Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 11 October 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Harvest Seafood

edit
Alaskan Harvest Seafood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable company; has not received multiple non trivial mentions. The only reliable source that I could find on this topic ([1]) costs 15$ to view. Icewedge (talk) 23:43, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory (Tupac Shakur)

edit
Conspiracy Theory (Tupac Shakur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely Original Research and theory. Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:46, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CYSTHS

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

Unreleased software with no indication of whether it has been adopted by any users and no other indication of notability. Unreferenced. Bongomatic (talk) 22:46, 12 October 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 moot. Another editor has boldly redirected, which is the concensus so far. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Lights (train)

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

Duplicated by Northern Lights (passenger train) which is more detailed and up to date TFoxton (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already is a redirect! Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 13 October 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 Freedom (Akon album). Nothing was sourced in the article so history deleted and redirected. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Paid

edit
AfDs for this article:
I'm So Paid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, no chart details, no proof this is a single — Realist2 22:30, 12 October 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. ffm 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotring Racer

edit
Hotring Racer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Infernus (car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) nomination extended by AmaltheaTalk 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NN individual car from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, has absolutely no out of universe significance, and anything pertinent is/ can be covered in the main article. I originally boldly redirected this to Grand Theft Auto Series, but this was rolled back by the original author. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make if an article has little significance since there is no paper limit on an online encyclopedia? If someone wanted to look up hotring racer, might there as well not be an article about it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply While WP:NOT#PAPER could apply here, an article must still meet certain real world notability requirements which is established through multiple, independent, non trivial sources. This article cites no sources, and seems to be comprised primarily of original research (I couldn't find anything on google). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:00, 13 October 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srixon

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

Promotional nature. I don't see any awards or newsworthy items. They do have some sponsorship deals, but that does not seem notable to me. There are several sections which list the types of products. I don't see this as article-worthy. The only external link is to the company site. Clubmarx (talk) 22:15, 12 October 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 and tagged for speedy deletion instead. --AmaltheaTalk 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playground (Lindsay Lohan song)

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

Single of upcoming Lindsay Lohan album. Not enough verifiable material to warrant an article, no significant coverage, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Attempt to redirect was declined. AmaltheaTalk 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a recreation which is why I'll immediately tag it as such. Sorry for the noise. :| --AmaltheaTalk 22:15, 12 October 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. ffm 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downhere - Independent (album)

edit
Downhere - Independent (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Unreffed 2 yo article. 0 gnews hits [9], the few ghits appear to be either incidental or wp mirrors, and it's not even on Amazon [10]. No release or label info in article, so I'm not even convinced the album exists at this point. Fails WP:N, WP:V, Horrorshowj (talk) 22:08, 12 October 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 G3 by Orangemike, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee miscarriage

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

This is most definitely a hoax, since Google searches turn up absolutely nothing related to the content of this article. TML (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On second thought, WP:NOT really doesn't come into play here. If it was a drink some college kid just invented, then it would be applicable. Because it was supposedly invented some 150 years ago, the nominator's assertion of "hoax" is more accurate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:25, 12 October 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby

edit
Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local organization. Doesn't pass WP:N or WP:CORP. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. The article is minimalist and extremely local. I'm glad to see it being talked about and glad to see that I might be wrong, but at the moment the only source in it is self-promotional and it still reads like it's a mom-and-pop endeavor. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, but the simplest Google search could prove that it is not, and is in fact, one of our most major LGBT lobby groups? The fact that an article is "minimalist" is grounds to expand it or ask someone else to, not to try to delete it (and in your case, amazingly, try to speedy it). Rebecca (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh - but the simplest Google search shows almost all references to the group coming from Victoria, which is exactly why I nominated the article in the first place! It's a local group. Using your analogy, imagine if HRC only had references in news sources from Washington DC? Furthermore, I *could* nom the article on the grounds that fully one-third of it is copied verbatim from the VGLRL website. And if any other editor had spent five minutes putting a couple references in there from multiple, reliable, third party sources (which no one did), this AfD could have been closed speedily without the mud-slinging. I'm sorry you disagree with my nominating it, but I'm worried that the org *is* just local - could you add a ref from a paper or source that isn't in Australia? (BTW, I prodded the article, not speedied it. Prodding is a chance for any editor to address the concerns raised before the article gets taken to Afd.) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major activist organisation within a state with a bigger population than some European countries, and which has national media profile. Passes WP:N on that basis—normally we require only two independent sources writing about the subject. Orderinchaos 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As above: notable It certainly does have a media profile [11] and is the top level organisation for over 5 million people.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as A7 (web): Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance by 8 Orangemike. Non-admin closure. --AmaltheaTalk 02:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engrish (website)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable website. None of the sources gives more than a trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... and most of the sources are blogs, in particular the one at the NY Times.
    Delete. The website alone is A7 speediable since the article doesn't even assert notability of the page, and it clearly fails the notability guideline for websites, lacking the "historical significance" needed. The content that is sourced by reliable sources is marginal: "numerous scholars have devoted their studies to it" and "Japanese put English words onto almost anything that can have print on it". Hmm. Nothing to merge, as I see it. --AmaltheaTalk 23:54, 12 October 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 G3 by Tanthalas39, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novak Dobrosavljević

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

No indications that this individual is notable, there are no sources verifiying the content and I would say sections of this article is nonsense or incomprehensible. Borderline speedy candidate. JForget 21:58, 12 October 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. ffm 17:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Lancaster

edit
John W. Lancaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no sources found. Only claims are that he's married to Rachel Proctor and that he played for a few notable artists. Notability is not inherited. (On top of that, I hate when people don't fill out the "background" field in {{Infobox Musical artist}}.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:54, 12 October 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.. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Stevens (politician)

edit
Thomas Stevens (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This individual appears to be totally non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Anyone can run for President. this fellow is on the ballot in only two states and there is no clear evidence of his notability. In lieu of significant third party coverage, subject does not appear to be notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few sources On ballot in Colorado and Florida. (several sources for that)
[12] hes being parodied.
[13] This same article was picked up by several TV stations, btw.
[14] Also in the Party article
And a whole host of marginal stuff. What it boils down to is this: Is getting on the ballot in two states notable? I say yes, and this fact is verified by reliable sources, and is even stated in the Wikipedia article on the Objectivist Party. Everything else is just tagged and fixed. Deletion policy cover if the notability CAN BE verified, not IF it is verified. Put a {{FACT}} tag on the 200 interviews (likely local radio) or change to "the party claims he has been on 200 shows" to be more accurate. Or delete that sentence. Or take to that talk page. The question HERE is: Is he notable? On this, he passes if for no other reason than he is on the ballot of two states. That his party is small isn't the criteria. I am confident the nom is in good faith, I just think you may have set the bar way too high. Wikipedia isn't paper, and getting on two ballots isn't trivial. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:28, 12 October 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 Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mitchell

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

Notable only for being in a marginally notable band, no sources found. Note that there is a football player with this same name, so if this is deleted, I would like the football player's page (Alex Mitchell (American football player) moved to this title and Alex Mitchell (disambiguation) deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added: There is also an electric violinist named Alex Mitchell worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 21:25, 12 October 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. ffm 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passion Pit (band)

edit
Passion Pit (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources. Oren0 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Author of this page: This page has been deleted before (it was previously created by a person other than myself). You say it has no significance. This is a band that has released an album, won an award, opened up for a very popular band, and this has appeared on AOL's Spinner. Why doesn't any of this have significance to you? Isnt this enough to have a Wikipedia page?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanmileus (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read The criteria and make a case for one of the items. It's not so much about significance but being notable by virtue of this link. Thanks. XF Law talk at me 00:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (just a notice to comment written by Evanmileus) we don't own articles on wikipedia so next time it would be better to write : "Article Creator" not author. Alexnia (T) @ 09:55, 14 October 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.


Passion Pit Meets the following Criteria, of which wikipedia claims only one must be met.

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1] 

   * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2] except for the following:
         o Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
         o Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
         o An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Passion Pit has been the subject of articles in The New York Times, The Metro, the Boston Globe, And The Boston Phoenix.

  1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

Passion Pit peaked at #38 on the CMJ Top 200 chart, and also charted on their singles charts.

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Passion Pit has released an album Via French Kiss Records, home to notable artists The Hold Steady, Les Savy Fav, and The Dodos

has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Passion Pit was named the Best New Artist in a Boston Phoenix Readers poll. Since this is compiled by reader votes and not the editorial staff, this demonstrates notability in the Boston Music Scene.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)

Passion Pit performed a Session for AOL Spinner, and was the subject of an MTV Feature on the 2008 CMJ Music Marathon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.108.82 (talk) 19:33, 27 October 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 Redirected by author. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen James

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

Biography of a non-notable person per WP:BIO and WP:N. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Previous CSD and PROD. ninety:one 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note user has COI (edit summary) ninety:one 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User has redirected to Kelly James - what happens now? Is the AfD over? ninety:one 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Both author and deletion nominator were apparent Grawp socks. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So cash

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

Does not appear to match the notability guidelines. Skullsplitter Viking (talk) 20:33, 12 October 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 (G3) by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borkastani

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

Sounds like a dictionary definition for a neologism with grain of original research.VG ☎ 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#G1 (as currently tagged) does not cover hoaxes, which this word eminently is. VG ☎ 20:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article is critical of the survival of wikipedia. No one will no what borking is without this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.30.195 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if this article is deleted, i will lose all faith in wikipedia, and will declare them the biggest borkistanis around. people need to be taught the ways of the borks and the borkistanis who keep the tradition alive!

signed, a borkistani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.94.40 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the db tag to g3 which covers obvious hoaxes. Borkastani gets 2 google hits, but with a different meaning. VG ☎ 20:45, 12 October 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 with extra salt ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin cruz

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

Actually the third nomination as the article has been deleted twice before. See [27] This new article has not improved on these earlier efforts. Notability not established. Suggest Speedy delete and salting Jack1956 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 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. ffm 17:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRADO

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

I cannot find reliable, third-party source to establish notability for this web app framework, and the threshold is usually low, given that publishers (like Packt) love to rush books on web stuff to the market. VG ☎ 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Qiangxue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Some PHP frameworks are more notable than others. E.g. CakePHP has a book written about it [28]. VG ☎ 23:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is a book more notable than 10000 hits on the web? I don't think so. And most of the PHP frameworks on Wikipedia don't have books about them. Ekerazha (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, the book means the subject covered in the book is a lot closer to meeting the policies and guidelines for inclusion. Simply having a bunch of hits is does not establish notability. 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) In reply to your question: on Wikipedia, yes. See: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. Also, for entertainment purposes only, CakePHP has millions of ghits, so the number of books about a software products seems to (massively) correlate with ghits anyway. WRT, to your second point, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and feel free to nominate them for deletion. I've come here from another PHP framework that was nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yii_Framework. VG ☎ 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course 700.000 hits are more notable than 70.000 hits, but 70.000 hits are more notable than 7 hits. Nobody said the limit for notability was "100.000" hits or "1 million hits" (for entertainment purposes only, CakePHP doesn't have millions of hits on Google). 70.000 hits (with articles, comparatives etc.) seem like a good level of notability to me, but this is what we are discussing about. About the "second point", take for example KohanaPHP (but there are many others); I'll propose them for deletion ASAP. Ekerazha (talk) 07:56, 16 October 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. ffm 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Scriptures

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

A lot of unsourced information, WP:CRYSTAL for both lists of songs that can appear on the album. Recreate possible album when further information is revealed. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 19:29, 12 October 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. ffm 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Leather Wings (Batman The Animated Series Episode)

edit
On Leather Wings (Batman The Animated Series Episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an episode article consisting purely of plot summary redundant to the main episode list. It doesn't establish any sort of notability (the first production note is trivial and the other is from an unreliable source). TTN (talk) 19:25, 12 October 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. ffm 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geves

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

Delete Yet another article about a non-notable piece of software. Likely written by the developer of said software (note that the original editor has only Geve-related edits). WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTE, WP:COI, etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:13, 12 October 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. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circumpolar religion, Circumpolar mythology

edit
Circumpolar mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Circumpolar religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced essays of dubious credibility, in this state tagged for 2 years now. `'Míkka>t 19:10, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IFamilyforTiger

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

Delete Article about a non-notable piece of software. WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTE, possibly WP:COI, etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:09, 12 October 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. ffm 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dramadigit

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

Nonnotable someone's neologism. No evidence of active usage. The article of the same author and quality as the one discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Num. `'Míkka>t 16:14, 11 October 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 to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody novels

edit
List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources. Being based on a popular TV series doesn't make it notable, because notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 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 is customary, the recommendations of very new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genbox Family History

edit
Genbox Family History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Article about a non-notable piece of software, written by the developer (User:Bill Flight) of said software. WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTE, WP:COI, etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but your personal opinion of the software isn't really a valid reason to keep the article. Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically WP:ILIKEIT. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable piece of software. MvjsTalking 06:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The genre of genealogical software is probably not well known among those who think they're knowledgeable about software, but there are many genealogical programs available. Most have Wikipedia articles. See: Comparison of genealogy software. Genbox Family History is, in fact, one of the better known genealogical programs available. Deletion of the Genbox article is inappropriate, although an improvement tag may be warranted. The article deserves an opportunity to be improved. 12.76.134.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
If it is "one of the better known" then you should be able to provide citeable sources to prove that. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This software has been reviewed by all the major genealogical publications-- Family Tree Magazine, Genealogical Computing, Family Chronicle, Eastman's Genealogy Newsletter, Association of Professional Genealogists Quarterly, and more. Just because you can't find these reviews in a 5-second Google search doesn't mean that the software isn't notable. Despite the fact that the article was written by the programmer, it is neutral. It is a stub at this point, and could be expanded upon, but there is no reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.161 (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all these reviews exist then please provide links. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already stated-- They're in magazines (remember those things?), not online. If the magazines published their content online, they'd have no paying subscriptions. Looks like Alistair McMillan already has his mind made up to delete, despite notability evidence.69.120.182.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Did you read the reviews you linked? The review on Top Ten Reviews starts with: "Genbox Family History disappoints with its outdated layout and features." and ends with: "It is an outdated program without the user-friendly layout, online search integration and publishing options of our top ranked software." That doesn't really help prove it's notability. You can find reviews online for pretty much every piece of software out there (especially when you have sites like toptenreviews.com around), do any of these prove this piece of software is notable though? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I did read them. I included toptenreviews to show that it is, in fact, one of the "better known" products within the field.
If you take the time to read all the reviews as well as some of competing packages, you would find that genbox offers report and charting features that are well regarded. (So much so that some users buy it solely for that, using other programs for the main genealogy work) - hence my reference to its niche in the market. One example, from familtytree magazine:

"Genbox produces an impressive range of reports and charts. Nicely formatted family group sheets and pedigree charts show key information at a glance. Plus, pedigree charts include source documentation, a feature found in few other genealogy programs." ... This program creates great narrative reports, whether you want a short history of your family or a whole book. And you can customize the wording so the sentences sound more natural. Ancestor and descendant reports contain source documentation, a bibliography and an index (including place names). Genbox also boasts an outline-style descendant report, a calendar with birthdays and several lists. You can save charts as graphic files, and text reports as word processing documents or in HTML for publishing on the Web. With many genealogy programs, you have to buy a separate add-on program to creat attractive graphical charts. But superior charting is built into Genbox. Your choices include the standard ancestor and descendant charts, ancestor ring charts, fan charts and timelines. The convergent chart shows all the lineage paths between two or more people, so you can see how many ways they're related. All of Genbox's charts are customizable, with your choice of fonts, borders and colors. In fact, Genbox offers and almost over-whelming array of options. It's nice to have control over so many details, but most users probably would prefer a simply style menu. The myriad settings for customizing reports should be moved to a more discreet location, available to intrepid users who like to tinker. "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwb1055 (talk • contribs) 03:53, October 17, 2008
Sorry, I don't use genealogy software. I have no idea whether the reporting and charting features make it good or not. My only concern here is that developers use Wikipedia as a billboard for their software, as Bill has done here. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to understand about Wikipedia is that "notability" is a technical term.
Basically, Wikipedia is looking for multiple non-trivial reliable sources to back up just about everything you write.
What exactly a "reliable" source is, is subject to much debate, but printed newspapers and magazines (and the web counterparts) are viewed as much more reliable than weblogs or self-published things.
If Genbox has ever been reviewed in a magazine you can use that to source information in the article on Wikipedia. Any publication would be good, anywhere in the world -- it's not good enough to just write things you know to be true. That's going to get labeled "original research".
If you're going to add your vote to the Articles for Deletion page, keep this in mind:
* it's actually not a vote: there may be twenty "keep" votes from people on this mailing list and the article may still be deleted
* your voice is going to count for much more if you have an active Wikipedia account
* don't say "I just know this to be true", back it up with sources
* you can edit the main article while it is under discussion -- feel free to do so, but again: no original research, and source the information
* don't get emotional :)
I saw Kathy's (well-meaning) mail and Cheri's (well-meaning) reply, and having been a Genbox and Wikipedia user/contributor for about the same time (5 or so years) I thought I'd chime in to try and check any WP:CANVAS shenanigans. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the notice on the Genbox list, and it certainly didn't constitute shenanigans, by any stretch of the imagination. It was well within the WP:CANVAS#Friendly notices parameters-- a simple notice of the deletion discussion and where to express an opinion. No responses in this discussion have been the least bit emotional. In fact, all have said pretty much the same thing: Genbox is well known in the genealogical community, as evidenced by multiple reviews in widely read genealogical periodicals. Counting all the ones referenced above, there are at least 10 published reviews of Genbox. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is.12.76.152.25 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 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. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock N Roll Jesus (Kid Rock song)

edit
Rock N Roll Jesus (Kid Rock song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just-released single, no sources. I doubt that Kid Rock would release two songs at the same time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think that it shouldn't be deleted because [basically] every song released by an artist has a spot on Wikipedia.Degrassi. 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? This hasn't charted yet and there are no sources. Your argument smacks of "other stuff exists". Notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:57, 12 October 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 as a copyright violation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.V. (Batman: The Animated Series)

edit
P.O.V. (Batman: The Animated Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a paragraph of trivial production details of a television episode. They also come from a forum post (though attributed to a magazine), so they may just be original research. TTN (talk) 18:43, 12 October 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. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Gilman

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

Resume like. No particular notability is asserted. It lists his hobbies and familiy description. Clubmarx (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Disclosure: I am the primary writer for the Don Gilman entry. Don is very well known in the simulation community for keeping alive the Harpoon simulation following the financial collapse of Three-Sixty. In addition, he has moved the simulation to a new level, with professional military organizations, such as the Australian Department of Defense and United States Naval Institute, using it as a training aid for military professionals. Perhaps if I stressed the simulation's professional aspect more, the article would be more acceptable?

Kip Allen (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Kip Allen[reply]

Delete He might be well known in the simulation community, but the policies that dicatate inclusion at Wikipedia are about notability, and verification using reliable sources. You would do good to read these policies, then you don't have to guess if the article passes or not. It isn't personal, it is about everyone to be included being held to the same three basic standards. As it stands now, the piece is compromised with wp:peacock terms and is a bit fluffy. I fail to see a bonified claim of notability, although it is likely short of a speedy delete under A7. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:21, 13 October 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the Gray Ghost

edit
Beware the Gray Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a single television episode that does not establish any sort of notability. It is just a repetition of the plot summary already found within the main article, and a collection of unnecessary trivia. TTN (talk) 18:38, 12 October 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. notability not shown, and serious copyvio concerns to boot Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy of Doom

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

This is a single episode that does not establish itself with reliable sources. It is just an unnecessary repetition of plot already found in the main episode list. TTN (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improve how? the problem is lack of notability. Editors cannot just invent sources that don't exist.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pelton Sibley

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

Non-notable academic; fails to meet the general criteria in WP:N or those specific guidelines in WP:PROF. The article has a number of references, however these are not reliable sources for notability. The obituary in the N Y Times is not accessible on the web, however simply being given an obituary does not establish notability. Springnuts (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the source being available it is hard to say it is evidence of WP:N - the article quotes "become known as a specialist in American fiction" which is way short of the WP:PROF standards. Springnuts (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT obit article is available on the web [33] and is 661 words, but one has to pay for it. If all, or a sizable part of it is devoted to Sibley, then I think this is an easy keep, as with other people with similar substantial NYT obits. Mount Holyoke gives a Robert P. Sibley prize to students.John Z (talk) 22:53, 12 October 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. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rasketball

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

This does not appear to be a notable sport. It was prodded, but an IP editor removed the prod tag as well as a notability tag (the latter of which I had added). Aleta Sing 18:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, I appreciate your comments. Maybe when the sport has grown some more and it is easier to find references, I will re-post it. --Polishphysicist (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.23.224.17 (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sport is not a hoax, but there are no known documented sources. The sport is growing in popularity still and someday will likely have numerous sources for reference. I am not a creator of the sport, but have played it. I am new to Wikipedia though and was unfamiliar with its guidelines regarding page creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polishphysicist (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: Polishphysicist was the original creator of the article. Aleta Sing 22:15, 16 October 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Free

edit
Alexis Free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Everything's Alright (Alexis Free album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Probable WP:HOAX. One single of hers, "Get Back", allegedly charted as #1 for eight weeks on an unspecified chart, but I find no proof of that. Only film of her Filmography that I found at the imdb is The Simpsons Movie, but she isn't credited there.
She in any case fails WP:BIO, google news doesn't find any significant coverage, which it should for a 19 year old notable actress and singer from Canada. AmaltheaTalk 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article was created by a sockpuppet of Zacharyy (talk · contribs). --AmaltheaTalk 17:52, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 03:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Dog

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

Does not give enough proof of notability Keep: Has improved enough tht I think the deletion is unwarranted. Kickstart70-T-C 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - without proofing notability it's just an advertise. Maybe this place is specific, but article currently does not confirm it. || After adding sources it's ok. I withdraw my vote. Andrew18 @ 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it unequivocally passes WP:N, as it is the primary subject of multiple, independent sources. And though it did gain some fame from the Clinton connection, the sources focus on many other aspects of the business. These articles [34] [35] only briefly mention Clinton. Zagalejo^^^ 02:42, 15 October 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. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing presidential election, 1998

edit
The West Wing presidential election, 1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is unlikely the article ever can, as no secondary sources are likely to be found as this election took place before the start of The West Wing series. Current references are West Wing episodes. Article is also marked as containing suspected original research. Million_Moments (talk) 17:05, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron Grumblings

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

Self referenced article. Flagged for notability but no substantial third party references forthcoming. Googling only produces one page of results. Anon IPs removing notability tags. Suspect COI. Mfield (talk) 17:01, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin's Oasis Dinner Show

edit
AfDs for this article:
Aladdin's Oasis Dinner Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear notable enough for WP:CORP Kickstart70-T-C 16:44, 12 October 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 article fails to show that there is an agreed on meaning for the term, or that the particular definition espoused therein is notable, or indeed verifiable. The sources in the article appear to fail WP:RS. While the nominator withdrew, there were other good-faith !votes. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omniarchy

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

This article purports to be explaining an existing concept that might be comparable to anarchy, democracy, etc., but from the author's comment at User talk:Shicoco, "Omniarchy is a project of Freehold Technologies, a not-for-profit foundation, and the source for the Omniarchy article is their website. There is no possibility of non-neutrality, because the article is simply a description of their way of life, with no approval nor disapproval stated nor implied." So this is some organization's name for a philosophy they espouse, which means pertinent notability considerations apply, and I'm not sure this is notable, even after running a Google search and finding a very few, heavily replicated, hits that provide no more than a dictionary definition. Also, the author seems to be taking an ownership stance regarding this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my insufficient research. I took the editor's own stance to mean that he had written the article in question. I withdraw my nomination without prejudice; it may well need to go to Wiktionary anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The nomination is factually incorrect and possibly a red flag. The article in question was created not by RipplingBeast (talk · contribs) who made the quoted comment and tried to introduce a 17k original research essay, but by EVCM (talk · contribs). If I replaced the George W. Bush article with a little essay of my own, that would not be grounds to delete the article, as the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion. The article should be judged on the merits of the topic, not on the merits of its contributors. Please refactor the nomination. the skomorokh 16:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional delete for my part, as I cannot find enough significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources to verify a basic introduction to the topic. I am happy to retract this !vote if acceptable sources are forthcoming. the skomorokh 16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems like a situation to transwiki to en.wiktionary. The Aldrich dicdef is solid enough, but past that I don't see reliable sources that demonstrate enough cultural notability for an encyclopedia article. The Alex Peak essay seems self-published—is that a correct assertion? This term only seems important as a sort of straw man for comparison with anarchy, so it can be said that "what you're afraid of is omniarchy, not friendly ol' anarchy". But it seems to have no wider cultural notability. Darkspots (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (editor has changed their mind, see below - the skomorokh 22:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)) I believe this article should be merged with anarchy. As said above, there are not enough sources for a basic introduction to the topic. So, if everyone else agrees, a small section in the anarchy article can be created for omniarchy, and omniarchy can be redirected. The anarchy article already says something about omniarchy. Shicoco (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I searched, but couldn't find any sources that I could use to support the notion that it's a notable topic; so unless someone comes up with something, I'd conclude it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Herring. The article that started this discussion has been edited out, so that comments here are mainly about a different article. That article, prior to the edits that started this discussion, violates several policies, so I stand for its removal. The edits that started this discussion need reviewed before rational comment can be given. I will revert this page to include those edits so that editors can weigh in on the real matter under discussion, rather than this red herring. RipplingBeast (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are my posts in this discussion being deleted? End this practice. Now.
    It is not copied from a webpage, it is properly excerpted and re-written to be an encyclopedia article on a method of governance, to expand the entry by a sockpuppet (which was repeatedly endorced by this crowd) and is not in any way original research. The "thing" exists, the entry is factual, and cited. RipplingBeast (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All three of your comments are still here, no one has removed anything, please check the page history. Also, please read our guideline on WP:reliable sources to find out why this website isn't one, and why it can't be a source for any facts in an encyclopaedia.
      Also note that if your are not Joshua Daniels then this is a very clear copyright violation: large parts from the text of that website have been copy&pasted, e.g. the paragraph beginning with "All Freeholders have a seat on the High Council". --AmaltheaTalk 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is definitely no significant coverage of that concept, and I can't extract a clear definitions from the book sources: There's "Fourier's harmonial omniarchy", "Hegelian omniarchy" (Hegel?), and the one in the Aldrich book. The latter only says "omniarchy: all things; universal rule" by the way, the rest of the definition in our article seems to be OR, too (and I won't even mention the bit about the Joker).
    Not enough verifiable material to transwiki, not enough to merge, and certainly not enough to keep an article about it. --AmaltheaTalk 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Original research, if one cares to dignify it as such. . It is "a factual description of a method for government" documented only from their own website, and noticed nowhere else. It is highly structured, and not anarchy, and it wouldn't be of sufficient note to be included in that article anyway. DGG (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have looked up omniarchy on dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, as well as Merriem-Webster Online; omniarchy does not appear in any, and it is therefore my conclusion that it is merely a made-up word. Here is an excerpt from what Wikipedia is not regarding made up terms: ...it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. A mere 2,140 results is fetched by Google on this term, and there are no reliable resources on this at all. This article meets all criteria for deletion, therefore, I am changing my vote to delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shicoco (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 October 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. ffm 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Titzer

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

I declined the speedy A7 tag because there seems to be an assertion of notability in here. But I don't see enough to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems promotional with 'fascinating' and 'captivating' research. Clubmarx (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as copyvio In checking ghits, it seems though the present article is a copyvio of abc-chicago, and presumably the same potted publicity bio at many of the other places on the net as well. Even if not, it was a possible G11--promotional, with no real factual base to construct an article. I doubt an article on him would qualify even if someone were to rewrite it, as the books are essentially self-published by his own company. DGG (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete two publications listed in ISI WoK, citations 14 and 1. Lots of Peacock, but fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:23, 15 October 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.

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure).-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaki Saitō

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

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. A prod last year was removed. Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article's version when I nominated it and there is a tag there for 15 months. I don't think this is an obvious keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did check, and that's how I saw it listed Saito as "Japan's leading hikkikomori psychiatrist". Did you see that? --C S (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see a text about hikkikomori referring to the name of Tamaki Saito in a single line calling him leading psychiatrist and information I couldn't cross-reference from somewhere else. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand what you're trying to say, but that is indeed an obvious keep, even if you don't know that. I would advise learning more about notability guidelines before more AFD nominations. --C S (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think article establishes notability? This is not what many editors who probably checked the article since June 2007 till now. The text on the notability text says: This article has to be deleted, merged or redirected or the tag has to be removed. A characterization in a BBC article without any more details is enough for you? Remember that we are dealing with a biography of a living person so we have to be very careful with verifiability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the BBC article more than enough established notability, and the article does enough to explain it. Plus we have the New York Times article that says so as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe with the NYT article added we are OK but I would like to keep debating about the "obvious keep". A single reference doesn't establish notability. I'll give you an example: BBC reported that Corfu wants autonomy. I am from Corfu and I'll tell you something: This is a BIG LIE. The Greek government tried to contact BBC for that. The guy interview in this article was complete unknown to Corfu until that and mainly of Greece's reactions. Conclusion: A single reference, not even about the person discussed, without being double-checked from secondary sources doesn't establish notability. Maybe BBC wrote that out guy here is "a leading doctor" because the person claimed that to the reporter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the press is, while reliable, not infallible. I know Joey Skaggs has a habit of getting the press that way. Usually I treat a reference as okay until I find evidence to the contrary (I.E. a correction report) - Anyway, I concede that I should rely on multiple references; it is good that we have them in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 14 October 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 to Just Shoot Me!. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Finch

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:05, 12 October 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. ffm 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asit Jain

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

Nonnotable - nothing in the article to assert notability. —G716 <T·C> 16:04, 12 October 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. ffm 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Roysten Merchant

edit
Sir Roysten Merchant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:03, 12 October 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. ffm 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen Suborbitals

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

Company seems to fail WP:CORP. VG ☎ 16:02, 12 October 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. ffm 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Goswami

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

Nonnotable - this article has been speedily deleted five times —G716 <T·C> 15:56, 12 October 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. ffm 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Clayton

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:55, 12 October 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. ffm 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Tyrell

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:52, 12 October 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. ffm 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Bully

edit
List of characters in Bully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of characters only appearing in a single video game. The plot and character sections in the main article are able to cover them in enough detail to establish their roles. The only real content in this list is unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:46, 12 October 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Bulldogs Program

edit
Yale Bulldogs Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unclear that this is notable outside of the Yale community or compared with similar programs at other universities. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there. Just saying we do not require subjects to more notable than their contemporaries, as if we only kept the top x% notables within topics. Wikipedia is not a who's who or what's what guide. We just require subjects to pass notability. Even the least notable subject within a topic is retained if it meets our notability criteria. We don't say "sure it has received plenty of press, but it is not any more notable than most of the rest of them". That's fallacious logic. It is actually possible for all similar programs to be notable, like US Presidents, etc. That was my only point. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:28, 16 October 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama

edit
List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial intersection. None of these songs have anything in common besides having "Birmingham" in the title. The list is unsourced. (For instance, how do we know that Tracy Lawrence isn't singing about painting a Birmingham, Michigan or a Birmingham, UK?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In many ways I agree with you, and uncited entries should be deleted. However, it takes little effort to determine whether the artist has intended, and announced that intention, for the song to be about Birmingham Alabama. If there is no announcement of intention, of course that entry doesn't belong. In other words, the same rules for fact inclusion and citations apply here as they do on every Wikipedia page. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for SALAT, how does this list show any interest to anyone besides the creator? People sing about towns all the time, do we really need a list of every song that makes a mention of a certain town? I think that most of those other lists should probably go as well, but I'll look at them individually. Furthermore, is the Tracy Lawrence example really about Birmingham, when it's really about a man asking someone to paint him a picture? There's no real criterion for inclusion here either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"People sing about towns all the time, do we really need a list of every song that makes a mention of a certain town?" So are you proposing to delete List of songs about Boston, List of songs about London, List of songs about New York City, List of songs about Manchester, List of songs about Melbourne, and List of songs about New Orleans? Why'd you just pick Birmingham, Alabama? We66er (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was the first one I noticed. Since the lists are of varying quality, I felt that it wouldn't be a good idea to do a bundle afd, and instead I chose to list one first to see what others thought. And yes, I might indeed list some of those as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article and others like it are useful. There are lots of lists of songs about X (not just cities) on Wikipedia and the argument for deletion presented above does not single this list out from the rest. I don't think there is a problem with criteria for inclusion for these lists, as long as sources are cited for questionable songs. Amazinglarry (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that We666er's argument is sound. Perhaps more discussion about the "system of lists" referred to in SALAT would lead to a more specific policy about this type of list. --Dystopos (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC items 1-4 and 10. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, WP:LC is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. It's perfectly valid to refer to its arguments in making your own, but those arguments aren't representative of previously-established consensus. --Dystopos (talk) 16:37, 15 October 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. Mr.Z-man 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Tybel

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

The article makes some strong claims about a model, but neither the token references provided or my own searching can substantiate them. He does appear to exist, and does appear to be a model, but I'm not sure he's at the level claimed in the article. Verifiability and consequent notability issues. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:37, 12 October 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. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Chey

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

Procedural nomination following deletion review. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 7 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Chey. Note left at DRV. No opinion from me. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per references in the article and presented in the previous AfD and DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I nominated Tim Chey for deletion (the first AFD) because he does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. A Google news search does indeed bring up articles, but they are almost all mere passing mentions or simply credits as a director. Others are reviews of his films and not substantially about Chey. One article is an interview with Chey, but it is a UCLA alumni website, so fails WP:RS. There simply isn't significant coverage of Chey, and the sources mentioned at the end of the first AFD do nothing to address that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reviews of the subject's films are articles about his work, which is what makes him notable, rather than his shoe size or favourite colour. For all sorts of people such as politicians, business people, academics, sportspeople, rock stars etc. we accept articles about their work as establishing notability, so why not for film directors? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While what you say makes some sense, it doesn't appear to be the rule commonly applied to the notability of directors. If a director's films are remarkable in some way, there will be coverage of the director separate from film reviews, just as there is for politicians, musicians, sportspeople, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Perhaps not "equate", but they are definitely related, and acknowledged by bullet point 3 in WP:CREATIVE. A director plays a major role in the creation of a film. So if the film is a notable film, then he has played a major role in its creation. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed the relevant part of that bullet point: "...which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". That's exactly what is missing in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 16 October 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. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yin (character)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 18:07, 16 October 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 Yin-Yang-Yo!. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yang (character)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:14, 16 October 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. ffm 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tissefant

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

Unsourced article making dubious claims that a vulgar word in Norwegian "someone has claimed" is a place in Norway. Search finds nothing to confirm exsistance. Probably a hoax. Arsenikk (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's essentially two claims here... I don't know Nerwegian, but some online translators give tisse=pee, so the vulgar usage may well be true, but is deletable per WP:DICDEF. The editor who created this article has no other edits. The claim about the worlds smallest bench was introduced by an IP and originally claimed that the bench is made of spaghetti[36]. The article on no-wiki (no:Sarpsborg) does not mention Tissefant, and google does not find any information about Tissefant+Sarpsborg (though I'm struggling with Norwegian text). Not verifiable. – Sadalmelik ☎ 09:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as nominator not requesting deletion. (Non-admin closure) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian-Maltese relations

edit
Italian-Maltese relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably non-notable, though I'm not sure about the deletion. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per nomination. If you're not sure, you shouldn't nominate it. As for the topic, the existence of embassies in one or both countries is prima facie evidence that these two countries interact in a non-trivial way (that or their diplomats are getting paid to do nothing—if so this would equally be worthy of mention). — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 12 October 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. ffm 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiente

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

Seems like a non-notable internet magazine. A brief search finds nothing to meet our notability policies at WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:50, 12 October 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. ffm 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Donoghue

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

This article has been tagged for having no sources since October 2006. There is no evidence of this person's existence outside this article and its claims for his notability are limited. Note there was a previous AfD for a different John Donoghue, which led to a redirect. Grahame (talk) 12:43, 12 October 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 Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prey (2008 film)

edit
Prey (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't see anything to suggest that this film is notable. I can't see any references or even an assertion of notability either, but the article is a bit too detailed to list for speedy deletion. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:05, 12 October 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. ffm 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wagaman Reference Lines

edit
Wagaman Reference Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable - possible hoax —G716 <T·C> 12:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "The term Wagaman Reference Lines was first used by Texas A&M University Graduate Student John Wagaman when describing the lines on a boxplot that often appear at the end of the whiskers, on the opposite end of the box." Looks like a prank to me. The article was created more than a year ago by User:Jwagaman, who "retired" after making this lone contribution. I have a feeling that this was perpetrated by one of Wagaman's friends, perhaps an experiment to see how long it would stay before someone was brave enough to nominate it for deletion; and that it stayed up because most of us are reluctant to admit that we don't know what a boxplot is. There is grad student/teaching assistant by that name at Texas A&M, who is probably working on a masters or a doctorate in mathematics there. If you had an insight and you had a choice between introducing it in a respected journal, or on Wikipedia, which one would you choose? Congratulations to the author on the staying power of this submission. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, probably a hoax, if not, Wikipedia is not the place for injokes. MvjsTalking 08:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a place for something made up in school one day. Not sourced; in fact, the article basically states that it's original research. B.Wind (talk) 04:16, 16 October 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. ffm 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiuyasha Movie Shinsha Animation

edit
Kiuyasha Movie Shinsha Animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Searching for the company outside of wikipedia via a search engine only generates a couple of results, AfD for a talk page, and a site fetching wiki articles for it's own site. None of the links on the article page mention the company at all Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:52, 12 October 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 as a non-notable group [37]. Housekeeping closure. Darkspots (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federated States of Myrhum

edit
Federated States of Myrhum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Classic, unapologetic example of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. No sources. Darkspots (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup The article's creator added some sources about micronations. None of them are about this particular micronation, which appears to have been created this morning, on Wikipedia. Darkspots (talk) 11:29, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geddon

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

I don't see how this deserves its own separate article. It doesn't even state why it is notable. It also doesn't cite any sources, making it mainly fancruft.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Let this page stay. There's still a lot to improve on this organization. If it's deleted, start a Kamen Rider Wiki with info on the Kamen Riders and the US adaptions. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ffm 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Von G. Keetch

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

The world is full of lawyers. I see nothing that distinguishes this one - fails WP:BIO. Ros0709 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the rather poor formatting, the article has plenty of non-local sources that are sufficient to have him pass the notability guidelines. Anyway, he's a lawyer in secular courts, not simply a church lawyer. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.The link provided by Eastmain disproves rather then establishes notability. The news links don't cover him. They cover different cases in which he was to some extent involved. In total, the ghits merely prove that he's semi-notable in Utah's legal community, thus falling far short of enycylopedia-worthiness. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the fact that many of the cases Keetch has been the leader of mulitple lawyers. He is not just involved in Utah, but has been closely involved with legal issues in Washington, Oregon, West Virginia, Tennessee and quite porbably other states. He was one of the two lead authors of the most widely cited study on the issue of regulation of religious land use, and was one of the key witnesses in the hearings that led to the passing of the RLUIPA. More importantly, his testimony has been sited to demonstrate why the RLUIPA is a legitimate use of congressional power.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, most cases are remembered by their plaintiffs and respondents, not the lawyers of record. How many people can state the attorneys of record of Roe vs. Wade without researching it? B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, the lawyers who brought the case are notable. For example, if all Thurgood Marshall had done his entire life was bring Brown v. Board to the court, he would be notable. Anyway, you are still ignoring that it is the testimony that Keetch gave to the judicaial committee and his paper or religious land use, not just the many cases he has been involved in, that make him notable. I should have put Wyoming in the list of states where he has been involved in important cases, there is significant role in the Handcart company site issue comes to mind.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:10, 14 October 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. ffm 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Monorail

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

The monorail in question is not an actual transport system, but an amusement park ride. See "Bangkok amusement monorail fire. (6/26/02)" at http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/archive071402.html . Paul_012 (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the reason for deletion, the subject fails WP:N, as stated in my comment below. So far, no reliable sources confirming its notability have been established. The article itself seems to be based on this very short mention at http://www.subways.net/thailand/bangkok.htm , which I have trouble accepting as a reliable source (not least because it seemingly fails to recognise that Fashion Island is the shopping mall in question and location of the mostly-indoor amusement park rather than an actual island). Also, per WP:NOT#NEWS, the incident itself may not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, save perhaps mention in Incidents at independent parks. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, news search finds 218 hits for bangkok and monorail; also finds 9 hits for "Fashion Island" and monorail. Also, I believe the nominator is incorrect in his assumptions, since multiple sources claim that the monorail goes between a shopping mall and the amusement part (as also stated in the above article), making it public transport. Arsenikk (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No real reason for deletion given in the nomination, and as noted by Arsenikk, the reason is probably incorrect as well. Even if it was an amusement park ride, Disneyland Monorail would be in the same situation. Coverage of the monorail is already provided in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for not having been clearer. The subject of the article fails WP:N; The news in the mentioned link is the only reference I could find about the incident, which has the incident rather than the monorail itself as the primary subject. Almost all search results referring to a Bangkok monorail are misnomers of the BTS Skytrain, an elevated train system, or discussions on future non-existent projects. The nine Google News results are from the Los Angeles Times and concern a different, unrelated subject. I don't know what the "multiple sources" Arsenikk mentioned refers to. The amusement park is in the shopping mall, so it cannot be considered a public transport more than the Disneyland Monorail is. That said, the Disneyland Monorail is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject of this article is not. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:23, 12 October 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. ffm 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy (video game)

edit
Galaxy (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has already been deleted once, no changes have been made to the article since being restored, notability is unclear. HollyHuntaway (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm working on it; the article was restored minutes ago. The nominee is a supposed newbie who placed prod or prod2 tags on a variety of articles in 24 hours in the past week. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, because said user was involved in the article a while ago. However, it was deleted per WP:PROD, so G4 doesn't apply. MuZemike 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:19, 12 October 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. -- Longhair\talk 10:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Cookies

edit

I may have been a little hasty, as some editors have suggested. Will review the article in a couple of days time, see if looks worth of an AFD at that point Thanks, Oscarthecat (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Cookies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bakery company Oscarthecat (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most reliable source I can find is this, but even it is pretty sparse. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:26, 12 October 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 Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools. I have not merged as the content is unreferenced, but anyone wanting to perform a merge can do so. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beecroft Primary School

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:SCHOOLS "For elementary and middle schools, reliable secondary sources are usually too limited for notability. An exception is made for schools having a specific, notable distinction or status" Michellecrisp (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted at all. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reason this survived deletion the first time around was that there had been a proposal, at that time, to find that all schools that were "more than 50 years old" should be considered inherently notable. I'm thankful that such a silly proposal never made its way into becoming a rule, since there is nothing particularly special about a school having been in existence prior to 1958. Granted, this is a school that can trace its origins back to 1897; however, it appears to be the elementary school for Beecroft, a suburb of Sydney, Australia, serving the students up to sixth grade in its district. The reason that I say "delete" is that this is no different than most Wikipedia articles about elementary schools. Sometimes these are class projects as part of a lesson about research, and they stay up for about a week until the lesson is over. More often, such articles are a substitute for a school newspaper-- congratulations to Mrs. Marshall's fourth grade class on their high test scores, our football team has done well this year, our students strive to do their very best, etc. -- or for a webpage (in this case, the webpage is at [38]). Wikipedia is not the news, and it especially is not school news. I'm of the opinion that every school is special, in the same sense that every mom or dad is special; but only those that demonstrate some notability outside of the local area should have their own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Beecroft,_New_South_Wales#Schools, the locality where the school is already listed. --Jh12 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools, where reliably sourced content can be expanded until a separate article is justified. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools, per normal practice. No need to delete a useful redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above, unless further content is added concerning notable alumni, state/national achievements etc. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion, I'm not sure if redirect is even necessary, as don't think people will search Beecroft Primary School. All it deserves is a one line mention in Beecroft, New South Wales. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, unless there are multiple Beecroft Primary Schools in Australia, I don't see the need to delete the page when people looking for Beecroft Primary School can simply be redirected to content that already exists on Wikipedia. Although the amount of traffic might be low, at least one person went as far as creating a separate article on the school. Merging any relevant content (e.g. Beecroft Primary School was established in 1897 and provides Kindergarten to Year 6 education to children from the Beecroft and Cheltenham area of North Western Sydney.) and converting to a redirect seems like the most practical solution. --Jh12 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, At least one person (and likely more) looked for the article and then created one. If there is a redirect to where the content lays, then we are doing a service, preserving GFDL author history, and avoiding another article being mistakenly created because someone thinks none exists. Redirects are also cheap. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is another matter of personal opinion, but as a side note I wanted to point out that I thought the nominator's removal of sourced information in one case: (see diff) was maybe going a little extreme on the concept of Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. Maybe I'm mis-reading, but to me an incident appearing in the NSW Supreme Court seems like it would merit a mention (at least a line or two); and Wikipedia:Recentism is more of an essay, not a guideline. --Jh12 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider WP:NOT#NEWS , that news event in itself doesn't make the school notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, which is why I do not support a Keep. I do think, however, that this is the kind of information that should remain in a limited fashion, even if it were on the article of a school that was otherwise notable. --Jh12 (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the whole incident is long forgotten, it was only reported 3 times in a Google news search Generally in NSW, defamation cases are held in the Supreme court by judges listed to hear defamation cases. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done. It's probably a minor difference of editing views; I have a tendency to get nervous when well-sourced information is completely removed. --Jh12 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 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 Note to nominator: Be Bold. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piano & I

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

This song should be merged into the band's album page. Anyone agree with me on this? Beano (talk) 08:20, 12 October 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 Transferred to RFD. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double v

edit

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 12#Double v → W. Comments here moved there.

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe o'grady

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

She is in a notable film so she avoids the {{db-bio}}, but her role in the film is small and a quick search reveals general reliable sourcing is slight. Icewedge (talk) 08:08, 12 October 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stick life(video game)

edit
Stick life(video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unotable video game still under development.

I was thinking about going with {{db-nocontext}} but its a bit borderline, whatever it is it is definitely NN, if you check the website (http://sticklifethevideogame.piczo.com/?cr=1) its certainly looks like a small time operation. Icewedge (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete I'd be borderline speedying it under {{db-ad}}. The article has absolutely no encyclopaedia value whatsoever and if something amazingly remarkable comes up at Stick Life after development, the article can be recreated. The site certainly confirms it's some backyard game. MvjsTalking 09:44, 12 October 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. ffm 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scymraeg

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

Believe this is a neologism Oscarthecat (talk) 07:48, 12 October 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. I have read over WP:MUSIC again and this band is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Mother Earth

edit
I Mother Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 07:40, 12 October 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 Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Albert Transit

edit
St. Albert Transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The organization is credible, but it seems like advertising in my opinion. Most of the information are days of transit and locations to bus stations. Beano (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand why anybody would want to delete this. It is a normal transit article, no different from many, many, others. Peter Horn 17:44, 14 October 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sampurna

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

This page has a lot of work done to it, but there are no sources in this article at all. There is contact information to the organization, which almost seems like advertising. Beano (talk) 07:18, 12 October 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 Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Clip Studios

edit
Empty Clip Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable games studio which has released one game which itself isn't particularly notable yet (and may never actually be notable) the studio fails WP:CORP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Speedy declined on the basis that someone has created an article for the game and apparently that counts as an assertion of importance/significance for the companyJasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 06:38, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 03:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Freeloader

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

Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 06:37, 12 October 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algonquin Golf Club

edit
Algonquin Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable golf club. Unreferenced. Could not find any reliable refs. Prod removed on article creation date. My prod recently denied due to the first one. Millbrooky (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 06:34, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum on Peachtree Parkway

edit
The Forum on Peachtree Parkway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. Just an open air mall, no substantial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Coverage in several sources has been demonstrated, but significant coverage probably has not (most of the sources are extremely brief, and they do little more than demonstrate that the mall exists)--so I wouldn't say that it necessarily passes WP:GNG. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:16, 12 October 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLC Philippines Formation Institute

edit
CLC Philippines Formation Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 06:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A double relist for something I'm now sure is non-notable? heh, if you say so. Wizardman 18:05, 12 October 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 to List_of_Beast_Machines_characters#Vehicons. Black Kite 00:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostic Drone

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 06:11, 12 October 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 The nominator wants it merged and not deleted, so this will be closed. The nom can merge it without AFD. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeritus (album)

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

Would be better off merged into the band's wikipage instead of having it's own. Beano (talk) 06:00, 12 October 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 The nominator wants the article merged and not deleted, so this will be closed. The nom can merge it without AFD. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speech (album)

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

Would be better off merged into the band's wikipage. Beano (talk) 05:54, 12 October 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. Nothing approaching reliable sources at the moment. As was mentioned, though, might be a case for merging into a larger (as yet non-existent) article on fanfic in this area. If anyone wants to try this, please contact me for the deleted material. Black Kite 00:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE

edit
Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete (per nomination) Notability; this is an unlicensed fanfiction (doujinshi) which NO major industry source or review site has ever mentioned; no links to a reliable news source have been provided (links to a fansite dedicated to fanfiction don't count either) the only defense against this "notability" charge has been number of google-hits; by that logic "Evangelion hentai porn" gets a lot of hits but that doesn't elevate any of it above the level of unlicensed, unofficial fanfiction. Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something is not notable simply because its doujinshi, or is there another reason you believe it failed a notability test? Dream Focus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the "aren't they all?" was a snide comment (hence it's apparence in brackets like these. It's meant as a comment not really pertaining to my opinion to why it should be deleted). I believe it fails WP:RS and WP:N. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I cited WP:V in my refusal to ax on csd grounds, although I felt that the csd folks had some jsutification for the request. I think it could be kept, but if it is I think it would do better merged into a larger article like "Evagelion fan fiction series" or something of that nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a topic for later discussion, but I point out that I don't think that fan-fiction for any major series gets even a subheading on say "list of media" or something. All fictional series have fanfiction and anime quite a bit. This doesn't mean it should be on here just because a few dedicated fans of it are trying to force it on the rest of us. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than a "few" dedicated fans exists for this series, as I believe I have demonstrated in the talk page of the article. It is highly praised on many Evangelion sites, and I believe that makes it notable. Dream Focus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. I can just as easily "cite" many Eva sites that do not like it; no, most of the talk page was tepid at best about incorporating this: Dream you are sounding increasingly like one fan trying to foist your own minority opinions on everyone else. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm an Eva fan, and I don't think this needs an Encyclopedia article... The author of the vid is non-notable, and the vid hasn't been mentioned in a reliable source (Such as Manga Magazine, TOKYOPOP, etc). If it had a mention there, then maybe keep Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doujinshi can be at least theoretically more notable than fan fiction because doujinshi are sometimes sold in shops in Japan (due to some odd legal loophole) and on accasion are created by notable artists. This one, however, is both non-notable by our standards and lacking the reliable sources necessary for an article: the only source at all is a link to a Google video. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added additional references and discussed them on the talk page. Well established manga review sites, that mention it quite favorably, and which have a rather large number of hits per month, I believe count as good sources. I used www.trafficestimate.com to see how many hits they had. Why isn't this voting shown on the talk page of the article? Dream Focus (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the major sites do the same. They list everything, and let people vote on what they think about them. What guidelines are there for a page to be considered a good reference? Is there a list somewhere of every single website which has already been determined to be a creditable reference? Dream Focus (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:RSEX. Specifically, there are many sites that attempt to list every (something) in the world, ever. Merely being listed on a site of this nature is not a claim to notability, and such sites are generally not reliable sources. Perhaps the most obvious example is that merely being listed on IMDB does not make a movie notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Does http://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=5059#rating count as a reliable source though? Many sites dedicated to manga don't list anything not officially released, so can't be relied upon. That'd be like trying to check for violent action movies on a site that only reviews romantic comedies. Is there a doujinshi site out there which counts a valid source? Does having over 50 thousand hits in a search engine test, when "re-take" AND "NGE" OR "Evangelion" make something notable? Why are fanmade webcomics based on the Final Fantasy world as a setting, allowed wikipedia articles while things like this or not? Even those not published anywhere have articles. If the author of the Re-take series allowed people to view his work page by page on his site, like a webcomic, then would it make any difference? The wikipedia guidelines do say that a "Google test" or a "search engine test" can be used as a case for something to be notable. Also, if a blog that the traffic counter says has a significant number of hits per month, gives it a good review, does that count? Does it have to be from a published magazine or newspaper, even one with fewer readers than the blog or review site? I read various wikipedia articles today and yesterday but I don't fully understand what makes something a legitimate reference, since the opinions of tens of thousands of people posting around the net about something, should count more than just one guy posting his opinions in a newspaper. Dream Focus (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider MangaUpdates a reliable source, indeed it's very much along the lines of MyAnimeList. But even if we did, let's look at what it actually says: it's been rated by a decidedly-not-earthshattering 127 people, it's never been licensed or professionally published, and it's from a non-notable author (whose only other listed products are two other similar porn fanfics). This isn't really a debate about sources (though it's great you're looking into what WP considers sources), as even the "sources" seem to confirm the non-notability of this fanfic. You're obviously both knowledgable and passionate about your topics, but the bottom line here is fanfic/doujinshi/fan-art and related topics are rarely if ever kept, and usually for these very same reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manga Updates is in fact a copyvio site and should not be used to source anything or used as an external link. But the MU entry is also a directory listing and not a review, so it can't be used to establish notability anyways. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say the same thing; we should probably get that blacklisted. Doceirias (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Links to Manga Updates have been removed from all pages in article space. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....all of the "manga review sites" that were linked to are just fan-submitted review sites making them no better than citing a wiki--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To the closing administrator: I would be appreciative if you could undelete and move a copy of this article to my userspace. (I believe there's a small possibility of salvaging it in the future.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:29 12 October 2008 (GMT)
  • Delete There are no reliable third-party sources from which notability can be presumed. Dōjinshi, AKA fan fiction, does not inherit any form of notability because it is based on a highly notable work. --TheFarix 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
According to www.trafficestimate.com the official website at www.kimigabuchi.com has gotten 41,900 visits in the previous 30 days. Webcomics with less hits per month have their own pages, even if they are unofficial fan fiction based in the world and using characters of another series. Why is one thing more notable than another? Why aren't there any EXACT rules set down somewhere? Having everything based on the opinions of a handful of random people who just happened to be around at the time, seems like a rather odd way to do things. Dream Focus (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Finding bad articles on Wikipedia is not a license to create more bad articles on Wikipedia, any more than witnessing a crime is somehow an excuse to commit other crimes. These fan fiction articles you mention could probably be speedied or PROD-ed, and if their existance concerns you so much you can do it yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I...I wish you had informed me of this logic sooner, otherwise many hobos would still be alive today....--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a guideline. It is called the General Notability Criteria. A supplementary guideline is the one for books. Popularity and webhits does not mean anything if there are no reliable third party sources covering the topic. --Farix (Talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The video is actually from the creator of the series. In Japan they often advertise their manga by showing pages of it like that, with words describing it, and music. The link to the Google video is because it loads up a lot more faster than the same video on the official website of Studio Kimigabuchi. By fan-vid you are referring to the video, not the manga though, correct? The discussion is about keeping the article based on the manga, not the lame video to advertise it. I believe since it so popular, as the Google test and other aspects have shown, it is notable enough to have its own article. Its no less valid than say a webcomic, simply because its available in a different format. Dream Focus (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To that, I ask: How many mentions in Reliable Secondary Sources mentions the creator of the original series created this, and has it been published by a publishing company? How many Reliable Secondary Sources make mention of it at all? And do any Reliable Secondary Sources state that it's canon to the series? Do any Reliable Secondary Sources mention the Fan Vid or the Manga? If we can get those, I think this entire discussion is moot, and we can close this and cite the article with it. Traffic estimates to a website don't count. Domain name rankings don't count. What counts are Reliable Secondary Sources discussing it in a non-tangental way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test The number of hits a search engine says something has, according to the wikipedia rules, can help establish notability. There is more than one way to establish notability, so I don't need references to reliable secondary sources. The only major website or publications that they consider reliable secondary sources, do not cover doujinshi, so there is no possible way to get a reference for any of them. Since doujinshi is so popular in Japan, it is highly likely it would be mentioned on some Japanese websites and publications, since it is clearly a popular series(as the number of hits and mentions of it clearly indicate). But I believe I have proven it notable, and thus the article should remain. Dream Focus (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are very mistaken here. A Google Test cannot establish notability based on the number of hits. The purpose for a Google Test is to search for sources, particularly reliable third-party source. To establish notability you must have reliable third-party sources covering the subject in a non-trivial manner. This is required by WP:V, which is policy, and WP:NOTE, which is a guideline. WP:GOOGLE is neither policy nor a guideline and has no influence in determining notability beyond how to conduct a proper Google search. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss the idea of the proper use of the search engine test, or ghit. Search engine test can not: Guarantee the results are reliable or "true";Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses;. So, if ghits are it's only claim to notability, then it fails WP:NOTE. Maybe some cross-wiki work might help here (ie japanese wikipedia). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've conducted my own Google test which excludes Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and forums and it comes up with just over 1,000 hits. The hits don't indicate any coverage by a reliable third-party source, but are simply fan chatter. --Farix (Talk) 02:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the Japanese wikipedia through Google Translator earlier, and had trouble making things out. I then used Google to only search for things in the Japanese language, but had trouble working through the results using Google translator. Having a large number of people posting about it on blogs and forums, does mean that number of people at least have read it, thus making it notable I think. I still believe it should have an article, so I still vote Keep. Dream Focus (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Whether you'll admit it or not, Re-Take is incredibly popular. It is already made into a live action movie and will be animated in Zeak's Re-Take Project. Due to these many things involving Re-Take and Re-Take itself, it more than deserves a right in Wikipedia. Isn't Wikipedia just a place to collect info anyways? What good would you gain from it by saying no? Re-Take has a strong fan base, and even though it may be doujinshi, it is a perfect fit into the end of the show. So in closing, this is way bigger than just some ordinary doujinshi. This is a series of 6, as well as other versions such as All-Ages, very well written pieces of work, a live action movie, and an animated anime of it. That is more than enough reason for keeping this article around because it is so much more than a doujinshiIrkenEvangelion (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the current policy is that fan videos don't really count. The fact that a fan video exists doesn't prove that it is "popular", just that one person put in the effort to do that. That's the whole "third party" thing; something like ANN needs to be cited. The bigger problem is that policy does not allow unlicensed doujinshi to have its own articles, and if you or Dream do want it, you'll have to coordinate a policy change on WikiProject Anime and Manga.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlicensed doujinshi by non notable author, offers nothing to add to it's "parent" article or associated articles, little to no coverage by reliable, verifiable sources. Myanimelist is by no mean a reliable source (I use it to keep track of my manga reading and anime viewing, but it's information is not always reliable) and any other site attempting to list everything and anything isn't either. Now if this was a doujinshi by Yoshiyuki Sadamoto or Hideaki Anno and had reliable third party sources such as ANN news items, then it would be another matter entirely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its an unnotable fanfic that has no significant coverage in reliable sources nor is it written by an actual published manga author (which one might argue was then notable because of who wrote it). And no MAL is not a reliable source, its even less reliable than IMDB. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he is published, and links to where you can buy some of his on his official website. And I found mention of him in a Japanese news site, for a different series he did. If I prove his other work was notable by mention of manga news sites in Japan, would that convince everyone this work should be given an article? Dream Focus (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://74.125.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.kimigabuchi.com/link/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkimigabuchi%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG&usg=ALkJrhipr27_c2rbDC9Xmf-NbX1140jplw here is a list on his website of all the places that sell his work. He also sells things through mail order from his site, but I believe legally can only do so in Japan. Dream Focus (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? I can write something and get it sold a bunch of places. That doesn't make it notable. Is he actually published by a real publisher, not just himself and not just fanfics? And mention alone is not "significant coverage." See WP:BK for book specific notability guidelines (you've already confirmed it fails the additional anime/manga option of being licensed for released as that would be illegal). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't illegal in Japan, do their copyright laws, and long history of doujinshi. It is published, and sold, and sells well enough to be considered notable. Dream Focus (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know it "sells well" or "is popular"? Even if it was "popular" it needs merit; but just because you like it doesn't automatically mean its popular, and (even if something is popular doesn't mean its good) ; you have to actually justify this with something, under the current rules. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current rules mention the Google test as one of the legitimate means to prove its notable. You don't get mentioned 50 thousand times if you aren't popular! So that proves it is popular, and therefor notable. And it sells well, because it was one of their top ten best selling items at that store. Hmm... not sure how many sales they make nation wide though. I believe this is major doujinshi retailer in Japan, thus compared to other doujinshi, its quite popular. And if its popular, it doesn't need to be good, since being good would be an option, and there aren't many things in this world everyone would agree upon as being good. Dream Focus (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no the "rules" do not. Indeed, they say the opposite that Google hits are NOT a reliable indicator of notability. Neither are sales ranks at a single store. It is not notable and you have yet to provide a single actual source providing significant coverage, only your own assertions that this is a popular piece. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe something that got mentioned over 50 thousand times isn't popular? Anyway, it is a published work, sold in many stores throughout Japan, without violating any laws in that country. I don't see any sales minimum number of sales listed anywhere. I don't believe published work has to hit the bestsellers list to be counted. I did find a Japanese research site which said the Doujin industry in Japan in 2007 was at over $700 million USD. Would an unpopular series be sold at that many stores, over the years? They had 6 releases after all. If any of them weren't popular enough to sell well enough to notice, then they wouldn't stock any future ones for sell. Dream Focus (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to go back and reread what WP:GOOGLE actually says. The raw amount if "hits" a search may find is not an indicator of notability. In fact, my more targeted search only brings up just over 1,000 hits, none of which have any indications that the subject may be notable. Notability requires that the subject either meet the general notability criteria or one of the criteria of the subject specific notability guidelines, in this case WP:BK. Re-Take can't pass a single notability criteria and no amount of screaming "It's popular, therefore it's notabile" is going to change that fact. --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You seem to be confused. Popularity does NOT equal notability. Being a published work does not mean it is notable (and yes, it does have to hit a best seller list or otherwise have lots of coverage to meet book notability requirements. And the $700 million doujin industry is not attributable to this single book so that has nothing to do with anything, nor does whether the book is stocked or not. Lots of unpopular books are stocked in bookstores. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 October 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. ffm 18:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki

edit
Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources for notability at all. While I am sure he is a nice person, it seems somebody just made a fan page for their favorite religious preacher. This happens very frequently on Wikipedia with articles on Muslim religious figures and it isn't really a good basis for an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Despite the guy's remarkably long name, he's not at all notable, as far as I can see. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Short googling shows plenty of sources for him. Here's a nice background article[53], where he's called as a spiritual leader of Sufi's. As our article Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki notes, he was influential enough that another cleric wrote a book attacking his writings. This calls him "the most highly acclaimed and respected scholar (Shaykh) in Makkah (Mecca)." . A rather hagiographic obituary[54]. This should already be enough to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and the vast majority of the sources must be in Arabic. An interesting side question is whether his position as a teacher in the Holy Mosque in Mecca would be sufficiently notable alone... – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:21, 14 October 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. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan journal of history

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

Contested prod. No third-party references establishing this journal's notability. The references inserted recently are from the journal, while in fact they should be about the journal and from another publisher not associated with the journal.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:26, 12 October 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. ffm 18:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Funkhouser

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary content. TTN (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Curb Your Enthusiasm#Characters until there is sufficient third-party coverage to enable a complete non-stub article to be written. B.Wind (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the essay from our old friend notwithstanding. Not covered in third party sources. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 04:08, 12 October 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Paxton

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

Non-notable person. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, this is a severe BLP violation that keeps getting hoaxy links. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC) *Delete While the info might be true, the fact is that the person in question is not notable outside of the single fact that he is the creator. No need for an entry just for him, in order to reiterate all the info about him on the bread clip page -- let the clip page include this info, and not waste the wikipedia resources on a superfluous article. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. After having done more research on the subject, it looks like Floyd Paxton is notable, not necessarily because of his invention, although that's an interesting tidbit, but because of his other work: Right wing politics. See this (I don't know if you have to be logged into amazon to see it, but if you do, it's some pages from Sexless Oysters and Self-Tipping Hats: 100 Years of Invention in the Pacific Northwest by Adam Woog, which talks about Paxton having been a president of the John Birch society, publisher of a newspaper, and unsuccessful Congressional candidate. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above info, I say Keep -- as long as there's something more than just a one-point entry on the guy (i.e. all the different reasons for notability), I've go no issues with it. JasonDUIUC (talk) 01:51, 13 October 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. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11:11 Wish

edit
11:11 Wish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Both sides make good points, and I share the concern of some delete voters over the use of nationalist sources and other sources of dubious reliability. That said, there is no consensus to delete at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Brzostowica Mala

edit
Massacre of Brzostowica Mala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is based entirely on an unreliable source, a non-scholarly website, "Electronic Museum." The author of the source, from which the entirety of this article is taken, is Mark Paul, a fringe right wing writer whose work consists largely denialist apolegetics for anti-semitism in Poland. This poorly sourced article reads like racialistic sensationalism (e.g., "It has been established that the leader of the murderers was a local Jewish man.") It is not clear there are any reliable sources for this alleged incident extant. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that I have copy-edited the article; a reliable source ([55] - IPN) confirmed that a massacre has occurred, and that it was carried by pro-communist minority members on the non-communist Poles. Due to lack (death...) of all primary witnesses, IPN however was unable to verify details to the extent it would like, and has declared that there is simply no way to proceed further with the investigation. We can discuss how reliable is this website giving more details - I'd guess it's based on the newspaper account, and that should be clarified, so the readers know what details come from IPN and what from the newspapers - but there is no doubt that the massacre of ~50 people occurred then and there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That link points to a picture of two people sitting at a table... VG ☎ 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the number of confirmed dead and the amount of coverage this war crime received (half a page in a 350 page report), I still don't think a separate Wikipedia article is warranted. With the risk of sounding callous, it doesn't seem to be any more notable than many other killings perpetrated by communists and their sympathizers when they took power. I'm sure it can be mentioned elsewhere, e.g. in Communist crime. VG ☎ 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please leave your opinion of the Institute to yourself. It is a government-sponsored institution, which consists of professional historians, doctors and professors. And a note to user Mordoor - do not delete it, or you will be reported.Tymek (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I've already left you a WP:CIVIL warning for your truly uncivil and onnoxious demand that I not express my opinions on a page where...editors give opinions! And my "opinions" were sourced to Haaretz and Professor Jan Grabowski. And I suggest you retract your uncivil threat to Mordoor, before I report you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you can report me. Surely you can express your opinion about the Institute, but not here. We are not talking about criticism of the Institute, but about this real and heinous massacre. Or perhaps there is a direct link between criticism of the Institute and the massacre itself. Then it is clear. Tymek (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One person's terrorist is another person freedom fighter, indeed. IPN makes mistakes, of course, but it also investigates many issues which some hoped would be forever buried under communist censorship and ruffles many feathers. This makes it, for some, a very annoying entity indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that the IPN is a controversial source. And I'm sure you are not inimating that critics such as Dariusz Libionka and Jan Grabowski were hoping certain issues "would be forever buried under communist censorship." Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you agree that Gross is a controversial source, and has been criticized by reliable scholars.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Gross has exactly what to do with this article or this nom? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is one thing, but the constant contradicting of those who have questions about the article's value is becoming a little uncomfortable. And making an accusation of a "bad faith nomination" and telling someone to "be serious" is not pleasant. Since IPN is a Polish government source, I also have to question whether it passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answering questions and pointing out errors (the ENTIRE nominator rationale upon which most of the objects were cast is not outdated - the external site is not used, academic sources are now cited, controversial claims about Jews are gone) is rather constructive. Bad faith can be judged by anybody who follows the arbcom link. Non-English sources are allowed, per WP:NONENG and WP:CSB.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the arbcom link - it only confirms that bad faith (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder (I prefer beauty, but that's another story). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IPN is reliable source, even though sometimes results of the investigations are used by politicians, or investigations are started for political goals - but investigations and goals are reliable itself. As for haaretz.com, it's hardly reliable source, as reliable as "nasz dziennik" (e.g. do you remember controversies about comic strip in 2007, where Jewish small girls are saved from hands of drunken Poles by German officers? or this: [59]. Reliable newspaper? I don't think so. Szopen (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is only in its infancy, barely nine months old. Many articles, now accepted in the Wikipedia community, at that age were also objects of attempts at infanticide. It is surely unseemly to be in such haste to kill an infant in its crib. Nihil novi (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could someone please post the original sentences and EN translations supporting the inline citations - as quotes following the citations - and whatever confirms the use of the word massacre by the IPN. Novickas (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't believe that this AfD has become a discussion about the reliability of Haaretz, Israel's most influential newspaper. It's like debating the reliability of The New York Times or The Washington Post. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you Malik Shabazz. This is not the place to talk about reliability of either Haaretz or IPN. Tymek (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But in two of the three citations, the IPN isn't really the source. As M0RD00R noted, they're merely IPN summaries of what had been reported in various newspapers. The first newspaper, cited three times, is Nasz Dziennik, which is described by Wikipedia as "far right,[2] radical nationalist,[3] anti-semitic,[4] and ethno-nationalist.[5]" I don't know anything about the second newspaper, Kurier Poranny. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Haaretz was quoted to prove IPN was not reliable. I showed that Haaretz article can't be used as "final proof" that IPN is bunch of unreliable nationalists. Mordoor is not right, at least not totally right. The quoted article indeed contains summary of Nasz Dziennik article. But it's not summary of ND, but also contains phrases:

Wobec wyczerpania w chwili obecnej możliwości dowodowych postępowanie w niniejszej sprawie należało umorzyć - poinformował gazetę prokurator Dariusz Olszewski z IPN w Białymstoku. Okoliczności uprawdopodobniały, że zbrodnia została popełniona w celu zniszczenia grupy osób narodowości polskiej, należącej do kręgu przedstawicieli inteligencji i władzy państwowej. Tym samym czyn te zakwalifikowano jako akt ludobójstwa, popełniony przez osoby działające w interesie państwa komunistycznego i z inspiracji jego władz - twierdzi prokurator Dariusz Olszewski."
"The circumstances made it probable, that crime was committed with goal of destruction of Polish nationals, belonging to intelligentsia and representants of Polish government"

This is what IPN historian says. He also says, that there is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions and that's way investigation was suspended. Simply put, the people who committed the crime were impossible to identify. They decided that massacre MOST PROBABLY happened, but they couldn't reliably identify perpetrators Szopen (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sz, for the info and translation. But being greedy here, please post the entire IPN finding on the article's talk page. If it's in an online PDF that is not, I think, asking too much. A government will probably not sue WP for a copyright violation on several paragraphs. Novickas (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case, we have a better source - IPN publication itself reporting on the ongoing investigation (IPN activities report of 2002-2003). Although I still cannot find official IPN status report post-2003, but than, even through IPN is above average in Poland in making its research available online, Poland (like most other non-English countries) is pretty bad with moving research online.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, oh please. How many "public universities" have as their mission statement a declaration that they were "created to address issues which are considered essential to the legislative power in (country X)" and have as their task "to fulfill the duty to prosecute crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes." Maybe public universities in Oceania. I'm not even going to argue this with you, it's too silly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boodlesthecat, you are mixing apples and oranges. IPN is funded by the government, like BBC, but it is a historical institute, consisting of a number of professional historians. It is engaged in several projects [61], it publishes books and organizes conferences, it cooperates, among others, with Yad Vashem [62]. It takes a lot of bad faith to compare it to State Department. BTW those interested are welcome to check IPN's webpage in English [63]. Tymek (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of English sources is not a reason for deletion (see also WP:CSB). I've read the academic IPN source, it states that the massacre occurred. Interested users can confirm this via machine translation, as John Z did. I am sorry, but I don't see the need to translate large batches of text (the existence of the academic source and that it confirms basic details is not doubted, is it?), particularly since Szopen has already translated some of it. But because some people have asked, here's the key part of [64] (from p. 52): --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<blockquote|>"Jak ustalono, po agresji ZSRR na Polskę we wrześniu 1939 r. zwolennicy ustroju komunistycznego utworzyli na terenie gminy brzostowickiej uzbrojoną bojówkę komunistyczną. (...) Następnie sprawcy zamordowali wszystkich zatrzymanych."

"As has been determined, after the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, communist sympathizers formed an armed communist paramilitary in the Brzostowice district. [There follows a list of detainees, including nobility and officials.] Next the perpatrators murdered all the detainees."
  • I'm not saying non-English sources are a reason for deletion, I'm saying they don't help verifying the article. And lack of reliable, third party sources is a reason for deletion. "Verifiability, not truth." As I said above, it's all too vague. I think M0RD00R has summed it up well. (And for your information, I don't fit WP:CSB at all.)    SIS  22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense do non-English-language sources "not help verify the article"? And what, in this context, is a "third-party source"? Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 17 October 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. Mr.Z-man 03:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Bennett

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

Subject appears to fail WP:MUSIC: No coverage evident, no verifiable album/single releases of any kind, no chart history, no awards evident etc. Article itself has serious issues under WP:VER (not a single cite, link or ref. Nor can I find any.) Guliolopez (talk) 02:19, 12 October 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. Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN - yet. Black Kite 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Jeandron

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:37, 12 October 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 William McCoy (mutineer). Anything encyclopedic can be added there. Black Kite 23:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel McCoy

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

This person is related to a notable person, but notability is not inherited. This person seems to be most likely non-notable.

I'm also nominating the following articles for the same reason: Arthur Quintal, Tevarua Schuym1 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 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. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil H. Moore

edit
Cecil H. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails to assert notability of the subject. The closest that it comes is some minor praise by the author of an unpublished monograph. The references given are:

  • Petrillo, Alan. Arizona Daily Star, If these walls could talk. Feb. 4, 2007. The web link to this is here. This article does not suggest notability of the subject.
  • Laird, Wendy & Linda, El Encanto Estates National Register of Historic Places 1988. This document mentions the subject in passing, but doesn't include him among nine Tucson of architects discussed in detail. The subject is mentioned again only in a the enumeration of four houses he designed as among the 53 houses discussed being nominated. None of those four houses is among the 21 nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
  • Jeffery, R. Brooks, Anshei Israel Synagogue Unpublished Documentation Report, University of Arizona. 1999. As noted, faint praise from this source is cited in the article. In any event, it is not a "published source" at all, let alone a reliable one.
  • Tucson Daily Citizen, New Bank Branch Under Construction, May 20, 1964 pg. 20. No mention in the text of this reference, and it wouldn't seem likely that an article with this title would provide significant coverage of the architect.
  • Tucson Daily Citizen, Boy Scout Home to be Ready Soon, March, 24, 1958. No mention in the text of this reference, and it wouldn't seem likely that an article with this title would provide significant coverage of an architect.
  • Cecil H. Moore Collection. Architectural Drawings Collection, Arizona Architectural Archives, College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture (CAPLA), The University of Arizona. This source is actually documents by not about the subject. The notability of the individual is not established by drawings being in an archive (which often happens by bequest, so does not reflect the choice of the institution). Further, a web search for this collection of drawings--even a mention--at The University of Arizona or elsewhere.
  • El Con Mall. Does not mention the architect or the significance of the architecture.
  • Park Mall. Does not mention the original architect or the significance of the original architecture (the project was redeveloped in 2001, when it was cited for an award).

The main contributor to the article conceded: "There is a great lack of information about many early Tucson architects." If the unfortunate consequence of this is that it is impossible to verifiably demonstrate notability, then the subjects don't meet the inclusion criteria. Bongomatic (talk) 00:43, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livingstone's Journey

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

Fails notability since July 2007. I can't see where we can merge or redirect it. So i think I had to bring it here. Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 12 October 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. Mr.Z-man 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oekoenergie-Cluster

edit
Oekoenergie-Cluster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

business network, no real assertation of notability, no references, very spammish, and much of it is copied from various locations on its website, one being here, [65] Jac16888 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 12 October 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 (A7) by Gwen Gale. Deadly∀ssassin 11:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freefold

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

I've speedy deleted this article on a band several times, however the author is constantly recreating the article despite my efforts to refer them to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Bringing the article here for community review in case I'm wrong. -- Longhair\talk 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Longhair\talk 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_12&oldid=1116879556"