.43.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Prior to Zredsox's involvement this article was a stub with a single Vevmo reference. Zredsox's edits significantly expanded the article to non-stub status, but added further Vevmo references and a few other references that cite Vevmo themselves or are otherwise unreliable. So actually the article history does support my argument - that Zredsox brought the article into the same state as the previously deleted article. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 01:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article history does not support your argument as Vevmo was listed as source previous to zredsox becoming involved. 24.163.43.13 (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 24.163.43.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment This article was created by a SPA, which has not posted since Zredsox started working on the article, at least raising a reasonable question. Townlake (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural note: Zredsox (talk · contribs) did not create this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.43.13 (talk) — 24.163.43.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Apologies to Zredsox, he did not create this article. The rest of my arguments stay the same though. Fram (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepI for one see no reason not to accept Vevmo as a reliable source. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL doesn't mean "don't write about future stuff." Mangojuicetalk 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment The Vevmo issue is under discussion here, if you or anyone else is interested. Townlake (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, the folks at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard said that Vevmo is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vevmo is a web forum, a WP:SPS - not a reliable source. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone knows how you feel about this Latish. No need to keep posting it. Zredsox (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- like i said in the talk page vevmo is not a reliable source but the page itself should stay no matter what we know who is on the challange an where it will be held i think that is enough to keep it and than should be fine--Spiderman2351 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351[reply]
- Everyone knows how you feel about this Latish. No need to keep posting it. Zredsox (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Vevmo issue is under discussion here, if you or anyone else is interested. Townlake (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We Have turned this articale into an Edit War could we just come to a compramise--Spiderman2351 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351[reply]
- Yes. Only recreate the article when reliable independent sources, like newspapers or print magazines, have discussed this season at some length. Until that happens, you (plural) don't create the article. After this has happened, we don't delete it again. Fram (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No that is not a comprimise we dont want it deleted. We know that who is going to be on the challenge and who is on the challenge and where it will be held and what it will be like so i now think we got enough for a weak keep
- Delete. I've changed my mind. I think the Vevmo material is probably accurate based on their general reputation, which I've learned a bit about by digging around some. However, all the material here is either from Vevmo or attributes its information to Vevmo, and I really don't feel comfortable with that. It's good enough to back up other sources but not good enough on its own: it's an anonymous-posting site with no editorial oversight, and authors don't even use their real names. In other words, Vevmo publishes rumors and tip-offs: they may usually be correct, but nonetheless Wikipedia should not be in the business of writing encyclopedia articles based only on such things. Re-create the article when material from a greater variety of sources becomes available: it will eventually. I would not be sad if Wikipedia had to wait until the show actually airs. Mangojuicetalk 14:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stubNeutralUpdated belowThe only reliable source used in this article is the Coralvision citation in the lead, which I think is enough to avoid deletion. Everything else is Vevmo or a source that freely states it mixes its information with Vevmo's. That reporting can easily be restored once reliable sources report that information. In the meantime, keep the lead, but remove everything else for now - bearing in mind that within the next couple weeks, there should be sources that've picked up accurate AND reliable casting info and such if I understand the timeline correctly. Townlake (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- i would be fine with that a stub would be fine--Spiderman2351 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Spidermn2351[reply]
- Townlake: You mean the "existence of the upcoming season confirmed by..." reference? There's no content in it. It doesn't even confirm the correct title. I don't see how that can be a basis for an article, even temporarily. Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point well taken. I just went to the MTV site trying to find the Coralvision ep, and came up empty. Then I figured there must be chatter about the announcement online... but the only search engine returns were Vevmo and Vevmo-related. Changing opinion to Neutral pending potential citation of verifiable info by others. Townlake (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Townlake: You mean the "existence of the upcoming season confirmed by..." reference? There's no content in it. It doesn't even confirm the correct title. I don't see how that can be a basis for an article, even temporarily. Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i would be fine with that a stub would be fine--Spiderman2351 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Spidermn2351[reply]
Show announced on MTV at the end of Real World Hollywood Finale. AFD discussion should done. It is called 'The Island' and I am sure it will be everywhere in a few hours. Zredsox (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - At the end of the Real World: Hollywood, official promo for The Island aired. The main site should be up soon. -theblueflamingoSquawk 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While the new information certainly makes a keep in some format probable, none of the speedy keep criteria are met at this time. AfD is due to close in a day anyway. Townlake (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources except a blog post which references another blog. When it airs, or when reliable sources start talking about it, then it will make a reasonable article, but until then WP:CRYSTAL needs to apply. Orpheus (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment It seems to me that those who are (over?)involved with this issue would be happier if they spent their time on improving less ... speculative articles. Eventually the air date will roll around, sources will become available, and this article can be recreated with accurate content and a lack of tags like TBA, TBD, TBcorrected, and TBwhoops, that was completely wrong". Not personal criticism of anyone, just a general observation. Orpheus (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as stub This is good enough for me. But I do think the cast information and other specifics need to be truncated until there's more official information available. Townlake (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as stub WOW! These "discussions" never fail to get heated! This article can stay because MTV posted the trailer on their website! It confirms the name, The Island, the location, Panama, and that its airing this fall. Some cast members are seen in the video, but I think that the cast list can be deleted until MTV puts up the official webpage for this TV show. I am not so savy with citations so I'll leave it up to you more experienced users to include this citation and hopefully everyone can now just get along. EliRykellm (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though an obviously reliable source has been introduced during this AfD discussion period, I don't think that reliable sources give us enough info to write an article, just to add this season to the list at Real World/Road Rules Challenge. If someone wants to write this article, I still think it would be easier to just delete this article and start over, just to make sure we're only using the reliable sources to write the article. Though I would accept keeping the article and removing all the unsourced content. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 02:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LATISH we no that you want the article deleted but its mot going to happen we have a reliable source and thats all wee will need––Spiderman2351 (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David Hamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Almost all sources are unreliable and heavily POV. If retained would need serious work on sources and wikifying. Rushyo (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:BIO for lack of notability. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that the one link I looked at was broken does not bode well. Overall, the article looks like it could use work and more scrutiny on its sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Changes since AfD started do not convince me of the salvage value of this article. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of independent reliable third party sources and POV. Artene50 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable and most claims will always be impossible to source. 195.167.65.105 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've removed most unsourcable stuff, making the article a little more encyclopedic. Still think it should go, though. 195.167.65.105 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment2: Never mind. The main editor seems to insist on re-inserting the exact stuff that makes the article deletable. 195.167.65.105 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've removed most unsourcable stuff, making the article a little more encyclopedic. Still think it should go, though. 195.167.65.105 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment C'mon, this is one of the few guys to be contacted by the aliens from the planet Kladen... anyone? anyone? Okay, delete for nonsense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about Billy Meier? You should also delete him as well, or John Hutchinson or even John Searl. I mean, all these guys have simularity to David Hamel. Oooops, my god, it's all about POV. Well, the sources are there people (above). Websites and books and photographs. Jeez, that sounds like proof to me? Doesn't it to you any of you morons? Oh, I guess you just don't know how to look! Broken link? Where? Impossible claims! Claims are more than abundant with proof. You have to look to see proof. Go ahead and vote to delete...your competitor websites will support David Hamel. You people, however, will lose out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.26.87 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) — 165.154.26.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well, that last remark is a tough act to follow, but here goes: Delete Not a single reliable source on this guy, I guess all us "morons" will have to continue living in ignorance while our "competitors" get the advantages of contact with the magnanimous beings of planet Kladen. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, non-notable, though unintentionally amusing. Edward321 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: to Beeblbrox. Yes, it is a tough act to follow. And yes, you may be losing out on an opportunity to support Atlanteian Age science. Sorry about the 'moron' thing. But being too quick to 'judge', like you guys have done, is your own fault. What is the definition of 'sourced' btw? Like univerity/PHD backed up information? Or accredited knowledge through an institution? You see, that is where your doctrines fail. It's a leap of faith this world needs to make. Your level of scientific understanding is applaudable...and yet NOT complete. There are things you people don't know yet...and it is starring you in the face. It's all around you. That's your first lesson from me. It's all around you, like a Matrix. Good luck. I AM a tough act to follow. The tough part is trying to convince something too obvious to the world. The good part, is maybe I can help people this way, by being the tough act. So be it. But since WIKI can't support exotic topics, that could be a problem. I suggest you people consider an Exotic WIKI database that can be expansive solely for supposed 'fring' topics. BTW, hamel is NOT fring. It's a matter of POV as you people stated too many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Policies on sourcing are clearly described on this page. You may also want to read this page. Wikipedia does not "support" any particular philosophy other than the five pillars. The other articles you mentioned have adequate sourcing, indeed one guy had a whole book written about him. However, I thank you for softening the nature of your remarks and on behalf of everyone in this AfD accept your apology. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and yet you still edit out useful things (actually, whoever is editting it, is over-editting things out...probably to control the situation with me...back stabbing). It's okay, you guys want a war, I'll give you one. One way or another, when the page is deleted, I won't bother you anymore. Until then, I'll just spend the 1 minute or so, to revert it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed."" YOU GUYS ARE BREAKING YOUR OWN POLICIES. LAME. LOL! You guys are taking away the priviledges to edit as well. WP policy? Yeah right! This is a 'told you so' scenario. Gang Up mentality. You people should be reported to someone above yourselves. Lose your jobs. Because you are not doing a very good and honest job. That is for certain. This is called internet bullying as well. More indirect, but it's still the same. My actions weren't bullying at all. Yours clearly are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- hey fellas...I think I am going to revert one thing back to you...it's called 'morons'. Sorry
Beeblbrox, but your buddies are asking for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You Guys... Be Nice--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the unanimous vote count for an actual deletion of an article? Someone please point me to the policy. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.26.34 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Under Wikipedia:Guide to deletion the standard is "Rough consensus." I noticed that you used the word "unanimous" and referred to a "vote count," but deletion does not requrie unanimity, and it is a discussion, not a vote. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, who gets the 'axe job' then? The head cheese or the simple editor? I don't see the logic in this discussion then. Beause someone is going to make a vote regardless of what you just said.
- Comment The key top the discussion is to support your arguments logically, rather than merely to muster democratic support for your article. One of the administrators, I don't know who, will make the call to delete or keep based on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also everything at Wikipedia works by consensus. this page explains how it works, and this page explains how the whole operation works. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable whack-job. There, I said it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also deleting admin should probably salt the title, since Mattihorn is threatening to re-create. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- whatever...goof. Whack job? No he wasn't. He was brilliant. Many people over this globe knew him. He had alot of people come to him. His 'noteability' is the length of commitment on his end. The internet has supported his work/cause for a long time. The only whack-job here is people who make judgements without doing the research into the man.
I have recreated...but not here. So mock all you want bonehead.
- Careful just being a "whack-job" doesn't mean he's not notable (I think this one is not notable). See Emperor Norton, sometimes known as "His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I" or "Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico." Being a "whack-job" is not a reason to delete--being non-notable is a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said to the whack-job above, when you do the research into the man and his work...you will know if he is noteable or not. He is more NOTEABLE than any of you....if you people held any scientific backgrounds. Which I don't see here at all. I do....through experience.
The problem with people these days is lack of research. You all should get off your well formed asses, and research him thoroughly and correctly before dismantling him. YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING AS WELL. :)
- Fortunately, being "more notable than me" is not the rule for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I fully recognize, Paul, that it's possible for a whack-job to be notable (witness Richard C. Hoagland and Thomas E. Bearden). But, as you rightly point out, this one is not. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh Yeah! Those guys are TREASURES to read about! I wish Hamel had notable information about him so we could post it, if only for my own entertainment! But that's not how we slice grapes in Wikipedia...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if its entertainment you want, have a look at this video (start six minutes in) or any of the other videos that used to be in the article (act now before it's deleted) to see what kind of a brilliant scientist we're dealing with here. Ten bucks if you can make any narrative or analytical sense out of anything he says. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my goodness! That's AWFUL! The internet is a wonderful and sad place, isn't it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if its entertainment you want, have a look at this video (start six minutes in) or any of the other videos that used to be in the article (act now before it's deleted) to see what kind of a brilliant scientist we're dealing with here. Ten bucks if you can make any narrative or analytical sense out of anything he says. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh Yeah! Those guys are TREASURES to read about! I wish Hamel had notable information about him so we could post it, if only for my own entertainment! But that's not how we slice grapes in Wikipedia...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I fully recognize, Paul, that it's possible for a whack-job to be notable (witness Richard C. Hoagland and Thomas E. Bearden). But, as you rightly point out, this one is not. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Somewhat unrelated comment but I've lost my patience to deal with this guy. One person has left Wikipedia due to his abuse and he has been given multiple personal attack warnings. Tried a couple of avenues, been ignored by the community/admins (and when I say ignored I mean, completely, with no reasoning)... so I give up. If someone else wants to try then good luck. -Rushyo (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, once this article is gone, I don't think we'll have much of a problem, since it seems to be the only thing he's interested in here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- lost patience with me, eh? Good. Yeah, you're right Mr. Steve Anderson. Once this article is finished, I will be gone. I have no other 'editorial' doings here besides that.
Btw, the video the person mentioned above is crud. You have to get into the real videos which are about 4 hours in length. There is much more to be had. What makes me laugh at people like you, is how you really 'dig' into that research. Boy oh boy, you guys should get plaques for your efforts. LMAO! And you know what, who cares if you lost one person to me. The world has over 6 billion on it. I am sure you'll find a replacement in due time. I guess Rushyo really loved the guy. Were you common-law? haha Obviously you people have NO IDEA what the hamel physics are and how important they are to our future. You judge the man before you understand the physics. You judge the book by it's cover, without learning about the contents. You are going to be somewhat at a loss...but my superiors tell me to not waste time (So much) trying to convince the buffoons of planet earth. Hail to Free Energy and endless suffering to those who wish to suppress it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Free Energy? Okay prove us wrong! You got a device that generates free energy? Turn it on and remove all doubt. I'd love to be wrong on that!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Szporer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
notability - primary reason for article seems to be promotion of book. Article creator keeps removing notability and reference templates without explanation or doing anything to improve article. Suspect COI. Mfield (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Editor is utterly non-responsive to warnings not to delete prod templates, and has been so warned repeatedly. --GoodDamon 01:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make that Speedy delete. This is self-promotional in nature. --GoodDamon 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I take back the "speedy", per Jclemens' comment below. The obvious COI editor needs to stop editing it like it belongs to him, but there may in fact be some valid claims of notability. --GoodDamon 16:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to see this AfD run its course. The article is but a day old and includes some claims which, if reliably sourced, would indicated notability. Note that COI is not a reason for speedy. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see Talk:Michael_Szporer - for some reason the author does not see the need for a bibliography in an article about an 'author' of 'numerous' works. I quote Mieciousa 'adding a bibliography of publications in several languages would make much ado out of brief bio note.'. Enough said. If Mieciousa is the article subject, which all signs point to, then he's supposed to be a noted academic and he should clearly understand the reasons for bibliographies and citations. Mfield (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did the first WP:PROD. Appears to be stretching quite a bit for WP:BIO — disturbing amount of ambiguous puffery. When challenged with uncited items or Template:unclear on terms like "reader and reviewer", "has been affiliated", or unclear names of colleges, the author has simply removed the tags on the next edit but not edited most of the claims until later, or removed whole claims, or replaced them with claims quite less impressive than what the original words imply. Appears mainly to be some academic with "high positions" in little organizations but only normal positions in major organizations. "Forthcoming book" seems to be the main reason for this article. --Closeapple (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It appears that this article from the first edit until edit 223838516 was mostly WP:COPYVIO from http://www.apacouncil.org/bio&photo/ms.php as well; parts of the copyvio text remain for quite a while in later versions also. Doesn't that require some sort of admin intervention? --Closeapple (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the copyvio text is still present and ineradicable, it's not a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I find no citations of his work in google scholar. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and no evidence of the extensive coverage in secondary sources required to meet WP:BIO otherwise. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. — MaggotSyn 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heresiarch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable term, heresy allready covers this, and transwiki or merge anything useful, blatant unsourced original research Myheartinchile (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep expands on the dicdef and provides examples of what it is and how it differs from heresy more generally; just a stub but notable and the subject is worthy of a (better) article. JJL (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily sourced. It could be merged with heresy or specifically Christian heresy with which it is most associated, but there are enough key figures who have been tarred with the label to warrant an article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...liiiike?Myheartinchile (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JJL. I see the seeds of a better article within this stub. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, an obviously important historical subject. Everyking (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP meets notability per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Monkey (advertising character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-Notable, Cruft, Wikipedia is not a child's fan-site. Oh, and unknown in South America. And North America, U.S. of A. etc. JeanLatore (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First it appears that Monkey is not from a childrens show, but an advertising mascot like Tony the Tiger. Second it is notable because it is extremely rare for an advertising mascot to jump products...it would be like Mickey Mouse suddenly appearing for Universal Studios. All of the arguments in the first AfD still apply Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (advertising character) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep have you actually looked at the sources which are already in the article, never mind others which no doubt could be included? They included the BBC, the Guardian, Observer and Telegraph. A higher quality of WP:RS you could not get. Sticky Parkin 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And it doesn't matter if something is unknown in other countries- I haven't heard of half the American or other stuff on here, nor have probably most people from the UK on here. What matters is WP:RS. The nominator really needs to look at the grounds for an AfD before making it, what's more he didn't even research enough to find out what the character actually was before nominating it, and was mistaken about its nature entirely, as can be seen in his nominating statement. Sticky Parkin 01:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not British, so I've never heard of this guy, but three BBC articles are more than enough to satisfy WP:V. BradV 01:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep: For all the reasons above and for all the reasons on the original AfD discussion. Even for a deletionist like me, this is a no-brainer. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep seems like a bad-faith nom to me. Jean's been creating a bunch of AfD targets lately. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've been in kind of a funky mood lately -- I haven't smoked weed in almost a week and maybe it's making me ancy...JeanLatore (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you knock off this parade of nonsensical and disruptive behavior. You're just asking to get blocked. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've been in kind of a funky mood lately -- I haven't smoked weed in almost a week and maybe it's making me ancy...JeanLatore (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, nomination with little basis. Cruft does not get written up in major newspapers. Being known in Britain is certainly sufficient for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikola Novak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bump from PROD. Article claims notability; no sources for alleged heavyweight champion status. (Fails WP:BIO if there is no verification of heavyweight championship status, since Mr. Novak appears not to have competed at the highest level as an athlete.). Lastingsmilledge (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Champion of what? "Heavyweight division" could be amongst the mates down at the pub for all we know. There isn't even anything to prove this person exists. "Nikola Novak" kickboxer -wikipedia gets a grand total of 3 hits even remotely relevant. DarkAudit (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I recognize your concern. I was just assuming good faith on the part of the article's creator. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I did a search on MSN and found nothing relevant. Doesn't appear to pass WP:N. Giants2008 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources can be found, if hes the champ. lets assume good faith.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Sources like what? The search I did resulted in just a name on a list in a language I don't speak or read, a table of names with little to no context, and what looks to be a sports result in a language I don't speak or read. From what little I could gather from those hits, nowhere in those hits does it say he's a champion. A claim of champion must be proven with reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. Good faith does not trump proof. DarkAudit (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, consensus is that is a valid verifiable and notable article. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Extreme martial arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sole reference seems to be somebody's blog site. In Japanese. Orphaned. Is this real? Jenny 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I searched Google and found a website about it. It looks notable. You should check it out. Here [41] is the link. --Vh
oscythechatter 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - I have heard about this for quite a while, I also saw some performances on YouTube. The idea is funny (it is not really a martial art, but an acrobatics show with the moves mimmicking fancy kicks and hits, the stranger, the better), but the phenomenon does exist. Pundit|utter 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article needs work but subject is notable. JJL (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We've had this article for two years now and still it doesn't contain a single reliable source. Even during this discussion, nobody suggesting "keep" has added a reliable source to the article, and it remains unverified. --Jenny 06:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - A stub at the moment, but XMA crops up all over. Displays were done as the Seni show over the last few years. I'll see if I can pull up some source on competitions, for notability. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. Try a search for XMA on youtube to see how common it is.
- Keep - satisfies WP:N and WP:V - though the article is a stub and needs work. I was not familiar with this topic prior to reviewing it for the AfD, but Google found that XMA was the subject of a Discovery channel documentary showing the use of the Motion Analysis Studios technology to analyze the movements of the martial art. That establishes notability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know of the documentary, which has a title like that of this article. However the blurb on imdb does not seem to refer to a school of martial arts, rather to martial arts in general. The existence of such a school, and the suggestion that the school was the subject of the documentary, is therefore in doubt. --Jenny 09:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that the documentary does refer to the same style of martial arts as this article. (I don't think it's a formal "school", rather it appears to be an informal combination of martial arts and athletic disciplines). The featured martial artist in the documentary is Michael Chaturantabut, who is named in the article as the founder of this form of martial arts. Google shows examples of tournaments [42] for this form or its inclusion in local Tae Kwan Do tournaments [43]; and that there are at least some local schools for this form [44] [45]. (Those links are not intended as RS for the article, just examples that the term is in common use to describe a style of martial arts). I did some more Googling and found that XMA is listed in The Complete Guide to American Karate & Tae Kwon Do (co-authored by Chuck Norris); the description in the book matches the description in the article, so I added the reference.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know of the documentary, which has a title like that of this article. However the blurb on imdb does not seem to refer to a school of martial arts, rather to martial arts in general. The existence of such a school, and the suggestion that the school was the subject of the documentary, is therefore in doubt. --Jenny 09:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Help Is Coming (T.I. song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails to meet WP:MUSIC#Songs. This song is not a notable song, nor a single. Therefore doesn't need an article. SE KinG (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:COPYVIO for printing the lyrics. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable album track. Fails WP:MUSIC. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.