Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 14
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Review of the RfA discussion-only period
- ArbCom election RFC 2024
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett. Canley (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Canadian club massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced Hoax article; only reference is from a conspiracy webpage. Tried many, many different Google searches, and one Canadian newspaper. I would be happy to be proved wrong, but I see nothing at all. Total number of people injured by different methods by a single person also seems implausible. Hairhorn (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The reference page, "Untold Massacres", [1], has this story as its only entry. Calling it unreliable would be generous. Hairhorn (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - I don't know about this being a hoax, but I definitely couldn't find reliable secondary sources. -Samuel Tan 00:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : town is real, population, 479, which does not increase confidence in the story. . Based on experience, the names are likely to be classmates of the vandal., which woiuld justify BLP. DGG (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per notability and verifiability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep as this nomination clearly has no traction. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lostpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Virtually no secondary sources in the article at all, and none found either. Last AFD in December '08 was kept by a buttload of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL arguments which had no weight whatseover, with no actual solid reasoning behind any of the "keep"s save for one borderline notable award the site got. Tagged for primary sources since January '09 with no improvements. And for God's sake, if you're gonna say "keep", give a better reason than "it's useful" or "I like it". Like, maybe, some freaking sources or something. (Note: Most of the last nominations were troll nominations, but this one is indeed in good faith.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - This article obviously has resources., and it has more than enough.. and it clearly meets the notability standards. The requests for this article to get deleted are numbering in the outrageous. Though it might not mean anything at all, this article's fifth nomination for deletion was by the same user (User:TenPoundHammer) as this current nomination for deletion. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me. All but six of the sources is primary, and none seems like a non-trivial mention. Care to enlighten me? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I count 6 secondary sources. We can verify that the site exists, and we can see that it is notable from the coverage in independent sources. The makers of the show even use Lostpedia themselves - I will find a source for that. Some more secondary sources would be good, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. I don't understand the reason behind this nomination - it just seems to be the evil twin of what has annoyed TenPoundHammer, namely IDONTLIKEIT. Fences and windows (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More sources:[2][3][4][5]. Oh, and Jimmy Wales likes it![6] Here's the interview with the show creators about them using Lostpedia (yes, I know, it's hosted on Lostpedia):[7] Fences and windows (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which seems to be a non-trivial mention save for the Portuguese source. Also, yes, I do hate Lost with a passion, but that's immaterial to this discussion. It's not a case of "I don't like it" but more like "Where the heck are all the freaking sources if it's so supposedly freaking notable?" Don't just tell me it's notable, prove it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A sixth AfD nomination of the same article, in the absence of BLP issues or similarly weighty concerns, is unnecessarily wasteful of community time and disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The firs time it was reasonably deleted, as it contained only a single sentence. 2nd keep, 3rd speedy keep, 4th speedy keep 5th withdrawn by nom --same nom as this time in face of an apparent snow keep. It's advisable to learn from experience. DGG (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, at least two of the noms were troll noms and shouldn't count. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. One two three... 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 Dnipropetrovsk fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ten deaths meets the notability standard, I should think. Yes, it needs a lot of work, but I don't see why it shouldn't be notable. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In conclusion...Keep or Delete? TouLouse (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.Biophys (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of the text apart from the first revision of this article was a copy and paste copyvio of these three news articles so I have stubbed it accordingly. I also restored the AfD tag which had been removed. ascidian | talk-to-me 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. International reporting, multiple deaths, and the Ukrainian cabinet held an emergency session in Dnipropetrovsk in response. Taken together, I'd regard this event as notable. Note that it was fairly recent (May 7) so I'd reasonably expect the article to improve in the near future. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Not every news story needs to be enshrined forever in encyclopedias. How many times in that past several hundred years have there been news stories about how 10 people died in one event? Unless it had some effect on society, it is just news of the week. Edison (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per Edison. It needs more than deaths for historical impact and notability. American Eagle (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. The content of this article has already been merged. Therefore, a redirect must be kept to remain in compliance with the GFDL. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Red matter (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Term is completely in-universe WP:OR for a substance mentioned twice. Highly dubious that suitable sources will found. Put this on the Star Trek wiki and leave it there. Loodog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge to some relevant startrek article about star trek stuff. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Frag as pointless outside of Star Trek film article. There just aren't reliable sources for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs)
Delete. No significance outside of the film, whose plot summary adequately describes its function.Might be worth redirecting red matter (which redirects here) to Star Trek (film) though.BryanG (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Switch to merge with the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles that apparently exists... fits there nicely, and it seems like a reasonable solution to the multiple appearances problem. BryanG (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge; but it appears in the film and in the comics. Possibly merge to a new article anomolous matter (Star Trek), taking this and the Star Trek material from dark matter in fiction, and other anomolous matter and strange matter from Star Trek. Feh. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assimilate what little of it is relevant into Star Trek (film) and Star Trek: Countdown. John Darrow (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Beam it up into some broader article about this sort of thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the film article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Little more than a plot device in the new film, and not something you could reasonably write an article about. PC78 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP and/or MERGE; be realistic, this is star trek, it ain't gonna go away! :P there must be someplace in the trek stuff where we can add this, if we don't want an separate article about it. there is also a considerable likelihood that in the future "red matter" will turn up more often in trek... Why don't we just refer this to the people who specialize in trek on wikipedia? they would have a better idea how to assimilate the material, than non-specialist wikipedians (myself included). Lx 121 (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's what the Star Trek wiki is for.--Loodog (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't note the alteration yourself, or use strikethrus, i wish to note, for the record, that you have moderated the tone of your preceeding comment considerably, since your first posted it. Lx 121 (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Umm...yeah, "Put this on the Star Trek wiki". Up there from the start, champ.--Loodog (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i apologize to loodog, you posted effectively the same comment twice, only the second time you used sarcasm; i can now see the repeated comment, sarcasm intact, a few lines down. i humbly apologize for suggesting that you might have moderated your tone. i was confused by the repetition. XD Lx 121 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm...yeah, "Put this on the Star Trek wiki". Up there from the start, champ.--Loodog (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's what the Star Trek wiki is for.--Loodog (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge with the film article. There just isn't enough information about red matter for an entire article. ChadyWadyTalk 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadyWady (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Delete it's pure plot muguffin with no real world notability (and I'd consider my self a trek "specalist"). --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damnit Jim, I'm an inclusionist, not a deletionist! –xeno talk 13:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC) merge per Erik9[reply]
- List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Red matter. If it needs more space, it could also fit in at List of Star Trek materials. –xeno talk 05:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what information exists other than the two minutes is appears in the new film. It makes a black hole, is all that can be said, and what would be the point of a merge other than to bloat up an already bloated article with OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- actually it appears as a story element in the comic series preceeding the new film. i'm not a very close follower of trek, but i am a writer; expect red matter to turn up again, like it or not. don't we have some kind of "collection" pages for trek paraphernallia? a list of trekstuff that this would fit on? Lx 121 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What, you mean like a Star Trek wiki or something?--Loodog (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- no, i mean that realistically, it's a part of the trek universe, likely to be expanded upon. there is a strong group of trekkies working on here, i don't think it's smart to try & pick a fight; especially when there are logical places for the content to go Lx 121 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as much a fan as anyone here; doesn't mean I can't see the difference between what's appropriate for wikipedia and what's appropriate for memory-alpha.org.--Loodog (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal on this page is to either keep it; a position I cannot support as there is a lack of third party sources, or delete it. To merge the meagre information to the main film article would not be a help, even if it does turn up in future non-canon literature, as there would still only be in universe references for it. And I don't know what you mean by "there is a strong group of trekkies working on here, i don't think it's smart to try & pick a fight". Not wanting to out myself but i've seen the film four times, that does not mean that my view is any more valid, in fact Wikipedia is not written for Trekkies. Although I would support the information in this article being moved to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, then this being a redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "redirect", "merge", and "transwiki" are all considered valid results for AfDs, not just "keep", "delete", and (of course) "no consensus". John Darrow (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations, you failed to understand my post. The actual verifiable information is so small that merge and transwiki are meaningless, and I can't vote "no consensus". Either the article needs to be kept, deleted or the information moved and this page becomes a redirect. The last option being the best option available. But even with a redirect the actual verifiable information on this page amounts to "red matter makes black holes", anything else is original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal on this page is to either keep it; a position I cannot support as there is a lack of third party sources, or delete it. To merge the meagre information to the main film article would not be a help, even if it does turn up in future non-canon literature, as there would still only be in universe references for it. And I don't know what you mean by "there is a strong group of trekkies working on here, i don't think it's smart to try & pick a fight". Not wanting to out myself but i've seen the film four times, that does not mean that my view is any more valid, in fact Wikipedia is not written for Trekkies. Although I would support the information in this article being moved to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, then this being a redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles and mention Star Trek: Countdown and Star Trek (film) as the sources with a brief description that does not entail a whole article at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article on a fictional substance that has no independent reliable coverage that would make it notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC), with surges up to the 7-800 range[reply]
- Beam whatever's relevent to the Star Trek Movie, and lock phasers on the rest of the article.Tc.bongers (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My nomination. There's nothing in this article worth merging. To stay anywhere on wikipedia (not just this article), information has to be sourced, and not viewer/fan WP:OR.--Loodog (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not have to cast a !vote when you are the nominator. Additionally, WP:OR does not apply here as a reason to delete. This plot device exists unquestionably; it is a matter of determining if it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Sentences like "reminiscent of the mythical red mercury, purported to be necessary for the construction of nuclear weapons" are original research and should be removed, but this does not mean that the topic itself is original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote is to distinguish from "merge", which I don't think was obvious from my nomination. According to WP:GNG, notability is determined by coverage in sources. My comment that this is WP:OR is not that it should be deleted because it contains OR, but because the article is solely built upon OR, and not any such sources.--Loodog (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. Red matter exists as a particular topic, but the question is if it is a topic befitting Wikipedia's notability standards. (The answer is no.) The article does contain original research, but the topic itself is definitely not original research. It is indisputable that red matter exists as a fictional topic, but per WP:WAF, fictional topics require real-world context. I agree with you about the lack of such context, hence my support to merge. I disagree with how you are applying WP:OR here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has no sources. It is a repository for WP:OR and built solely upon OR. If a bucket is built of out shit and only collects shit, it's a shitbucket, regardless of its theoretical ability to hold other substances.--Loodog (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of sources here. This even explores the impact of red matter. (Which should go on the Star Trek film article, anyway.) Fictional topics are often repositories for original research, but this does not mean they cannot be converted into encyclopedic articles. Red matter is something frequently mentioned in the media but only addressed as a plot device with not enough real-world context to substantiate it as a stand-alone topic. Shit buckets can be cleaned out (very well, I hope) and filled with useful substance or just recycled into something to use in other items (tying into my aforementioned merge). —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure which links you're talking about. None of them say anything about it other than its name. The string theorist they talk to completely ignores the phrase "red matter" and only talks about causes as known in the real world. The interviewer says "red matter can cause black holes", but this much is obvious from the movie plot. You're not going to get anything more than that from anyone, meaning that to fill this thing to article length requires OR (e.g. you can see because things get sucked in that the red matter must increase the mass of what its injected into.)--Loodog (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to either the film article or the "list of fictional particles and atoms etc." article which I understand exists somewhere. SGGH ping! 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This page shouldn't be deleted. It held a major purpose in the movie and needs to have a page about it. Spock5709
- And your username shows how unbiased you are. That it "held a major purpose" is not a reason to keep. Is the article covering a notable item, and notable in the real world, not in a Star Trek film. Plus your assertions that it "needs to have a page about it" is not backed up by any policy. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Applying the same logic, let's create an article about Smiley's burgers because it hols a major purpose in American Beauty, or let's create an article about the neural inhibitor chip in Spiderman 2 because it too holds a major purpose. Wikipedia is not a repository of plot devices in movies.--Loodog (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't do better than repeat Loodog's words, "Wikipedia is not a repository of plot devices in movies." (Loved the movie, by the way.) Languagehat (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with extreme prejudice. Or Merge into the movie article. One successful reboot movie does not Trek canon make. (Sounds worse than a McDune book.) --SandChigger (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, yeah & here comes that war i've been trying to avoid starting... :P wp practice of longstanding has been to allow articles about fictional topics as long as: 1. it is clearly identified as fiction. 2. the fiction in question is of sufficient notability. 3. the coverage doesn't get overcrowed; i.e.: compile smaller articles into groupings, such as: star trek/science/fictional types of matter. if we want to go puritannical, as per loodog's stated ideology, there are a few hundred thousand articles on wikip that need to go. do you really want to get into that? do you really want to get into an edit war with all the people who have put in the effort to create & maintain them? personally, i think "red matter" should probably be compiled into a larger article on star trek_whatever; although jamming it into the movie article probably isn't sufficient, as the stuff already turns up elsewhere in trek, & that trend is likely to continue & increase. what i don't want to do, is heat things up into the usual edit wars over how to treat fiction on wikip. there are a large group of editors on here who care about & work on the trek material; they deserve respect for their efforts. as a general policy, it might be a good idea to refer debates on "specialist" subjects, to the people who actually know something about it; half the people commenting here don't even know that "red matter" appears in trek, outside the movie. Lx 121 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's a WP:OSE argument, so it has no weight.--Loodog (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Double-Sorry no, you're reading it wrong; that's an arguement for "hey-ho, let the fun begin!" i can think of 50-100 articles that should be prodded on your rationale, just of the top of my head; do you really want to start an edit war on that scale? also, ose is a legitimate arguement when it illustrates an established practice or policy. we allow articles on fictional subjects, as per the conditions identified above. if this piece meets those conditions & the other wp criteria for inclusion, it should be kept/merged/whatever; whether u like it or not. if you want to prodall simillar articles; i wish you well with that... Lx 121 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa.. easy there. "Start an edit war on that scale"? No one's talking about intrawikipedian battlefields. Put the axe down.--Loodog (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- no, you just want to have your way, & have everyone agree with you. you are trying to impose your personal preferences here, disregarding established practices when it comes to the treatment of fictional material. the fact that a large number of other wikipedians, who work on the trek stuff, might disagree with you, is irrelevant. also, your original rationale of WP:OR is absurd. it's in the movie & the comic series, & the novelization, not to mention endless reviews & discussions of same. those don't count as references? Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the matter of consequences to other articles. The place to discuss other articles is on those pages, not here. This discussion only concerns "Red Matter". Pointing to other seemingly lesser worthy articles that continue to exist runs counter to WP:OSE. If this article merits existence, its notability must be made on its own merits, i.e. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This is requirement is independent of other WP articles.--Loodog (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, but precedent & established practice is relevant too; we allow articles on fictional topics according to the terms defined far up in this overlong dialogue. you are wikilawyering with technicalities, notability is established; it's a major plot device in the film, & a key story element in the comics, looking at in in-universe for a minute: it was used to destroy the planet vulcan; wait a year & it will be all over trek. wanna make a bet on whether or not i'm right about that? :P each article stands or falls on it's own, but the precedents & practices established are relevant. if this goes, based on your arguements, there's a lot of other cruft that needs to go too. the really absurd thing here is that i'm wasting my time on this & i don't give a crap about star trek; i just dislike the principle you're arguing on & the precedent you're trying to establish; i also don't like the degree of disregard being shown for other people's work. you are trying to redefine the way fictional material is treated on wikipedia, whether you realize it or not. i'm not quite sure if you've figured out that the same reasoning & same arguements could likely be used to afd some of the things you care about on wikip. also i would like to nominate your above comment for [["use of the longest phrase in an
- Whoa.. easy there. "Start an edit war on that scale"? No one's talking about intrawikipedian battlefields. Put the axe down.--Loodog (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
internal wikipedia link, 2009"]] XD Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you read Wikipedia:Pokémon test, if you'd like to understand why I'm not on a crusade to redefine the entirety of wikipedia.--Loodog (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Food for Thought: according to this tracker tool: http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Red_matter_%28Star_Trek%29 http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Red_matter the red matter article is averaging better than 2000 hits per day (trackers counts the 2 different article titles separately); not bad for something that was just created. that's relevant & germane to this discussion, i think, at least in that it demonstrates that there are people who want to know about this subject. Lx 121 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No food for thought. AfD nominations have the effect of driving up traffic to all articles. AFD's that involve things (i.e. "Star Trek") that have rabid fanbases behind them, even more so.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ummm, no i'm sorry, but 2000+ hits per day is not "afd traffic". if that were the case, then this debate would be flooded with keep votes. the people who are looking up this page are, by & large, ordinary readers who don't know, or care about internal wikibickerings Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No food for thought. AfD nominations have the effect of driving up traffic to all articles. AFD's that involve things (i.e. "Star Trek") that have rabid fanbases behind them, even more so.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Send it through a black hole to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. Throwaway plot element, no wide notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect to film article. Other than the in-film references, there is nothing else that can be reliably sourced on this "matter". One or two lines in the film article is all this needs (or deserves) at this time. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That was terrible. Your pun privileges are hereby revoked.--Loodog (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Memory Alpha and merge to Star Trek (film) and Star Trek: Countdown if applicable. —Admiral Norton (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Nothing worth keeping here that isn't already in the article for the film itself. Skyraider (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles; not enough info. to warrant its own article right now. An entry at the aforementioned article seems like a good fit. Steve T • C 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since i seem to be spending far more time & effort on this than i ever intended, i want to be clear that i'm in favour of merging with the above mentioned, it certainly should be included on the list (tho i'm surprised if there is no "trek only" page of same). after the dust settles here, i'm thinking of picking a fight on that article page about what to do in instances of the same name being used in different fictions. lol ...i also think the article on red matter is likely to re-materialize, given the demand for it (2000+ hits per day), & the overwhelming likelihood that the stuff is going to turn up again in trek, repeatedly. for one thing, every time the subject of the vulcans & their destroyed planet comes up, red matter is going to be mentioned. would anyone here care to afd the death star? or skynet? or the vogons? or that giant planet-eating guy in the chair, in the marvel universe? :P Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- upon reflection, & counting up the time i've spent on this debate, i think i'm going to quit now, & just go add red matter to the 2 suggested pages, since it clearly belongs there. if the article does get deleted, might i suggest putting up a redirect to the trek materials page? Lx 121 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- someone beat me to it on the fictional matter page. thanks @ User:Xeno; you are a wiser being than i; both for the work & for not getting entangled in here! ha Lx 121 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- upon reflection, & counting up the time i've spent on this debate, i think i'm going to quit now, & just go add red matter to the 2 suggested pages, since it clearly belongs there. if the article does get deleted, might i suggest putting up a redirect to the trek materials page? Lx 121 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Star Trek (film), or maaaaaybe to J. J. Abrams (red spheres are a motif of his). Regardless: it's a non-notable MacGuffin. --EEMIV (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable and way too much uncited speculation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Red Matter (star trek) is not a valid search term, and Red Metter on it's own is way too generic to redirect to any specific Trek or fictional science article. Let's get serious here, this is not Memory Alpha, nobody is going to be looking here for Red Matter without knowing that it relates 'to that recent Start Trek' movie and thus having a perfectly obvious place to look for details about it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because no one might ever think red matter actually exists and just type red matter into the search box? Please don't assume anything of our readers. –xeno talk 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, moot. The most obvious search term would be Red matter, which directs here now, and if we delete this article, would certainly direct to Star Trek (film) anyway.--Loodog (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Red matter be a better target? –xeno talk 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. That's even better. Either way, "red matter", which is the most likely search term, will stay useful.--Loodog (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mick's comment above seems to seek the outright deletion of the page altogether in any form. –xeno talk 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. That's even better. Either way, "red matter", which is the most likely search term, will stay useful.--Loodog (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Red matter be a better target? –xeno talk 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, moot. The most obvious search term would be Red matter, which directs here now, and if we delete this article, would certainly direct to Star Trek (film) anyway.--Loodog (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I know nothing of Star Trek, but for some reason I am typing in Red Matter, the fact I see no page on Wikipedia gives me my answer that it doesn't exist. Redirecting me to a fictional list of elements telling me it was made up for Star Trek won't help me at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that would be the wrong answer, because red matter does exist...in a fictional universe. –xeno talk 17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because no one might ever think red matter actually exists and just type red matter into the search box? Please don't assume anything of our readers. –xeno talk 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because purple monkey dishwasher. I mean, seriously, aren't the reasons obvious? JuJube (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Sadly, you have to give a reason, no matter how obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Social media. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Social content (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any evidence that this is used to mean what it means in this WP:OR filled, unreferenced article. Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added external source to show where the term Social Content has been used extensively within the User Generated Content space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IncSlinger (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this just seems to be a very short OR essay with some links thrown in at the end. Even the title is so vague as to be useless for all intents and purposes. --WebHamster 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the spam and redirect to User-generated content. It's an accepted term, but the content is unsuitable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability guidelines and seems to violate OR, essay and dicdef policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to social media. This article is unsalvageably OR, but the name is a plausible search term - it should be redirected to one of our existing articles on this subject. Robofish (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, and merge in to the Michelle Obama article the little that is relevant. This is obviously not a topic that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Prodego talk 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michelle Obama's arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yes, articles have been written about her arms. No, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. Maybe a line or two in Michelle Obama. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This stuff is really, really trivial, and in particular as it's about a BLP it has no place in an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which WP:CSD are you suggesting it falls under? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. So far, none of the people who favor deletion have cited any wikipedia policies to justify deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly. Speedy deletion is for clear cut cases that don't require a debate, and I was just asking for some clarification. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there's an obvious consensus on the part of the community, which was why I added speedy to my vote. Recognizance (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly. Speedy deletion is for clear cut cases that don't require a debate, and I was just asking for some clarification. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge If there is no mention in her article it could be briefly mentioned there, but a whole article on this is just plain silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article explains why the subject is notable, and is very, very well sourced. Only someone who hasn't actually read the article would claim that the subject is not notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By that do you mean that it is clear from the way the article is written that it's creator went out of their way to make explicit claims of notability as a sort of pre-defense to the inevitable challenges this article would face? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea what the intentions of the person who created the article were. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd, given that you created the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boy, you walked right into that one... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NawlinWiki - I just checked the article's edit history, and it turns out that you are correct. Thanks for telling me. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't be serious... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd, given that you created the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops. If the creator of the article even doesn't remember that s/he created it S/he should go with delete considering notability. How funny... lol... --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since he created the article less than an hour before making this remark, I can only assume he was either kidding or being deceptive. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops. If the creator of the article even doesn't remember that s/he created it S/he should go with delete considering notability. How funny... lol... --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as its own article. A brief mention might be worthwhile. After all, we don't have an article on Dolly Parton's, um, endowments. (Sorry for the silliness, but sometimes you have to be absurd to make a point.) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Her arms don't need their own article, and "Michelle Obama's arms" is an unlikely search term for a redirect. A few sentences in her main article is all that is called for here. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge. Shouldn't be its own article, but some of this information could go in her main article. — Jake Wartenberg 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Obama's arms may indeed be notable, but the content should be trimmed and merged into the main article. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has references for notability and verifiability, there is plenty of precedent, see Category:Famous body parts. The only argument for delete is "I don't like it". Drawn Some (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a great point! Thanks for pointing out the existence of that category. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that list is an argument for why this article doesn't fit. I was expecting something like Tina Turner's legs, or something, but that's not even on the list. Most of those articles are on independent subjects that happen to be body parts, like Cromwell's head, which has an article because it's a museum piece, not because it was attached to him. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadowjams is right - that category is not a good fit for the article in question here. Just to pick a few, Darwin's tubercle didn't belong to Charles Darwin, it's named after him; The Hands of Che Guevara is a movie; Head of Holofernes is a redirect to a painting; and Geronimo's skull, Medusa's head, Ebey's scalp and Bentham's head don't have their own articles - the category page links to sections of the main articles about these men (and gorgon.) Dawn Bard (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know what will happen to her arms after she dies? Drawn Some (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadowjams is right - that category is not a good fit for the article in question here. Just to pick a few, Darwin's tubercle didn't belong to Charles Darwin, it's named after him; The Hands of Che Guevara is a movie; Head of Holofernes is a redirect to a painting; and Geronimo's skull, Medusa's head, Ebey's scalp and Bentham's head don't have their own articles - the category page links to sections of the main articles about these men (and gorgon.) Dawn Bard (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that list is an argument for why this article doesn't fit. I was expecting something like Tina Turner's legs, or something, but that's not even on the list. Most of those articles are on independent subjects that happen to be body parts, like Cromwell's head, which has an article because it's a museum piece, not because it was attached to him. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'm sad that we can't make cross-wiki categorizations and include wikt:King Charles' Head in that list. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - These are not strong sources, nor do they really indicate the subject is notable, only that they were the subject of op-eds. I am amenable to a merge, but would probably prefer a delete. Shadowjams (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and write a simple mention in Michelle Obama. The rest is trivia worthy of the National Enquirer. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some of this needs to be in her article, but not as a stand alone. Synergy 23:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 36,000 G-hits for "Michelle Obama's arms". Drawn Some (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I understand that, but to claim that it's not notable is absurd. Those aren't all op-eds or blogs, there are serious articles in well-respected newspapers. Don't understimate this woman's influence. It's been more than 40 years since something similar has occurred with the First Lady. Drawn Some (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think most of us voting "delete" here are underestimating her influence at all - this is strictly about whether or not her arms deserve a separate article. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deserve a separate article? They certainly meet notability requirements so they certainly deserve an article. Drawn Some (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think most of us voting "delete" here are underestimating her influence at all - this is strictly about whether or not her arms deserve a separate article. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Putting undue weight on an entirely trivial subject. Probably not even important enough to even mention in her own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:UNDUE is for POV issues. The article is neutral. Drawn Some (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has a controversy section. Discussion of whether "Obama's arms have too much muscle and not enough fat" is giving undue weight to tabloid gossip. Recognizance (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Los Angeles Times is a legitimate source, not a tabloid. I realize that newspaper circulcation is in serious decline, but it hasn't gotten that bad - at least not yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has a controversy section. Discussion of whether "Obama's arms have too much muscle and not enough fat" is giving undue weight to tabloid gossip. Recognizance (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydelete per PMDrive and Umbralcorax. It brings to mind a recent segment Jon Stewart did: "Four years at Smith, two years of J-school, here we are, spending five minutes straight of ad-libbed lunch narration. I'll have the cyanide burger." See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama or as Stewart put it "Obama Murders Cow to Enjoy Pagan Lunch". Recognizance (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete and give the topic a one-sentence (no more) mention in the main article. The topic is not notable or encyclopedic enough for a stand-alone article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with a trout for the creator. I would have thought if we were starting to write about the body parts of the politically connected that Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps would be the logical place to start. (In seriousness, the article creator should be admonished not to waste our time like this again.)Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is he wasting our time? We're not required to participate in this discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor seems to have made some good contributions in other areas, but causes trouble in and around articles related to the Obamas. His talk page archives reveal multiple contentious conversations on this topic, and at least two previous deletion discussions: [8] [9]. There have already been blocks and a suggestion of a topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this will require a 7 day debate to get rid of this elaborate piece of garbage is a waste of wikipedia's time. It's a damaging joke. And given that the creator was briefly blocked yesterday (I thought at the time the block was over the top, but am beginning to see why some people's patience with this user might be running thin) for creating Impregnation of Sarah Palin's Daughter (well, actually he created Impregnation of Sarah Palin's Daugher but, whatever) you'd expect him to have a little more of a clue.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What about an article dedicated to "body parts of notable people"? (...and no, I'm not serious about that).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were multiple news articles from multiple major newspapers with "Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps" in the title, then yes, that would be a legitimate topic for a wikipedia article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I thouroughly agree with Bali: "The fact that this will require a 7 day debate to get rid of this elaborate piece of garbage is a waste of wikipedia's time. It's a damaging joke. And given that the creator was briefly blocked yesterday (I thought at the time the block was over the top, but am beginning to see why some people's patience with this user might be running thin" The-Bus (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this subject is not notable, why are there so many articles about it from major sources? I'm not talking about articles with just a few sentences about the subject. I'm talking about article where the subject is in the title of the article. And if the subject is not notable, then why are there photo galleries about the subject too?
References
1. ^ Michelle Obama's right to bare arms, The Boston Globe, March 19, 2009 2. ^ a b c How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, CNN 3. ^ Strong-arm tactics: First Lady of Fitness: Michelle Obama's guns inspire workouts, Chicago Sun-Times, March 10, 2009 4. ^ How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, The Seattle Times, March 25, 2009 (This is a different article than the CNN article of the same name) 5. ^ Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again, The New York Times, February 25, 2009 6. ^ All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World, The Washington Post, January 21, 2009 7. ^ Michelle Obama and our buff-arm fetish, The Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2009 8. ^ Michelle Obama: The right to bare arms, MSNBC, February 25, 2009 9. ^ Michelle Obama bares arms in official White House portrait, Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2009 10. ^ a b Michelle Obama's toned arms are debated, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2009 11. ^ Obama's Choice to Bare Arms Causes Uproar, ABC News, March 2, 2009
External links
- Gallery of Michelle Obama's arms at the Chicago Sun-Times
- A different gallery of Michelle Obama's arms at Essence magazine
Grundle2600 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't concur. Quote from above: "The Los Angeles Times is a legitimate source, not a tabloid." Indeed but the article is (a "tabloid piece") and simply said just trivia. We don't write separate "fashion" articles unless it is the subjects main notability (like a model for example). There is a "Style and fashion sense" section in her main article that covers already more than needed (before you "merged" the AFD article into it). Some minor material could be edited there but sure not a full merge and separate section title as it was already rejected. And BTW, there is no need to repeat the article's references as we all know where to find them ;) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. To call her arms trivial is to either misunderstand the English language or to refuse to research the topic. But I'm not sure that translates into her arms needing their own article. The information should be retained, but this subject could adequately be covered in the Michelle Obama article, in my opinion. --JayHenry (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
Re: merging, note that the entire contents of Michelle Obama's Arms have already been pasted into the Michelle Obama article.It's been reverted. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*In that case, since it was done by the article's creator in apparent acknowledgment of the way this is obviously going, may I suggest that we simply redirect to Michelle Obama and close this up, and leave it to the editors of the target article to decide how much of the content to retain. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete This is trivial material. And please don't do us any favors over at Michelle Obama which is a GA and doesn't need to be a dumping ground. That material already has been removed from there - please decide this AfD on its own terms. Tvoz/talk 02:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well, it looked like an easy way out... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Okay, I might be veering off topic here, but can someone tell me why Sasha and Malia Obama don't have their own articles? Is it because notability is not inherited? I'm asking because I think that whatever guideline is used to prevent articles about the girls should also logically apply to the First Lady's arms. Sasha and Maliahave much more press than the arms. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes it even more interesting about Sasha and Malia not having their own articles is that Bo, their dog, has his own article! Grundle2600 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete I don't think it should be a separate article. Milik (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the attention is absurd, and obviously a great many people here think the same; however, the rest of the world thinks otherwise, as shown by the NYT doing a feature on the subject and its significance. It's that part, the significance, the weird cultural fact that people write articles about it in major news sources, that justifies an article here. Its not that the subject is intrinsically important, it's that people make a fuss about it that's important. DGG (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That justifies some content but not this article. The NYT is paid to write such stuff but that doesn't equate to actually being so important as to merit an entire article here. A possible solution would be to add appropriate to Michelle_Obama#Style_and_fashion_sense which itself may expand to become its own article. -- Banjeboi 00:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Seriously, we're debating this? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge Meets notability guidelines per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- First off, I think it is a mistake for those favoring deletion to mock this topic, as if it were an established fact that it were trivial. This kind of mockery is a lapse from the wikipedia's civility policies. If you are serious, articulate your reasons, don't use mockery. I don't really follow fashion, but I can't help noticing that Michelle Obama's fashion sense is routinely compared with that of Jackie Kennedy. Nichelle Nichols#Star Trek has written of considering leaving the cast of the original Star Trek. She has described being told by Martin Luther King that he hoped she stayed because of the positive role model her character offered to young black girls. I'd like to point out that Jackie Kennedy has spin off articles that discuss her cultural significance. Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would be in favour of an article about Michelle Obama's cultural significance. I just don't think that her arms are as notable as her cultural impact. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the main article already states: "She has been compared to Jacqueline Kennedy...". But has Jacqueline any spin-of article about her "body parts"?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kennedy has a spin-off article: Cultural depictions of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. As I wrote above I favor broadening the scope of this article to address Obama's cultural impact. Geo Swan (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the main article already states: "She has been compared to Jacqueline Kennedy...". But has Jacqueline any spin-of article about her "body parts"?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Broadening this article to cover her impact on fashion, or her broader cultural significance, makes sense. Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - I think we might have stumbled onto a pretty decent idea here. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If that policy doesn't cover this article, then it doesn't cover anything. WillOakland (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, may I suggest we add Jimmy Carter's Teeth, Richard Nixon's Jowls, and Jackie Kennedy's Hair? Does WP:NOTABLE have a section on body parts? Jimmy Durante's Nose? Eauhomme (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Everything in the article can be stuck in a sentence or two on the main article. A parallel: Barack Obama's lapel pin received a lot of press coverage, but it was sensationalist, and definitely didn't deserve its own article— just like this. --slakr\ talk / 07:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and add a category under WP:CSD for stuff like this. Are you totally mad? This reminds me of the Lake Palmer discussion. --Pgallert (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to request -- again -- that respondents here comply with the wikipedia's deletion policies and civility policies. Please confine your comments to the issues, and refrain from mocking the sanity of those you disagree with.
- There is a meme that anything connected with women's fashion is always trivial. Elmo Zumwalt, Chief Naval Officer in the early seventies, on his tours of the USN's bases, used to meetings with the spouses. In his autobiography he noted the frustration expressed to him by the African-American wives. The PX outlets on Navy bases, often the only convenient places for them to shop, only carried cosmetics suited to white complexions. He noted that his order that PX outlets carry a broad enough range of cosmetics to serve all races was one of the orders that attracted the most (positive) comments. Geo Swan (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivia and totally unencyclopedic Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As User:DGG pointed out above those guided by policy will disregard any personal feelings that a topic is trivial if that topic has received significant verifiable coverage in authoritative sources. Sorry, but why shouldn't the closing administrator regard all the opinions expressed here that characterize the topic as "trivial", without explanation, as lapses from WP:NPOV? Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't received any such coverage, though, and the rationale of "trivia" is not a lapse. A smattering of write-ups in fashion/lifestyle sections of media outlets is not a strong base of notability establishment. Perhaps you need to re-read the "presumed" part of WP:GNG? Tarc (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When it is pointed out here that it is trivial, the closing editor can take that as a reference to the policy WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not every thing that is verifiable is encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want some guidelines, WP:IINFO is the one which advises against creating articles on trivia like this and WP:BLPSTYLE states that articles on living people should be "written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone". WP:TRIVIA is also at least partially relevant. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When it is pointed out here that it is trivial, the closing editor can take that as a reference to the policy WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not every thing that is verifiable is encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't received any such coverage, though, and the rationale of "trivia" is not a lapse. A smattering of write-ups in fashion/lifestyle sections of media outlets is not a strong base of notability establishment. Perhaps you need to re-read the "presumed" part of WP:GNG? Tarc (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As User:DGG pointed out above those guided by policy will disregard any personal feelings that a topic is trivial if that topic has received significant verifiable coverage in authoritative sources. Sorry, but why shouldn't the closing administrator regard all the opinions expressed here that characterize the topic as "trivial", without explanation, as lapses from WP:NPOV? Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A sigh and a facepalm. Delete as a ridiculously trivial non-issue. At best, a one-liner in the Michelle Obama article. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the consensus so far is overwhelmingly in favor of deletion, I have added a single sentence about this to the Michelle Obama article, and I have come to accept the fact that this article will almost certainly be deleted. However, I do not regret having started it, as it was well sourced, and I had fun writing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but ... I don't see how any celebrity's arms are going to be worth a separate article unless they have fewer or more than the canonical two. But many First Ladies have been important fashion influences -- Jacqueline Kennedy comes to mind -- and an article on Michelle Obama's wardrobe or something similar could easily accomodate all of the information set forth here and more besides. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is highly notable and the article is already quite well-developed. There doesn't seem to be the slightest reason to delete and the tut-tutting above seems just as stuffy as the fuss caused by her novel appearance. Our editing policy firmly indicates that we should keep this fine start. We might perhaps build it into a more general article about the first lady's fashion style but that is a matter of content editing not deletion. We should also note that coverage of fashion topics is poor on Wikipedia and that this is a systemic bias which we should not encourage. I have cited a respectable broadsheet in Britain which has good coverage of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really ridicolous page. How would someones arms be notable? Dexter000 Hop, Skip 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Her arms are "notable" in the sense that they've been covered significantly in reliable sources, but they don't justify a separate article. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Smerge to the article about Michelle Obama. It is unencyclopedic to have derivative articles about body parts of the family members of national leaders. Organizationally, it is better to mention her arms in the article which covers her in general. Similarly, there has been about as much press coverage of the arched shape of her eyebrows. Let's head off Michelle Obama's eyebrows. There was more coverage than this of Eisenhower's golf playing. But it does not need a separate article. There was far more press coverage of John Kennedy's hair, but it would be silly to have an article about it. There was more press coverage than this of Lyndon Johnson's gall bladder surgery scar, because he pulled up his shirt and showed reporters the scar. There was more coverage of Johnson lifting his dog by the ears. A photo of a hole in a shoe worn by presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in 1952 led to the campaign motto "Better a man with a hole in his shoe than one with a hole in his head," over 250 book and print discussions of the hole over the last 57 years, and a Pulitzer Prize for the photo, but it would be silly to have a separate article about the hole. Winston Churchill's cigars got more coverage than Michelle's arms. The arms of Michelle Obama get press mention only because they are the arms of a notable person, not because they are all that noteworthy in general, so the mentions are derivative, and the article should be deleted or merged per the essay WP:NOTINHERITED which expresses the views of a number of editors. Fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: not all verifiable information needs to be covered in depth in an encyclopedia. See also the essay Wikipedia:News articles. Edison (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sources used are about Michelle Obama. They just happen to be focusing primarily on that aspect of her. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For humor's sake, if nothing else. 68.229.226.53 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SELFPARODY. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt, sorry this is the very definition of WP:Undue. If this material is to be covered get consensus on the main article where appropriate content may be approprite. I hardly see any extroidinary circumstances to highlight someone's bodyparts in this manner. -- Banjeboi 00:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, absolutely crazy. Maybe a line or two in Michelle Obama, but a whole page is ridiculous. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I was about to echo Benjiboi above. This is undue weight placed, clear and simple. Exercise some common sense about what is expected to be covered here. MuZemike 01:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smooth and Cut Naturists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Defunct non-notable organization, no references to provide any proof of notability, there are zero Google hits in Google news, searching the entire history of their news archives. Prod tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable naked org. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the following on the discussion page: This is to answer the verification request about this new page created called Smooth and Cut Naturists. SCN is well known in the UK as a genuine naturist [nudist] website. The SCN Club featured in many editions of the UK publication Health & Efficiency over the past decade and a review of the website was recently featured in the same publication. Google UK has "SCN" and Smooth and Cut" at the top of their listings and our website has now accumulated in excess of three and a half million hits. The American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) library has a complete set of our publications called Ultimate Nudity. I hope this is enough to prove the validity of an entry for Smooth and Cut Naturists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An organization's website is not an independent source to satisfy notability. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has no independent sources, and has no encyclopedic purpose. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read what you have to say but should point out that the initial letters SCN are associated by many people in the UK with the well respected Smooth and Cut Naturists organisation and website at www.smooth-naturists.co.uk which gets many hits daily and is top of Google's listing for "SCN". There is mention of SCN in the publication Acorn at http://www.acornsoc.org.uk/theacora.htm and, as previously mentioned in Health and Efficiency back issues.
Wikipedia would not be complete without listing SCN.
If you still think you should delete this important entry I trust that it is for genuine reasons and in no way showing prejudice against naturists/nudists which would be illegal here in the UK.
Chris Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable and the comment above looks awfully like spam to me as well. Don't worry, no one's trampling on your rights, it's just non-notable so doesn't need a wiki article -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel greatly insulted that you regard my genuine article as looking "awfully like spam" and "non-notable". Please know that I am a genuine well respected Englishman giving an explanation (where none should be needed) that SCN is an important organisation/website in the UK and I am very disillusioned that Wikipedia are intending to delete my article. What is the point in an incomplete encyclopaedia? If you cannot accept genuine submissions, what is the point of us taking the time and trouble to write them only to be insulted?
Chris Charles, Dorset, England, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris Charles - I'm sorry you're upset about this, and thought I'd take a moment to explain why the article is being considered for deletion. We're not at all saying that your creation of the article wasn't sincere or wasn't in good faith. I believe that the organization existed and I believe it was important to people, as you've said. But Wikipedia doesn't try to have articles about everything that has existed, or everything that had a membership or mattered to someone. We only cover those subjects that are notable, which here means, straightforwardly, those subjects that have been covered substantially by reliable, independent sources. We'd need evidence like newspaper articles about this organization to prove that the article meets that notability guideline. When commenters here say that the subject appears "non-notable", that's what they mean. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I was the PRODder; though I understand that the organization is important to people interested in the subject, notability on Wikipedia is a simple matter. The topic of the article must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I would expect some Google News hits for the article title if this kind of coverage existed. Having found none, and no references in Google Books either, I support the article's deletion. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gonzonoir - I am greatly appreciative to you for explaining the position in a less blunt manner! As you say, my short article was produced in good faith as SCN was, and is, a significant and well known club and website here in the UK. It has featured many times in the naturist (nudist) press because of its importance but you probably won't see this in the US (where I presume you are) with the exception, as mentioned previously, of the AANR archives in Florida which contain our SCN publications.
Clearly as Google is US based (and I suspect because nudity is frowned upon by many in the US) it is unlikely that Google News would feature it. However SCN comes top of Google's web page listing. Similarly newspapers do not feature naturist clubs - except to titillate which we abhor. We would sooner have no mention at all rather than this, as genuine naturism has nothing to do with sex! SCN was last featured about three months ago in the UK magazine called Health & Efficiency (now H&E Naturist) which is available worldwide.
So, if I can't convince you of the importance of SCN and you still feel you must delete my article, please may we compromise by asking you to retain the entry I made under SCN for Smooth and Cut Naturists, with, sadly, no link to my page?
Thank you again for your help.
Chris (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris Charles, Dorset, UK[reply]
- Hi there - you're welcome. Google News does cover sources worldwide, including major UK newspapers (I'm a Brit too myself, in fact; there's a UK-based portal onto Google News at news.google.co.uk), so I'd expect to be seeing some reference there if notability by our standards existed - though of course, it's not foolproof. The relevant Wikipedia guideline here is then WP:BURDEN, which says that the impetus is on the person adding material to the encyclopedia to justify its inclusion, rather than on those removing it if it's unsourced. If you can find sources we can't, by all means supply the details; then the only question will be whether those sources meet our reliable source standards. I'm not familiar with Health & Efficiency, so can't say offhand whether it would pass muster with our source requirements.
- Similarly, since the idea of a disambiguation page is to help users find material on Wikipedia, our manual of style recommends against retaining links on disambiguation pages like SCN to topics not notable enough for articles of their own. Instead, if you can find reliable source citations in third-party publications, you might find other articles in Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to add references to the organization. If you've got good sources, subjects without enough coverage to merit a solo article can still find a place in more general articles. The key is to make sure that everything you add references a good source. You can find out how to do this at our guidelines on verifiability, citation, and reliable sources.
- Or, if you're just looking for a place to document the organization's existence online, take a look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a list of other platforms similar in some respects to Wikipedia where you could publish your material. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Santino Severoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Person does not appear notable. I doubt that his job makes him automatically notable; no sources are provided in the article that establish notability; a search in Google News reveals nothing but a few quotes and mentions, and those not even in very reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has held local office for a global organisation, nothing else. Not-notable. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NN per Flag and the lack of verifiable sources. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The decision is between a keep or a no consensus; per ChildofMidnight's improvements, it's leaning more towards a keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Catfish John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced stub. Claims to have been performed by a couple different artists, but no version was ever a single, and there are no sources. Tagged for notability since 8/08 with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 09:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Rolling Stone story notes Grateful Dead playing the song. So an effort doesn't appear to have been made to properly source this article instead of deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm a Dead-head, but I'm unconvinced that the Dead playing the song (even on multiple occasions) excuses the "never released as a single" part. "Weak delete" because I'm mindful that the Dead tended to release through unconventional means. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- What about the other groups that played the song and the other sources with coverage? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article lists Dead bands/musicians ("Jerry Garcia Band, Old and in the Way, Grateful Dead") and then "as well as other musicians". It doesn't mention anything about "other musicians" having chart success, either. I've poked around for evidence of it ever being released and couldn't find any; I'd be prepared to change my vote if it were released and charted but right now I think its links to the Dead are its greatest claims to notability. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chet Atkins signed Johnny Russell to a recording contract with RCA in 1971. "Catfish John," a Russell composition, went to No. 12 in 1972-73, but Mr. Russell's greatest success as an artist was the 1973 barroom anthem "Rednecks, White Socks and Blue Ribbon Beer" which went to No. 4 on Billboard's country singles chart." [10] Also mentioned here in relation to Bob McDill [11]. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This song is clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article lists Dead bands/musicians ("Jerry Garcia Band, Old and in the Way, Grateful Dead") and then "as well as other musicians". It doesn't mention anything about "other musicians" having chart success, either. I've poked around for evidence of it ever being released and couldn't find any; I'd be prepared to change my vote if it were released and charted but right now I think its links to the Dead are its greatest claims to notability. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the other groups that played the song and the other sources with coverage? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added refs. The song charted, has been recorded by numerous artists and is clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per reaching 12 in the country charts, "propell[ing] McDill into the front ranks of country songwriters." (from CoM's 2nd ref). This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete (WP:SNOW). — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I declined a G3 speedy nomination of this as it does not appear to be a hoax; but it does not appear to be a viable article: there's no evidence of any coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability or to verify the content. It seems to be just another bar game somebody's made up one day. ~ mazca t|c 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. NFT and pretty nonsensical. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if it is a real game in a community, I can't see any way it could pass notability standards. However, I would be happy to reconsider if they are found. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with extreme prejudice. With all this user could have chosen to write about, he chose this...this. "Utter and complete garbage" is being polite. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N, WP:RS, WP:MADEUP, WP:Verifiability, etc. In other words, it meets none of the criteria for inclusion.
- Delete, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, nonsense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:WHYCANTMADEUPCRAPBEDELETED. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Snow? Avalanche.... Yintaɳ 23:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:OR. South Bay (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete non-notable and probably a hoax or something made up by two guys in a bar -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy it WP:MADEUP ordure from contributor(s) likely too young to get served and too useless to get laid. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Someone should codify WP:CB and WP:MADEUP into CSD. There is no place for this in an encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eliska Sursova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable actress. I had originally put a db-bio tag on it, but it's been here for about two years with a lot of edits. Still, nothing but bit parts, no other notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete She has multiple names: you must also search for "eliska Amor". I found two sources about "Eliska Sursova": [12], [13]. Eliska amor has a handful of sources: [14]. Verifiable? Yes. But I still say delete because the sources I found are not of the highest quality, they tend to be sources that are trying to promote the industry, not real news sources. Cazort (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Her imdb entry, showing multiple names, shows no notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sources confusing and do not appear to be reliable. See also Elissa Sursara which brings more doubt to the Eliska Sursova article. Which is the "real" person? Listed at WP:BLPN yesterday for comment. florrie 02:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are clearly the same person. Can we get a deletion discussion going on that one and discuss them together? I would like to give people the opportunity to consider both articles at once and argue for a merge/keep, even though I would personally argue for a delete of both. Cazort (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea - does this discussion need to be closed and reopened with both articles? Or can Elissa Sursara simply be attached to this and then listed at WP:AUSDEL? florrie 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this discussion here can count as a "merge discussion" and one of us can boldly merge the page as a duplicate, and then we can just discuss here? Does that work? Cazort (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that a merge would be the best move as, as far as I can tell, it is only a suspicion that the two are the same person (or non-person). One is born in Australia, the other in the US. Unfortunately, no advice has been offered at WP:BLPN. florrie 05:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh ok I didn't check to find those discrepancies. Cazort (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that a merge would be the best move as, as far as I can tell, it is only a suspicion that the two are the same person (or non-person). One is born in Australia, the other in the US. Unfortunately, no advice has been offered at WP:BLPN. florrie 05:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this discussion here can count as a "merge discussion" and one of us can boldly merge the page as a duplicate, and then we can just discuss here? Does that work? Cazort (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea - does this discussion need to be closed and reopened with both articles? Or can Elissa Sursara simply be attached to this and then listed at WP:AUSDEL? florrie 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems a little borderline because both (?) actresses appear to have active careers on the rise, but they do not yet appear to have had significant roles in the parts they've played, so I do not think they pass the notability test yet.
- It is not at all clear to me that they are the same person. The IMDB entries are very confusing. The actresses have very similar names and are listed as having the same birthday, but are described with very different backgrounds (one New York native attending Brown University, one Australian native attending Yale). They are each credited with roles on Taken, Boston Public, Touched By an Angel and American Gothic -- but on different episodes and playing different parts. I think it is very possible that it is an unusual coincidence of two different actors, and also that it is possible that the IMDB contributors have been confused by the similar names and mixed up the backgrounds. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a really good point, they could have just been confused. IMDB is not a very reliable source in cases like this. Cazort (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether confused or not, I spent a good deal of the afternoon trying to find anything reliable on Elissa Sursora and came up empty handed except for contributor sites such as blogs and insubstantial "model directories". Nothing at all on google news and only the same handful of pics repeated over and over. Reams on who she supposedly dated (including Heath Ledger) - but never actually did! So to me, even if Sursara and Sursova are the same person, and whether or not they are real or a hoax, there's simply no reliable sources to support notability. florrie 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) PS: I even ran Sursara through the Australian white pages. Not a sausage. florrie 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. —Travistalk 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- University of Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Considering the level of disparity and conflicting viewpoints which discredits this page, I’m submitting a deletion request. I feel this would give justice to all of us as no verifiable history with facts exists on the linkage of the two Universities. History on University of Atlanta is limited as its birth is young. Most information we have tied into this school is taken from assumptions of continuity from Barrington and is without creditable sources.
Have verified with appropriate government and accrediting agency and the information captured is defamatory as the schools stated in history are two different schools. The Accrediting agency is threatened to pursue further if the information is not removed immediately. --Mistro12 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will add this to my talk page, generate the facts and place it back on Wikipedia once the information is suitable for the University of Atlanta. In depth discussions have been exchanged, hence, conflicting information continues to remain. Mistro12 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — Mistro12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Legal threats are not grounds for deletion, but could in fact lead to the person making the threats being blocked from editing. If there are two different institutions, split them out into disambiguated articles. Nothing here constitutes a valid reason for deletion. Speedy keep. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Article is sourced, no valid reson given for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, article is very well-sourced. User should be banned for legal threats. Basically Barrington was a Diploma mill and they're trying to cover up the past. Drawn Some (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI for Mistro12: this is what Drawn Some is alluding to: No Legal Threats Policy --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep references supplied clearly show the University of Atlanta (previously Barrington University) is notable, although not for reasons the article's creator, an indefinitely blocked single purpose account, would like. See Talk:University of Atlanta for the full history of this article's controversies. Those references which meet WP:RS clearly show continuity in operation from the school's 2004 purchase by the Mithanis to its 2008 name change and accreditation to its eventual move to Atlanta from Alabama. No reliable references have been provided to contradict the media reports used to rebuild this article after its initial start as a PR piece by Amithani. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I recommend not "speedy keeping" but rather letting the discussion run its full course. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclosed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I recommend not "speedy keeping" but rather letting the discussion run its full course. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep please close, there is no debate and no valid reason for deletion. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this nomination quite meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Also, I can think of one uninvolved editor, Abd, associated with this article that may wish to see it deleted. It doesn't hurt anything to keep this open for a while. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a discussion a couple years back on diploma mills and their notability or otherwise. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29 14 May 2009 (UTC).
- Keep The attempt at a legal threat by the nominator is reason enough to shoot down the AFD and to indef the user to boot. If there are factual problems, take them to the talk page, not to AFD. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speediest of Keeps - Per User:Lost Fugitive. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read the nominator's original point: Most information we have tied into this school is taken from assumptions of continuity from Barrington and is without creditable sources. I have not seen anyone above refute or even acknowledge this point. I'm not even sure how to vote but I think this is a serious enough concern that it needs to be addressed before deciding what to do with this article. I find numerous sources on Barrington University: [15], but scarely anything on the school named "University of Atlanta" (not to be confused with the historical school by the same name). The only sources listed on the page that discuss the new school are mere listings verifying that this school is registered as an entity. But I see no real content about the school under the new name. Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cazort, I suggest looking at the discussions on this score at Talk:University of Atlanta. I think the sources are creditable, whereas Mistro12's comments on the article talk page are unsupported by any references. Nevertheless I encourage you to read this stuff for yourself. I have copies I purchased of the two cited articles that were behind "paywalls"; I can e-mail them to anyone that requests them. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Godfather Additional Scenes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Trivial and crufty list, no real-world context, blatantly fails OR and V. Relevant and notable information belongs in the main film articles, but there is no call for this kind of article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Full of cruft that wouldn't even warrant mention in the articles on each movie. Nothing but deleted scenes. TJ Spyke 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Totally unsourced, unencyclopedic material. If people find sources, the sourced material could just be included on the main pages The Godfather and The Godfather Part II: it would enrich those pages and belongs there unless such a well-sourced section grew large enough to require a sub-page. Cazort (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Relevant for many Godfather fans like myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchistificationer86 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Anarchistificationer86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jamie☆S93 15:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs). See the deleting admin's comments below (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Guy Who Does Stuff Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't even think this show exists. I put up a CSD tag but it was removed. I am in no mood to keep adding it.
Upon google search, can't find any trace of the show. gordonrox24 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The CSD was for a test page. I can add it again if that is what consensus says.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted as garbage/nonsense. The original page was a copy of part of the Total Drama Island article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JStock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonnotable software, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources are found. I tried a bunch of things and can't find any independent coverage. But I'd be swayed if others would come up with good sources. Cazort (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered under Softpedia and Sin_Chew_Jit_Poh. Does that considered a good source?--Yccheok (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a tricky one. A Google search will give me a few places to download this software, but after that, it is mostly articles about companies whose ticker symbol ends with a J. However, that Google search returned no reliable sources establishing notability amid places to download this software. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. SilkTork *YES! 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any sources; sites offering download are nowhere near meeting WP:N. Cazort (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Syrian cartoonists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The entry Syrian cartoonists is currently just a list of Syrian cartoonists. In December 2008 someone placed a notability tag on the article but it has still not been updated into an entry that stands up as a solid entry. This article should either be put into context/explained, merged, or deleted. Alex (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough for a list, only one blue link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We already have a category: Category:Syrian cartoonists. Cazort (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which only has one entry in it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, true. Cazort (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and repost list to the WP:COMICS and WP:VISUALARTS pages. (correcting my previous comment, I used Thomas Nast as a guide.) ThuranX (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indescrignified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a non-notable neologism whose notability is coming soon. Prod removed by author. TheLetterM (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:MADEUP & WP:NEO both. Drawn Some (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've put nowiki tags as an anti-google-promotion measure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a cromulent term. That and WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. Probably should have been speedy deleted as patent nonsense. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong (Speedy?) Delete Wow, seems like someone just made this up and typed it into wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The version of this article at the time of my comment here has devolved into an unambiguous proselytizing screed (in which there is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just not encyclopedic). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Joseph Sargent. This was a pretty tough call, but after considering the different opinions, it seems that the sources do not sufficiently establish notability, so the consensus was to delete. Redirecting as a possible search term. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Carolyn Nelson Sargent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability asserted (i.e. "she is notable for...") but not really demonstrated. Actress with a few bit parts to her credit, but never really made it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the nominator stated, she does not appear to have had any significant roles although she had many bit parts as Carolyn Nelson. I don't see any in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wife of Joseph Sargent. Has played only bit parts, all but two of them with her husband as director. I'm not certain that makes her non-noteworthy, but her mention at the end of her husband's article seems like it could be enough already. Hairhorn (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the answer would be to merge & redirect to his article then. I saw him mentioned in her article but didn't get that most of her bit roles were under him as director. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - I got that factoid from her Star Trek wiki entry: [16] Hairhorn (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not gong to criticize a Star Trek Wiki as a source because I didn't find much more than IMDB. Drawn Some (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - I got that factoid from her Star Trek wiki entry: [16] Hairhorn (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the answer would be to merge & redirect to his article then. I saw him mentioned in her article but didn't get that most of her bit roles were under him as director. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And the deletion discussion takes a surprise turn! Search for "Carolyn Sargent": [17] It seems she has (a) founded Free Arts for Abused Children, and this is documented in "Married, With Children and Moving On", Los Angeles Times, Oct 19, 1997, and two other articles: [18] She also helped found Deaf West Theater. This seems notable, as both are highly notable organizations. Cazort (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, did you check your newspaper articles? They're not about her, they're about other people, the actress who played Peg Bundy from Married With Children and Jody Foster. And the two organization websites aren't reliable resources if she's affiliated with them. Drawn Some (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know that most of the articles are not written specifically about her. But they DO independently verify that she did found the one non-profit, and played a role in the founding of the other. And a quick search will show a large amount of coverage for both non-profits. That seems notable to me, even if it results in only a small article. Cazort (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wait, question, are you saying there is another actress by the same name? Cazort (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know that most of the articles are not written specifically about her. But they DO independently verify that she did found the one non-profit, and played a role in the founding of the other. And a quick search will show a large amount of coverage for both non-profits. That seems notable to me, even if it results in only a small article. Cazort (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, did you check your newspaper articles? They're not about her, they're about other people, the actress who played Peg Bundy from Married With Children and Jody Foster. And the two organization websites aren't reliable resources if she's affiliated with them. Drawn Some (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drawn Some -the source is not the show "Married with Children", The article is LA Times "Married, With Children and Moving On", Los Angeles Times, Oct 19, 1997. and to Cazort, there are wrong facts you might want to check out: read the following I just typed in "Please note that I am just trying to get correct information on "Carolyn Nelson Sargent". We tried to change things yesterday and ended up deleting what was already in wikipedia. I am new to this...very very new, and then the wrong Carolyn Nelson still keeps appearing in different areas of wikipedia. For instance look under "The Deadly Years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deadly_Years "Carolyn Nelson" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Nelson Here she is listed as cast, but it goes to Carolyn Nelson a politician. This was noted by a few people, including, Joseph Sargent, many time Emmy winning director, her husband is current Jury President and was a bit surprised to find out from a reporter that it appeared he was married to Carolyn Nelson a politician from North Dakota. I am not trying to do anything wrong here just correct some facts. I am hoping that we can add the correct information on Carolyn Nelson Sargent that is presently under consideration for deletion. Then possible correct the sections such as "The Deadly Years" that brings up the wrong Carolyn Nelson, Carolyn Nelson a politician. I would so appreciate your help on this. Thank you so much. Lasorgente (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasorgente (talk • contribs) — Lasorgente (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The facts have been corrected by correcting the various links in Wikipedia. A Carolyn Nelson disambiguation page has been created, and all internal Wikilinks that previously lead to Carolyn Nelson have been updated to point to either Carolyn Nelson (politician) or Carolyn Nelson Sargent. However, this does not address the inherent notability issues with the Carolyn Nelson Sargent article. If the article is deleted, the links that have been updated will become red-links. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not do the research on LA Times, "Married, with Children and Moving on"..that was provided by someone else in this discussion. What I can provide later today is other articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasorgente (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — Lasorgente (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- NOTE The information from the article has been posted to User:Lasorgente even though it is user space. Drawn Some (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-Thank you for correcting that. -Regarding notability issues for Carolyn Nelson Sargent: FREE ARTS CLINIC:- I can note many articles that are not on the internet at least as far as i can find, yet exisit in hard copy and possibly archived somewhere. I can however scan and pdf these articles if you would like. 1. Valley News Dec 7, 1980 "A House Built on Love"; ...It was built with Children in Mind-Children who are abused or neglected. ...The impetus behind all of this is the house's owner, Carolyn Sargent, wife of film director Joseph Sargent. As president of the Free Arts Clinic, a non-profit organization that helps abused children communicate wiht adults through art...." etc The Evening Outlook June 1, 1981, Current Living Section- pg A15 -Article Title: "Cliff-side clinic offers hope to abused kids" "...Malibu's Free Arts Clinic. "It has been my dream to build a house on the ocean and have it overrun with children who had never experienced the sea," explains FAC president Carolyn Nelson Sargent who with her husband Joseph, founded the clinic in 1977." etc goes the article. Santa Monica Messenger: A story to Touch Your Heart-"Carolyn and Joe Sargent...SIx years ago Carolyn began the Free Arts Clinic, dedicated to the idea that the arts could set you free, even if you'd had a mom who punished ...etc. "US Magazine Jan 17, 1983, "Miracles in Malibu" Full article on Founding of this project etc. DEAF WEST THEATRE: Ed Waterstreet Founder along with wife Linda Bouve-you can contact then for proof of Carolyn's helping to lay the groundwork and foundations for Deaf West, by going to Deaf West Theatre Website and contacting him. Carolyn's husband Joseph sargent is currently doing a documentary for DWT as well. Done may events, fundrisers etc. (also have articles on this-One is Malibu Surfside, 10/24/1991- Celebrity Haunt to AId New Deaf West Theatre, (at Carolyn's home) etc. MALIBU CITIHOOD: Malibu TImes- a sample article- Can't locate the date"A Night of Fright and Fantasy Benefits Cityhood Effort"-...at the Sargents estate where the Mailbu Committee for Incorportion Fundraisers, events were put on. (if you need more info I will research files) Thank you again. (I have more articles on FAC, etc if you need further proof and notability, please advise) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasorgente (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Please consider adding the sources to the article, or least dropping them on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Slow Pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
DELETE. The article itself is the #1 case for slow and painful non-notability. JBsupreme (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One song of his ... almost charted in Billboard in 1996, but didn't make it past the "Bubbling Under" stage. Not notable. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Barely-charting single on not one, but two bubbling under charts as seen here. The Allmusic link is also a non-trivial source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- put me down for weak keep as well. He seems to have several releases on genuine labels, athough the disc claimed as upcoming in the article seems to have been released in 1995: [19]. Hairhorn (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepI find pretty much the same thing that others do, some sources: [20], [21], you have to be creative with searches to find them, there may be more sources out there. Here is the best article I was able to find: [22], it offers fairly detailed coverage. Being interested in underground rappers and those outside the mainstream, I tend to like keeping articles like this in wikipedia. I'd rather have a verifiable but small article than nothing at all. I'd change my recommendation to a full keep if anyone found even a single solid source with detailed coverage. Cazort (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per strongest claim of notability is that one of the artist's songs "almost" charted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of artists on wikipedia never charted. Popularity and notability are two different things. Hairhorn (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found an article peer-reviewed journal talking about him: Pancho McFarland, "Chicano Rap Roots: Black-Brown Cultural Exchange and the Making of a Genre", Callaloo, Vol. 29, No. 3, Summer 2006. I am changing my recommendation to a keep on the basis of this source. Cazort (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bleed Like Me tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Stub, created by blocked sock puppet. No reason the content (such as it is...) couldn't be moved to the main article. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as nominator. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Improbable search term for redirect. Drawn Some (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to merge. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability. Every tour doesn't need an article Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coldfire Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't seem to assert notability. User:Milik was trying to nominate but kept having trouble. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my {{prod-2}}: "Company's only product was deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space - Glory Through Conquest (Second nomination)" Plus they have now sold off this game to another company, so have no current products at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Thaddeus and pile on a prod-3 from over here. JBsupreme (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Evidently not notable per above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Clear spam article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was created as a vandalism [Edition] user who created this article few minutes later modified a date page with a birth date of Michael Coulton [of that edit] so I suspect that it fact was Michael Coulton who per this revision was an employee of Coldfire Studios [in question]. I think we can say that initial article should have been deleted as vandalism. Instead it was edited and updated. But it is in my opinion just nicely edited spam. I feel sorry for efforts that went toward this article but it is not about a notable subject. Thousands of companies ship product, but don't make it in the long run, I don't think just the fact that company exist warrants wiki article about it. Milik (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Notability not sufficiently established. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr Arthur Krause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod - no indication of Notability and no Sources added that could establish it Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 09:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the text in this article was lifeted from the bands press releases and/or web site. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources.Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.drarthurkrause.com/reviews.html lists a lot of reviews. Some are from sources that don't count as reliable, others, I don't know. If there is enough verifiable reliable reviews there they pass wp:music. I don't know Swedish, French, Polish, Italian or German well enough to properly judge most of the reviews/sources but it does to me suggest it may be a keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking to the band's website doesn't prove notability. If the website has links to other sites which are notable, that's a different matter; link to those sites, but not to the band's. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking to the band's website doesn't prove notability. I never said it did. Yes it may have been better if I copied and pasted all the links but that does not change that fact that the links exist. It is those links and reviews that may show notability.
- For convenience, those with direct links, issue number or publication date: BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed FTM www.gothicrock.ru in Russia, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Martin Borg for CLOSE - UP #666 in Sweden, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Nochturnalhall in Germany, , RARE FLOWERS reviewed by Urotsukidoji's Pad in Canada, RARE FLOWERS reviewes by Daniel Claeson, GP (Gothenburg newspaper) Sweden (October 26th 2002).
- With possibly dead direct links: BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Gothic Online in Germany, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Shadowshire in Germany
- Linking only to sites home page (may lack Verifiability) (all these have dates so if they are refering to paper publications their verifiability is more likely): BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Beautevil for Gothtronic in Netherland, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by M.K for Obliveon in Germany, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Alternativepop in Poland, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Stillborn Webzine in Italy, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Obskure in France, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Mike Ventarola Hiddensanctuary, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Astan Magazin in Germany, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Metica in Sweden, BEFORE AND AFTER reviewed by Musicnonstop in UK, RARE FLOWERS reviewed by Gothic Online in Germany.
- I have made a change to my original statement Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking to the band's website doesn't prove notability. If the website has links to other sites which are notable, that's a different matter; link to those sites, but not to the band's. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Becky Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
College basketball player (i.e., not a professional), doesn't seem to have done anything especially noteworthy as a college athlete. No sources other than official team page. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#College athletes MuffledThud (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep doesn't fail WP:GNG (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you could pick out a few of those that are more than passing mentions. Unfortunately sports people are frequently mentioned in game recaps so they generate a lot of hits, but there may not be anything of substance there.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and recreate later if required notability can be established -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ananta Karki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. No indication that the organization is important (appears to be essentially a student club), let alone the founder. No inkling of notability outside of TASON was found online. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability. At most TASON the organization would be notable, but given that their homepage is on Geocities, even that seems unlikely. It appears to be a student club, rather than an full fledged academic society. Hairhorn (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per my comments on Talk:Ananta Karki, the links in the article do not make a case that the subject is notable. There appear to be no secondary sources discussing the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources covering this person. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability whatsoever. Otisjimmy1 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - founder of a student club is nothing at all. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blood in the Water: Live in San Diego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another case of crystal ball and possible original research. Also, what makes "Metal Storm" a reliable source? Cannibaloki 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, insufficient sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Blatant of crystal ball, an "user" copy and paste the entire section (Untitled twelfth studio album (2008 onward)) of Megadeth main article. Cannibaloki 19:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER, what else needs to be said? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing. Delete. Tavix | Talk 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your "Nothing", and raise you a STOP!!.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. --Zundark (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more... Why the hell was Metallica allowed a massive new article for their new album (Death Magnetic) and Megadeth not. It is because of foreigners such as yourself. Joker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.155.162 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. Wether B (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It's been stated many times, we don't create the notability, we simply acknowledge what's all ready there. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thorsten J. Pattberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Endorsed PROD was removed by IP, so this is brought to Afd) This BLP fails notability criteria for WP:PROF and appears to be blatant Self-promotion through the use of sockpuppets. No references are provided for claims in the lead other than Pattberg's own website and his name mentioned as a participant at a conference. Searches find no hits for publications [23], [24] nor books [25] nor any significant coverage [26], [27] except that the individual was one of a number of staff scientists at the Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai a year ago. Equally problematic are the apparent sockpuppet SPAs and IPs which are inserting Pattberg's name in several WP articles [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. [34] in an attempt to promote an unpublished book. — CactusWriter | needles 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There seems to be no significant coverage of book or author (in Google Books and News and Scholar)--with or without middle initial (and nothing for "Pei Desi" either). This looks like the advertising of a self-published book to me. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that's a ton of ipuppets, in the history of the article and the "associated" articles. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delte There certainly is a lack of even trivial sources to be kind. Not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deltete this person is not " 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." or anything else on the list Arma virumque cano (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --dab (��) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. and consdiering the COI and socking problems, Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it is getting too personal; back to the facts: Pattberg and his writings do exist, and they are having an impact as we speak. Pattberg, educated in Peking University and Tokyo University (also Edinburgh University, me thinks) wrote The East-West dichotomy (2009) in good faith via a non-commercial, modest web-site: www.east-west-dichotomy.com (copyright), sure, but so what, do you think he will reach less audiences this way? Better, even wikipedia itself is using his quotes, references, sources and ideas elsewhere (see now Cultural hemisphere). Most people wouldn't even know how to translate Li Dazhao or Ji Xianlin (there are no English translations available). The entries Thorsten J. Pattberg and the East West dichotomy need a bit more time to expand (as this is wikipedia, there will be many more experts editing on it over the time, hopefully many more Indians and Chinese, too), yet the general editors, assuming bad faith, immediately redirected East West dichotomy to Cultural hemisphere and want to delete Pattberg. I understand your worries. You say it is Pattberg's first work, and that he does not meet a so-called professor test (why not put him under a different category then?), so he shouldn't have been able to write The East-West dichotomy (2009), at least not before he is a Huntington or a Fukuyama? But I think wikipedia should neither do list every person who meets a professor test, nor should it list only the well established universal historians. It should also give place to the less established yet promising young authors, who for some reason or another where lucky enough to write an important piece of work. Pattberg is real, and he wrote, in good faith: "that there are two cultural hemispheres, East and West, which developed diametrically opposed, one from the particular to the universal and the other from the universal to the particular; the East is more inductive while the West is more deductive. Together, they form an equilibrium". Now, that is something beautiful to say, and you read The East-West dichotomy (2009) and agree or disagree, but you shouldn't attack him personally and delete his entry (and keep his ideas) just because the administration thinks such a young person has not the right to write a good paper. Many in Asia, in particular in China and India, strongly agree with the ideas expressed in the East-West discourse, that's why Ji Xianlin and Ikeda Daisaku have 100 millions of readers. Now you have Pattberg's The East-West dichotomy (2009) explaining and expanding a little bit more on the topic, and I kindly pointed it out to you by creating East West dichotomy as an entry in philosophy that did not exist before in wikipedia. It is based on Pattberg's work, so give him some credits. There is no need to delete neither East-West dichotomy nor Thorsten J. Pattberg, but I agree, it should be refined. Sakura china (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- not having a Wikipedia article is not in any way a slight or stain on the author's character. Most of us here don't have biographical Wikipedia articles. If Pattberg's writings are relevant, they can always be cited, but that doesn't mean he needs a bio article. See also WP:HARMLESS. --dab (��) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is inadequate and obscure. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- DeleteThis may possibly be epoch-making work, but until people publish about it , I don't see how that can be demonstrated. When he has millions of readers, there will be evidence of that, but this is not the place to disseminate his work. We write the article after he has made the impact. DGG (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But wikipedia already published about it, the East West dichotomy. The content of East-West dichotomy are the concept, quotes, translations, references borrowed from The East-West dichotomy (2009), www.east-west-dichotomy by Thorsten J. Pattberg. The same two editors who want to push for deletion of Thorsten J. Pattberg are those who are most keen on editing the entry East-West dichotomy themselves. Please consider. Sakura china (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should look more carefully at your contributions to that article as well? It could stand some cleanup, it appears. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But wikipedia already published about it, the East West dichotomy. The content of East-West dichotomy are the concept, quotes, translations, references borrowed from The East-West dichotomy (2009), www.east-west-dichotomy by Thorsten J. Pattberg. The same two editors who want to push for deletion of Thorsten J. Pattberg are those who are most keen on editing the entry East-West dichotomy themselves. Please consider. Sakura china (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was unable to verify even his claimed affiliations with Peking U. and U. Tokyo, let alone any evidence of academic impact. (The article included an abstract from a conference that mentions the Peking affiliation but that seems close to a self-published source to me; I'd be happier with some evidence of his existence on the pku.edu.cn and hi.u-tokyo.ac.jp web sites, but Google comes up blank. Regardless, he seems to fail WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Baidu.com: http://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/shukyobunka/IACM/IACM2009Program-jp.pdf; http://www.oir.pku.edu.cn/newoir/2005/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=3985; http://space.tv.cctv.com/act/video.jsp?videoId=VIDE1221113362857901 (6:38, front man, that's Peking U. Sanskrit Dept.). Google is biased, depending on the country you are in. But you are completely right, Prof. Eppstein. No published research work except The East-West dichotomy, www.east-west-dichotomy, so no PW:PROF, but maybe a PW:BIO that would need refinement. Thank you for your (good faith) editing. Pattberg (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is Thorsten Pattberg, the object of this discussion and the Thorsten Pattberg entry, and author of The East-West dichotomy (2009), which caused the wikipedia entry East-West dichotomy. As pointed out correctly, the sources, quotes, translations, and references from The East-West dichotomy were utilitized by free wikipedia editors for the East West dichotomy and Cultural hemisphere entries which now link to many other categories like The Clash of Civilizations, History of Western civilization, Eastern world, Western world, Eastern philosophy, Western philosophy, Eastern religion, Western religion, Eastern Christianity, and Western Christianity. Your source, the webpage The East-West dichotomy, is not a blog, nor an unpublished book, nor is it original research, as wrongly accused, but in reality is a well researched book (see WP:WEB) which reveals all its primary, secondary sources, and references. It is not blatant self-promotion either. I just wrote a book and published it. The East-West dichotomy is neither a commercial site, nor a personal page, nor a biography. It is solely a well-researched book published on the web, copyrighted, with references, foreword, quotes, translations, facts and figures, evidences and conclusions, all of which I am accountable for. Of course, it goes technical at times (who knows the writings of Hu Shi, Gu Hongming, Nishida, or Wen Jun?), but some person might find even those details an invaluable piece of information and source of reference. After all, that is the spirit of Wikipedia, to cover many fields of expertise. Yes, I have briefly been a staff scientist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai.What you could not know is that I was expatriated by the German Max-Planck Society, Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences (http://www.mis.mpg.de/people/former/2008.html), in order to organize an international conference in Shanghai and to do research on Xu Guangqi’s contributions to world sciences. Xu Guangqi, Matteo Ricci, Adam Schall von Bell etc. played an important part in the first great encounter of Eastern and Western sciences and cultures, and comparative cultural studies: http://www.picb.ac.cn/XuGuangqi/Contact.html Finally, the question of "expert knowledge": I am not a professor and never claimed so, and The East-West dichotomy is the only work of impact; in fact, I am a researcher in comparative cultural studies (I prefer Buddhism) at Peking University and Tokyo University. These are quite respectable institutions. Why would anyone leap from here to the conclusion that I am not an expert in what I am doing? Do we academics have such a ill-faithed public reputation to begin with? ;-) To sum up, for the completion and the correctness of sources on the East-West dichotomy, the entry Thorsten Pattberg will get a brush-over soon, as it is in the interest of all the parties involved. To prematurely delete it, would be a great pity. Thanks you for your kindness and goodwill. Pattberg (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: casual readers of this page should note that the above paean of praise was writtten by the LP himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- this reinforces the plausible but striclty unproven hypothesis that the recent touting of Mr. Pattberg and his work here on Wikipedia is due to Mr. Pattberg himself. This includes various socks and IPs. Delete all the more, I suppose. Mr. Pattberg's website may be a valuable WP:EL for some article, but it stops there. --dab (��) 09:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The above account has been added to the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakura china. — CactusWriter | needles 09:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the comments by both Sakura China and Pattberg here have the appearance of violating WP:STUFF. I've added the "not a vote" banner to this AfD as is usual when sockpuppetry appears to be influencing the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The above account has been added to the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakura china. — CactusWriter | needles 09:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- this reinforces the plausible but striclty unproven hypothesis that the recent touting of Mr. Pattberg and his work here on Wikipedia is due to Mr. Pattberg himself. This includes various socks and IPs. Delete all the more, I suppose. Mr. Pattberg's website may be a valuable WP:EL for some article, but it stops there. --dab (��) 09:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete and salt, but maybe repair some of the overtaken areas first..--Buridan (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: casual readers of this page should note that the above paean of praise was writtten by the LP himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Does the subject even exist? No Google Scholar, Google Books, or WorldCat entries. If the subject indeed exists, and this is not a big hoax, the subject clearly passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Eric Yurken, salt per Edward321, and clean up related articles per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I understand that the creator has userfied the content. Anyone may contact me on my talk page if they need a copy. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Approaches to anti-oppression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Contested PROD) This article reads like an essay. It seems to me that an encyclopedia article analyzing the approaches to combat oppression is inappropriate (and possibly POV) when articles like Oppression and Anti-oppressive practice exist to supply the facts and information surrounding the issue of oppression. Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The last entry on this version of my user talk page may be of interest to users commenting. It is is a message from the creator and primary contributor of the article outlining their creation of the article as part of a university class group project. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the user and creator of this page, I would like to contend it.
-I am a new user and was not aware that my entry was going to be published and viewed by others automatically this was a fault of my own
-as a group we decided to give 'approaches to anti oppression' in terms of interlocking and intersecting as THEY ARE IN FACT dominant appaoraches to the discussion of oppression
-our contributed work and content would clarify and add to the enclyclopediatic information specificaly speaking towards the entry entitled 'intersectionality' as there is MORE discussion needed in DEFINING intersectionality. And i also believe that encyclopediatic knowledge that contributes to and INTERLOCKING approach is also needed
-I in the meantime need to reformat the content so that it does not read like an essay, but is rather factual and informative regarding the related literary work available.
-if after reviewing my points to defend keeping the article as published is not considered and the entry will ultimately be DELETED
please allow an 'unpublished' version of the wiki entry to be available for my professor to use as marking or keep it published for the next two weeks PLEASE all of my work will be erased and i am aware that this is my fault but i do promise that it will look like an official/typical wiki entry by the 20th of may. SOCI3430 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) user SOCI3430[reply]
- In light of above, userfy or email to author. Either way, please delete. It's original research as well as hopelessly "po-mo". Hairhorn (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Userfied this essay to OP's page at User:SOCI3430/Approaches_to_anti-oppression. Livewireo (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Userfied and can be recreated if notability is established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We really need an approaches to oppression article to balance the POV of this one; I'm sure I would consult it often, looking for handy hints to oppress more thoroughly and creatively. But this seems to be an essay of original research pushing a point of view. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:ESSAY based upon WP:POV. It would need a complete re-write with a wider and more rounded view of the subject area and thorough, reliable, pref. academic sourcing to be considered. Can't get there from here. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi i have userfied the page as USER:SOCI3430/Approaches to anti-oppression with the help of someone else. rgardig this particular page when will it be delted? our group progject submission is tomorrow ! thanks! 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.36.71 (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft redirect to Wiktionary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both senses of rah are already captured in Wiktionary. If the etymology is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, it would also be appropriate for Wiktionary. See also WINAD. Ringbang (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no point in making a cross-wiki redirect to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wiktionary Can you give any good reason NOT to link to Wiktionary? Having no page on the topic would just encourage recreation of the page. And people are likely to type this in as a search term--since there's an article about it on Wiktionary, it seems totally reasonable to link to it. Cazort (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wiktionary as per Cazort above. Nanowolf (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral-ish to weak keep. I suspect there is plenty more that could be written on this topic to make a reasonable quality article, certainly more than a dicdef (c.f. Sloane Ranger). However, reliable sources seem to be rather thin on the ground. DWaterson (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I could be happy with this outcome too, although I'd prefer to move in the absence of encyclopedic content. Do you have any sources which you think could be used to add material that would make this into more of a cohesive article? Cazort (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Long-established consensus is that the final match of a major national cup tournament is notable. No point in dwelling on this one since there is not a snowball's chance of the page being deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 Coppa Italia Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Single final match like every year; no significant feature Invitamia (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep per, its the highest national cup final, which there's a pitty strong consensus for notability, see other finals from this year 2009 FA Cup Final (Category:FA Cup Finals), 2009 Scottish League Cup Final, 2009 Football League Cup Final, Coupe de France Final 2009, 2008 Scottish Challenge Cup Final, 2009 Scottish Cup Final (2008 DFB-Pokal Final, 2008 Coppa Italia Final, 2008 Norwegian Football Cup Final, some of least years final)... These are just some other finals. chandler ··· 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. chandler ··· 18:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Consensus is that a cup final is notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, clearly notable match with a major trophy and a European place at stake. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You're joking, right? Lots of these notable finals are up here, and for good reason, as they usually have secondary consequences, like Europa League or Champions' League spots on the line. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The person who tagged this must be having a laugh and is wasting everybody's time. Clearly as one of the major leagues in Europe, the Italian cup should be treated just as the English cup is. --Simonski (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - a clearly notable tournament. GiantSnowman 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - This is the easiest decision I've had to make all day. Is the final of Europe's third-best football nation's cup competition notable? Errrr, yes! – PeeJay 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect - In my opinion, the Italian cup lacks the notability for a separate article about its final. Relevant information should be merged with Coppa Italia 2008–09 and the article redirected to there! John Sloan @ 00:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major final in a major footballing country. We even have a couple of featured articles about specific national cup finals. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - Let's see: Italy is one of the biggest footballing nations in Europe. They have a cup competition. The winners goes into the Europa League next year. I'd say that makes it pretty notable. (As does the existence of pages for the cup competitions in, for example, England, Scotland, France, Germany and Spain.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I would note that the failure to qualify under one inclusion guideline (like WP:ATH) does not mean that a person cannot qualify under another, such as the GNG. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Manley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
High School football player. A lot of state awards, but does not seem to pass WP:ATH, as high school is not the highest amateur level in American football. Greedyhalibut (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete High school players are not even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sidebar says it all: "No notable achievements" —Wrathchild (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sidebar is simply a default response in the infobox that should be fixed. The article does reference and list notable achievements, including 2009 HIAA Combine Offensive MVP, 2008 Honolulu Star-Bulletin Offensive Player of the Year , and 2008 Honolulu Advertiser Co-Offensive Player of the Year. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. See google news results: [35]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It seems odd that there is a presumption of non-notability, regardless of how many independent and reliable sources have in depth coverage, if the person is a high school athlete. I question "inherent non-notability" as much as "inherent notability." The special provisions for athletes in the guideline WP:N do not absolutely forbid articles if the high school athlete has enough coverage to clearly satisfy WP:N for any other person. See [36], [37], Edison (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as per WP:ATH - I don't see notability for anything else or a whole pile of articles about him Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Statim per everyone else. --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found by ChildofMidnight and Edison. Yes, this high school athlete fails WP:ATHLETE, but as Edison pointed out above, failing that guideline doesn't automatically mean that Manley fails WP:N. The multiple independent reliable sources provided show that Manley passes the general notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While there are relatively few high school football players who meet notability standards, Manley has received several major awards. And the non-trivial press coverage seems to establish notability under general standards. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm of the personal opinion that "fully professional" in WP:ATH means something more than simply getting a paycheck, but in any event the consensus here was to delete. I will userfy as requested. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prodded, but prd removed for meeting ATHLETE. Material pertaining to this criteria was later removed from the article by another editor as unverifiable, so the subject either does not meet ATHLETE or does not meet N because his only notability is being related to another person who is. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Nobility is not inherited and no other claim to importance is made. In fact no other information is present except a link to the subject's father's blog. Drawn Some (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since he's earned money as a basketball player, and therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Earning money" isn't a criterion of WP:ATHLETE. He hasn't played at a high professional level. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last I checked, "fully professional" means earning money to play said sport. Looks like this guy plays a sport for money. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. Semi-pro athletes also earn money, but don't meet ATHLETE because they haven't played in the top level of their sport, so they are not interchangeable terms. MSJapan (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know if you've heard, but there are other professional basketball leagues besides the NBA. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And in which one of those has he played? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – and expand. Yes, I realize that notability is not conferred from father to son. However, Jr. has received significant – third party – reliable – creditable and verifiable coverage, in significant quantity, as shown here [38] to meet the requirements for inclusion here at Wikipedia. A similar case, as this, would be our inclusion of Billy Carter riding on the coat tails of his brother Jimmy Carter. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are a lot of articles written in detail about this guy, over a wide range of dates. This is YET ANOTHER example of people attempting to use WP:NOTINHERITED to override WP:N. This guy clearly has significant coverage in reliable sources and I simply don't see how you could argue otherwise. "Notinherited" is an essay intended to clarify WP:N, not override it. It's only appropriate in the cases where significant coverage does not exist--to clarify that having a close relationship to a notable person is not enough to establish notability in the absence of such significant coverage. Anyone interested in getting to the core of this, I would invite you to join in the discussion on the talk page of NOTINHERITED. Cazort (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, there's nothing to keep. Did you look at it? Drawn Some (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Nothing wrong with stubs. Look at any printed encylopedia and 80% of all articles are about 1-2 sentences. ShoesssS Talk 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I saw that this is just a stub. Deletion discussions, as I understand them, from WP:Deletion, are to focus on whether the article should exist or not; the current state of the article is irrelevant except in the case of WP:COPYVIO, slander, advertisement, or other material that needs to be deleted from the edit history for legal or practical reasons. Cazort (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Nothing wrong with stubs. Look at any printed encylopedia and 80% of all articles are about 1-2 sentences. ShoesssS Talk 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, there's nothing to keep. Did you look at it? Drawn Some (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Until and unless the people who are voting keep here are willing to include the sources and the claims of notability in the article, the article prima facie violates WP:N and should have been speedy deleted. Playing in a summer pro league doesn't make one notable. Getting a paycheck doesn't make one notable. Delete. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a misunderstanding of the deletion process: WP:Deletion reads: "It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." Also, if you look under "Reasons for deletion", you will find that being a stub is not one of them. We seem to be focusing on notability in this deletion discussion...but the relevant reason to delete is, again from that page, "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". It is the subject, not the current state of the article, that matters. Cazort (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone cares to write an actual article with some information.We can have very short articles, provided they say something. No prejudice against reinsert one if they do write one after the AfD has closed. DGG (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – To the closing administrator, if the final decision is delete, please throw a copy on my sub-page and I’ll rewrite and expand over the next couple of weeks. Thanks - ShoesssS Talk 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i would guess there are 10-15 basketball leagues that would be considered as the "top" professional level. He hasn't played at the top league in any country anywhere and has not been the subject of any coverage as far as i can see in any reliable sources in any depth beyond the trivial (i.e. "basketball legeng Abdul-Jabbar" has a son of the same name).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a stub to the article. Is there anyway we can suspend this discussion for some time to give editors time to improve the article? Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing that makes this a permanent deletion. Since there has been no proof nor claim of notability, it's likely to be deleted, but the closing admin can copy it into your User space for improvement. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moorea national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not a national team. No evidence team exists, not even remote notability. They once played a game and nobody knows the result. That's it. Stu.W UK (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There must be at least a pretense of having a nation to have a national anything. There is no real information in the stub. I hesitate to label this a hoax or original research but it is only a hint that there might be verifiable information and not verifiable information itself. Drawn Some (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N and WP:NOR. John Sloan @ 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; non-notable. GiantSnowman 20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the article is to be believed, this team has played exactly once in its history. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N --Angelo (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep as moot. The current, wholly rewritten article bears such a scant resemblance to the nominated article that this discussion seems beside the point. Kudos to Uncle G for the save. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trinder reaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete unref'd one liner about a chemical reaction without an indication of why it's notable. There are literally billions of chemical reactions, like mathematical equations, and they are not inherently notable, even if they can be verified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a quick Google search does not reveal any particular importance or in-depth coverage of this reaction. Drawn Some (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A slow, and more thorough, Google search would have been better. Uncle G (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable reaction in the field of laboratory medicine. Multiple articles on PubMed. Uncle G (talk · contribs) has rescued this article, I would suggest withdrawal of this AfD. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cops & robbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, "unofficial min[i]game" Passportguy (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Cops and Robbers. Not a notable game, no sources found, WP:WHYTHEHELLCANTWEDELETEMADEUPCRAP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Cops and Robbers. No notability for the subject of the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Cops and Robbers. Clearly non-notable unofficial minigame. Could qualify for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7, too, considering it's wholly online, but I wouldn't quite call it "content". Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An "unofficial" mini-game within a game? This can be merged into Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare or as mentioned above, Cops and Robbers, or even both.--Susan118 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sorry, but this subject matter is not better off covered in an independent article. Additionally, we can't expect readers to take an open wiki for its word: some outside confirmation is needed. --Kizor 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not recognised or even notable, no real sources available for it either... Taelus (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cops and Robbers as a plausible search term. MuZemike 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G3 by Dank, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ferzakerly Kernott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probable hoax. Churchill's 1930 book 'My Roving Commission' has no reference to Esther Jacobs or 'Ferzakerly'. Worldcat does not know about a British author named Esther Jacobs with this birthdate. The article itself provides no sources to indicate that this person ever existed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes it's a hoax, see here. Drawn Some (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree it is a hoax.--Nextext (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. This looks like consensus to me so I'll speedy-delete it, but I'll keep watching this page in case someone disagrees in the next 24 hours or so. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heisler Beer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random trivia. There are no reliable sources that are significantly about this fictional beer. The supposed "sources" that are mentioned on the talk page are blogs, discussion boards and Youtube clips, which are not and cannot be reliable sources. The project does not benefit in any way from having a list of every appearance of this non-existent placeholder product. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This seems to be a product of International Studio Services - the largest prop house for Hollywood which also supplies fake brands such as Jekyll Island Red Ale. Such a major player merits an article and so I shall be bold and move this there. Per our editing policy, such action is better than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that significantly cover the prop house either, despite your disruptive move. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence that Heisler Beer is connected to International Studio Services anyway. It's nowhere on their website. bd2412 T 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Please see Beer page at ISS. This indicates that they have several lines of fictional beer. I suppose that Heisler is the most used as it seems similar to Budweiser but the others seem to get some usage too. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I'm APS221. I'm the user who created the Heisler Beer article. I would be happy to discuss the article with other Wikipedia users. While I'm no beer connoisseur, I was curious about Heisler Beer after seeing it in several movies and television shows. I looked online and found some posts on beer connoisseur websites/message boards and the ISS/StudioGraphics website. I created this page as an answer to those questions, and a list of appearances. I looked for Wikipedia rules on articles about fictional brands and products. I found the article about Morley Cigarettes, and used it as a template. It is also a fictional product produced by ISS/StudioGrapics. When I first created this article, I included information about ISS/StudioGraphics and a link to the website to establish notability. However, a user called TheRedPenOfDoom deleted the references and links. He claimed that it violated WP:EL#ADV and acted as an advertisment for ISS/StudioGraphics. In fact, he nominated the Morley Cigarette article for deletion. The result was "keep," and I believe it sets a precident for articles about fictional brands and products. As a result, I vote to keep and restore the Heisler Beer article to the way it was prior to Otto4711's AfD tag. APS221 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This other thing exists so my thing should exist too is not a legitimate rationale for keeping. For an article to exist on Wikipedia there need to be reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. Please offer up such sources for Heisler Beer. Otto4711 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Thats a good point. However, I think the AfD discussion about Morley Cigarettes is relevant to the AfD discussion about Heisler Beer. Dravecky made a good point. The appearance of Heisler Beer in numerous unrelated movies and television (published works) helps establish notability. What I don't want to do is add links and end up arguing about their legitimacy. APS221 (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So then, you can offer up no reliable sources that significantly cover this non-existent beer. Got it. Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed. Morley Cigarettes is very relevant to this discussion and so WP:WAX is not a significant objection. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Independent Studio Services as the company is being covered in depth in reliable sources. The move of Heisler Beer to this name confused my search, since one called "Heisler Hefeweizen" is a real beer brewed by Laguna Beach Brewing. The article will benefit from cleanup and sourcing per WP:POTENTIAL and WP:PRESERVE, with a shift of emphasis from the beer itself to all the work of the company that makes so many terrific props. but AfD is not for WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak Keep as notable fictional product. If this is the one widely used in film, then its work the article. But if so, surely somebody has noticed it before us? Otherwise this is perhaps too close to OR to be really satisfactory. DGG (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply/comment Heisler Beer is not the only fictional brand of product produced by ISS/StudioGraphics. I wouldn't mind trying to add other notable fictional brands produced by ISS. Colonel Warden added Jekyll Island Beer (both lager and red ale), which is another fictional beer brand produced by ISS. There are a lot of posts on online message boards/forums and blogs about Jekyll Island Beer and Penzburg Beer. I think many of the posts come from the fact that they were both seen in recent episodes of Lost, and details in the show are frequently scrutinized by viewers/fans. In addition, ISS produces Morley Cigarettes, as well as other brands such as Bilson and Brezza. Both Bilson and Brezza have been discussed online, mostly in reference to their appearance in "Lost." APS221 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And indeed it should be noted that the article is about a quite notable prop company now, and not just the beer prop that they came up with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not sure that the Heisler Beer article could have been expanded as much as one for the parent company. Far from being a "disruptive move", the rename allows the additional material about the parent company and its other pseudo-brands to be discussed comprehensively in one article for a company that meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very week keep. This is currently a laundry list of appearances of the product. An article about the prop company would be far better, and this article may be worth moving there. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bookarmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Website still in beta-testing phase Passportguy (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment G-mail is still in Beta and I don't know how many years I've been using it now. That really no longer means anything and is not the determination of notability for websites, see WP:WEB. Drawn Some (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a fairly important development in the publishing world, with the biggest British book publishers collaborating on something that seems genuinely new. It appears to be a moderately invaluable book-finding utility as well, so it seems scholarly and encyclopaedic to me.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to look at WP:WEB, too, because you aren't giving any valid reasons to keep, just like the nominator gave no valid reason to delete! Drawn Some (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm? That's perfectly valid. Want me to cite the policies it's based on?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please, I'm trying to learn and I haven't seen anyone use that argument before. Just point me to the guideline. Drawn Some (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not guidelines. Two of the oldest and most fundamental policies. :)
WP:5P: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers ... " — and Encyclopedia says "An encyclopedia (or encyclopaedia) is a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." A website containing information on all books in the English language by ISBN is about as encyclopaedic as it's humanly possible to get.
When you're dealing with something fundamentally encyclopaedic (and only then), WP:WEB has to succumb to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it."—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for sharing that with me. Drawn Some (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not guidelines. Two of the oldest and most fundamental policies. :)
- Yes, please, I'm trying to learn and I haven't seen anyone use that argument before. Just point me to the guideline. Drawn Some (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm? That's perfectly valid. Want me to cite the policies it's based on?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to look at WP:WEB, too, because you aren't giving any valid reasons to keep, just like the nominator gave no valid reason to delete! Drawn Some (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge Worth including in the encyclopedia. I could see it merged to Harper Collins perhaps, but deletion doesn't seem a good outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A significant development, fortunately with just adequate sources.DGG (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs work but is an innovative venture with substantial interest. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Xerlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Cannot find anything significant on Google and appears to be discontinued. Sources provided in article are self-published. Laurent (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article...
- It has been in existence for nearly 6 months and has been well viewed.
- The Sources are not only self-published, one is even Japanese!
- It is in existence to document a application which is still used in several products.
- The application is open source, free and available to developers from the linked sites.
- The article supplies additional info on the history of Merlot project/developers.
- A WikiProject has selected it to be of note. Iamthenewno2 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did a preliminary search via Google Books and turned up 6 books. A Google search shows this is an active project, so I can't see how it would appear to be discontinued? I'm unsure as to what search terms the nominator tried but there seem to be plenty of books can that establish WP:RS. I'll include them here after I add them to citation templates. Tothwolf (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The app hasn't been updated in 4 years which is why it seems to be discontinued. I didn't notice that it was mentioned in books though, I've just searched for reviews or news on Google but couldn't find any. Laurent (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That really is not too long in terms of open source software. Releases happen as needed when needed and as developers are able to dedicate time. It really isn't considered unusual if a stable or mature project goes long periods of time between releases (even years). Did you happen to check if the source code repository is in active use? Tothwolf (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There haven't been any write transactions since 2005 (since the project is on SF.net actually). With a total of 40,000 downloads over 4 years, it seems to me like a rather obscure project. My own SF project has nearly the same amount of downloads in just 7 months and I wouldn't consider that it's very notable. Laurent (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about obscure, but it is a highly specialized field. There seem to be plenty of references available for this particular software and it has been written about in books related to this field. The article needs editorial work but I see no reason for deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Editing XML is certainly not a highly specialized field. However, following your changes and addition of the Apple.com source (which I missed in my search), I'm ok with letting it stay on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The apple source was already in the article, I just formatted it and added a citation template. It was linked in external links. Tothwolf (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Editing XML is certainly not a highly specialized field. However, following your changes and addition of the Apple.com source (which I missed in my search), I'm ok with letting it stay on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about obscure, but it is a highly specialized field. There seem to be plenty of references available for this particular software and it has been written about in books related to this field. The article needs editorial work but I see no reason for deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There haven't been any write transactions since 2005 (since the project is on SF.net actually). With a total of 40,000 downloads over 4 years, it seems to me like a rather obscure project. My own SF project has nearly the same amount of downloads in just 7 months and I wouldn't consider that it's very notable. Laurent (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That really is not too long in terms of open source software. Releases happen as needed when needed and as developers are able to dedicate time. It really isn't considered unusual if a stable or mature project goes long periods of time between releases (even years). Did you happen to check if the source code repository is in active use? Tothwolf (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I've added a number book of references to this article which will satisfy WP:RS requirements. Tothwolf (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flamingo oil company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is basically a procedural nomination. I declined a {{db-company}} speedy-deletion tag, since there are claims of notability that disqualify the article from speedy deletion. I'm taking it here for discussion of notability. Jamie☆S93 16:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--though the company shows up with a few hits in a Google Books search (nothing in News), none of it is significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly fails WP:CORP --Orange Mike | Talk 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has been speedy deleted once before and recreated by an employee again.TeapotgeorgeTalk 07:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The originally deleted version was far more promotional than the current revision, copying text from the company's website. Jamie☆S93 17:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could find no indication of notability trough a quick google search Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. — Aitias // discussion 21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of pop punk bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Serves as a needless battleground for edit warring. The page has a warning at the top that only bands with articles that explicitly call them pop punk are to be added. We already have something that serves this function, which is Category:Pop punk groups. This list ends up being a seesaw of additions and deletions based purely upon opinions. As it stands, it fails WP:OR, but adding a few hundred citations wouldn't improve it, because it's frankly redundant. Chubbles (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the list is organized alphabetically, it provides no additional information to the category and so is redundant and useless. Drawn Some (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even though I've just spent who knows how long trying to tidy it up once again by cross referencing bands linked with their wikipedia articles/other sources/my neutral knowledge and fixing dead links etc. Anyway, yes, no need for a list when a category works better by linking directly to the relevant article. Also prevents random kids adding their garage band and introducing random red links. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nouse4aname; as a more loosely defined genre, this is a battleground for people to add random bands. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Nominator's statements of "its better served as a category" and "its a battleground" are unconvincing. The latter is best dealt with by vigilance and the occaisional weeding out of bad additions. The former is meaningless. Categories and lists are meant to co-exist, not be mutually exclusive, deleting one in favor of the other is pointless. In short, any problems with this page are better solved by editing, not by deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some areas in which both a list and a category make sense. Take List of Japanese baseball players, for instance. This includes many red links, because not all professional Japanese baseball players have articles; there is a Category:Japanese baseball players, but the list includes additional information not in the categories. For this list, however, every red link is automatically removed by editors who watchlist the list (and so, in that sense, vigilance isn't the problem). So then, this article is an alphabetical listing of pop punk bands with articles. And the category is...an alphabetical listing of pop punk bands with articles. The category is much easier to manage and does the exact same thing. Chubbles (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is currently an alphabetical listing of bands. The category is currently and alphabetical listing of bands. The difference is, a category can never be anything BUT an alphabetical list of X, while a list can show redlinks where articles might need created, might offer explanation of why a specific item is on the list, etc. In short, a list can provide more detail and has more potential than a category can ever have. Just because right now its just a list doesn't mean it can't be more. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list, as it is now, does not allow for redlinks. It has a note at the top saying that only bands with articles are to be added. Editors enforce this regularly on the page. If this note is removed, and red links are allowed to stand on the page, it would then have a purpose, and I would withdraw the nomination. But I can't imagine I'd find consensus on that - those who maintain this list immediately remove bands that are redlinked without further comment and seem to believe they have the right to do so. Also, we haven't solved the gigantic OR issue, here. This list is a big opinion piece about what constitutes pop punk, and bands are regularly added and subtracted based upon today's editors' opinions. Chubbles (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason that red links are removed is because the vast majority of pop punk bands that should have an article already do. Editors adding red links tend to be adding their own band or some other random non-notable band. I tend to do a quick google search before removing any red links just to be certain though. Leaving red links in my opinion simply encourages people to waste their time making an article that will soon be deleted... at least in this situation. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list, as it is now, does not allow for redlinks. It has a note at the top saying that only bands with articles are to be added. Editors enforce this regularly on the page. If this note is removed, and red links are allowed to stand on the page, it would then have a purpose, and I would withdraw the nomination. But I can't imagine I'd find consensus on that - those who maintain this list immediately remove bands that are redlinked without further comment and seem to believe they have the right to do so. Also, we haven't solved the gigantic OR issue, here. This list is a big opinion piece about what constitutes pop punk, and bands are regularly added and subtracted based upon today's editors' opinions. Chubbles (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is currently an alphabetical listing of bands. The category is currently and alphabetical listing of bands. The difference is, a category can never be anything BUT an alphabetical list of X, while a list can show redlinks where articles might need created, might offer explanation of why a specific item is on the list, etc. In short, a list can provide more detail and has more potential than a category can ever have. Just because right now its just a list doesn't mean it can't be more. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being the target of editwars isn't a valid reason for deletion. Ask for an edit protect, if it's such an issue. Lugnuts (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and semi-protect Most of the edit warring would be solved if anonymous IP users weren't able to edit the list. Almost all of the bands that don't qualify to be on the list are added by anonymous IP users. The category is not a suitable replacement for the list; they are different beasts, and they have different methods of adding or deleting bands.Spylab (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as stated above, misuse of the list does not mean the list should be deleted. Strummer25 (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Markham Vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - This winery has the non-trivial reliable sources out there to establish notability, though this article does an incredibly poor job of establishing that. As it is, this article is providing really no pertinent information or benefit to the reader and just functioning as a WP:WINEGUIDE entry so it certainly wouldn't be a loss if it was deleted. But a decent article that passes WP:CORP could be created if anyone has the time to do it AgneCheese/Wine 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I don't really feel strongly whether this article should be kept or deleted, although I'm not seeing (based on a casual search) that the products of this winery have achieved any notability. For article inclusion, the saving grace may be the size of the winery; it produces a significant quantity of wine (over 50,000 cases per year based on their growing area, as far as I can tell). ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantity of production is not how notability is determined for a company. See WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's not quite true, if production is the primary feature. Bronco Wine Company is notable primarily for being a large producer of non-notable wines, for example. Markham Vineyards doesn't even come close to that level of production, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantity of production is not how notability is determined for a company. See WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per AgnesDr. Blofeld (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines. The discussion is available in the page history. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- J. Lohr Vineyards and Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable BodegasAmbite (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - This winery has the non-trivial reliable sources out there to establish notability, though this article does an incredibly poor job of establishing that. As it is, this article is providing really no pertinent information or benefit to the reader and just functioning as a WP:WINEGUIDE entry so it certainly wouldn't be a loss if it was deleted. But a decent article that passes WP:CORP could be created if anyone has the time to do it. AgneCheese/Wine 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. J. Lohr is a huge operation, significant enough in size to warrant an article here. The article as it stands is a poor-quality stub. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I have copy-edited the article and replaced a source to assert notability. It turns out this is one of the top 30 wine producers in the U.S. (ranked at #16 by the trade publication Wine Business Monthly) with sales of over 1 million cases. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as hoax. wL<speak·check> 15:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extregral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Neologism. No assertion of actual usage. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as vandalism. User's only other contrib was vandlaism as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Also explicitly WP:MADEUP. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usage is widening within the UK construction industry. Suggest that this word is permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik walsh (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete. wL<speak·check> 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Griffith Park Wine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable and article reads like an advert BodegasAmbite (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erica Ricolfi-Doria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unverifiable, probably a hoax - other articles created by the same user have been deleted —Snigbrook 14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a hoax and there are several other invented biographies that have been created by the same editor. Not too many 19th century princes and princesses are completely missing from the encyclopedia and when they magically appear something is wrong. Is someone trying to invent a pedigree for themselves? Drawn Some (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:HOAX. South Bay (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Alexey Vayner's new girlfriend was not up to standard so.... Plutonium27 (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Willy Decker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sole author (who has no other contributions) removed sd and prod without comment.90% of article is a cut and paste from http://www.comeracewithus.com/2.html. While there are some references to him (do not be confused by the number of Willy Deckers in the world) he does not meet wp:athlete standards Porturology (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be added that the web links indicate that Mr Decker is not a professional athelete ( he works as a mechanic) and his level of car racing is by no means at the highest national level Porturology (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Does not meet WP:Athlete Standards. Otisjimmy1 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, no indication of the person's notability. Jamie☆S93 15:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Danielle Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't think regional reporters often meet wikipedias criteria for notability, I certainly can't find any evidence in the text this reporter is yet suitable to be included with her own page LaurenOats (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of significance or importance even in relation to other news reporters. Drawn Some (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero evidence of notability provided. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tina Guo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page should be deleted. International tours or not, she is simply not a notable or mention-worthy figure in music. I only know of her thanks to linked YouTube videos. Bands I'm in have those, have toured all over California, have thousands of fans and legitimate releases, and we don't have Wikipedia pages (I've tried making them, and they've been deleted for the SAME REASON THAT THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED). Simply put, it's cool to put info about a musician or band that is trying to make it, but if they are not important in music they need not be on Wikipedia. If every session musician or cellist that went to a UC was on this site, there would be no room for actual musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frunobulax19 (talk • contribs) 2009/05/12 18:39:23
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – In other words, your reason for deletion is “I don’t like her”. That is a first here at AFD. However, a long list of other people seems to think her notable. Lets see GMA as shown here, [39] – News.com, as shown here, [40] – Chicago Tribune, as shown here [41] – Atlanta Journal Constitution, as shown here [42] and several other international sources as shown here, [43]. I believe establish enough independent – creditable – verifiable – 3rd party sources to include inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks - ShoesssS Talk 14:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--disclaimer, after watching a few YouTube videos I like her (though I like Joan Jeanrenaud better). Guo has generated plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and while the article reads like a resume and needs a serious rewrite the is certainly notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Hold it. I've reworked the entire article, which turned out to have been copied in its entirety from www.tinaguo.com. After all that (cause S Marshall, below, was right: it was completely crap) I come to discover that I'm really not so convinced anymore, and I wonder what I saw this afternoon that made me so sure. Shoess, above, found some sources--but the Atlanta Journal Constitution article only mentions that she's going to play there, the GMA thing really is not very in-depth or very significant, and that Chicago Tribune article...really, click on the link. So I'm going to clutch my keep to my breast (or vice versa) and wait for others to weigh in, others who can perhaps find better sources, esp. for the numerous awards she is supposed to have won (check the history for the earlier, fluffier version). Drmies (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark—The nominator's statement above appears rather pointy.
Having said that, in its present state, this article's completely crap. If kept, assorted templates should be placed on it recommending a rewrite from scratch.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, completely crap no more, S Marshall--I had a crack at the opening sentence. I trust you'll feel that, even in the absence of such information as birthdate and nationality, this is slowly becoming positively encyclopedic, one sentence at a time. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets WP:MUSIC in that she has internationally toured many countries, and performed with notable orchestras. There was plenty of potential sources when I looked, not just the typical myspace and youtube. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 15:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Afaf jbara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sole author removed speedy tag and prod without discussion. Article is a resume of someone falling well below notability standards Porturology (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Won only prizes as a student at university, no indication that she is notable now. Passportguy (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually, most of her prices are from school, not from University. List of notable achievements does not contain any such items. Quite a typical girl-next-door, I guess. --Pgallert (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete prices notwithstanding. Non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of significance. It was already tagged A7 but the article creator removed the tag (and was warned to avoid doing so again). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per DE above. WP:VANITY abounds. And since when has Operation Smile been a youth club? Plutonium27 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sufficient notability for inclusion could not be found, and the subject lacks "non-trivial" coverage in reliable sources. Jamie☆S93 15:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ausama Monajed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Likely vanity page - Member of a newly formed exile group, only claim to fame is that he attended a general UN meeting Passportguy (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an article about a significant activist and member of the Syrian political opposition (an area with little coverage on Wikipedia). The article is currently being expanded to include further information (not just "that he attended a general UN meeting"). Baradatv (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The search for verifiable information in reliable sources is complicated not only by the need to search across languages, but across alphabets with different transliterations. A search in English, there are likely to be many more in Arabic, yields about 40 results. These include speaking i panel discussions "hosted . . . by the U.S. Mission to the United Nations" here and here. Brief mention under alternate spelling. There are international news hits. The opposition group of which he is a leader is probably more significant than is presented, given the nature of Syrian political affairs. Opposition to the ruling party there is not encouraged by the ruling party. I don't think this is a vanity piece. I would like to see the results of searches in other languages than English, particulary in Arabic, before deciding. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep if it will indeed be improved, mainly per WP:BIAS. There is a potential set of editors to be scared away if we delete these topics, and WP needs more content from this area of the world. From browsing through the entire Walled garden about the topic (notability of the institution is also under discussion) I get the impression that the person is notable. However, the article doesn't establish that as it currently stands. --Pgallert (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Movement for Justice and Development in Syria was only very recently founded (2008). All in all this seems to be new group trying to get attention and using Wikipedia as a means to do so. Btw When I tried checking their website tried to install a virus on my computer - which certainly doesn't help. 14:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of meeting WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BLP presented with WP:RS and WP:V. The search I did above did not find the sort of coverage needed to meet the burden required for notability. Brief mentions while talking about someone else and a speech, even before the UN, is not sufficient. Dlohcierekim 15:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the issue is not scaring away editors. The issue is the notability of the subject. Dlohcierekim 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not at all frightened of the subject. Show me significant in-depth coverage in reliable resources to establish notability and to be used to verify the contents of the article and I'll change my opinion but I don't see them and the ones yelling "keep" aren't showing them. That's the bottom line. Drawn Some (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G11 by Graeme Bartlett. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Search engine optimization seattle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. This term isn't picked up online in the context it is used in this article, and it seems pretty spammy as well. ThemFromSpace 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A nearly identical prod was added as I created the AfD. I'll let this stand incase the prod is removed. ThemFromSpace 10:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as speedy The article is a clear advert for the mentioned link. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Włocławek (ketchup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article makes no claims to importance at all, but products are not covered by A7, so this is not speedyable. Fails WP:N completely though. It obviously exists, but I could not find significant coverage in reliable independent sources in Google[44] or Google News[45]. Fram (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. A consumer product that might be reviewed in edited sources somewhere. Those sources are likeliest to be in Polish, which is something of an obstacle for recognizing them. Do we have a general article on the manufacturer? If the Poles are putting celery in ketchup, the collapse of civilization is nigh. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Włocławek means from (the town of) Włocław, and that could be anything. The following source, however, points to the possibility that Włocławek is not a brand, but a type of tomato
sourcesauce: [46]. So it could be a name like "Hamburger" for that yucky sesame roll. Then again, is not even covered on polish WP. But my Polish is on level 0.5 at most --Pgallert (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete as non-notable although I too am puzzled by 9.2% celery in ketchup. That would lend an unpleasant stringiness to the texture. Drawn Some (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—notability hasn't been established. (By the way, my totally unfounded guess is that it is celery seed in this ketchup, rather than actual mashed-up celery stalks.) —Bkell (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my first thought as well but celery seeds are quite flavorful and 9.2% would be overpowering. Drawn Some (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the mystery ingredient, according to the source listed above by Pgallert, is celeriac, not celery seeds or stalks. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my first thought as well but celery seeds are quite flavorful and 9.2% would be overpowering. Drawn Some (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Miike Snow (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails both WP:BAND and WP:NALBUMS. Triwbe (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A9 as Miike Snow was just speedied. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A9. Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TPH, I've declined the speedy for now; once an article gets to AfD, I don't want to speedy it until/unless there's consensus to do that at the AfD (except for blatant db-attack or db-copyvio), and we only have 2 votes for speedy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. Speedy and afd an still overlap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TPH, I've declined the speedy for now; once an article gets to AfD, I don't want to speedy it until/unless there's consensus to do that at the AfD (except for blatant db-attack or db-copyvio), and we only have 2 votes for speedy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A9. Here's your third.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A9 does not apply to this article. Although Miike Snow's article was deleted, but the other people who took part in this recording: Pontus Winnberg (also known as Bloodshy & Avant) and Andrew Wyatt have articles. I have no comment about the notability of this album so I will remain neutral. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The members of Miike Snow may be notable, but that doesn't make Miike Snow notable. Therefore, there's no notability for the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Mariah Carey b-sides, bonus tracks, and unreleased songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not important. Many of the informations are already mentioned in other Carey related articles. max24 (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more important where the information was first entered. If that happened to be here, we need to redirect (or rename and redirect) to retain attribution. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Largely unsourced list, no hope of ever being sourced for the most part. Maybe salt too, because I just know some slobbering fanboy is going to re-create it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All B-sides and non-U.S. bonus tracks and Spanish Versions are already mentioned in the albums and singles articles. This information is repetative. As it goes for the Completely unreleased and Released songs (with unreleased guest stars), these informations are unsourced and non-notable to have its own article. Fancruft. max24 (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 01:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bent Creek Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: user:Dante Alighieri previously restored the article from an expired prod stating it was notable. --wL<speak·check> 09:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that ethical for an admin to do? Restore a page that they created after it was deleted via prod by another admin? AgneCheese/Wine 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. All the news sources Google has on this consumer business seem to be local (Tri Valley Herald, Contra Costa Times). If their products ever are reviewed by wine magazines or so forth, that would put them on the map. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Just not enough coverage at this point to establish notability. However, I am going to go out and try a bottle. Good Luck to the owner. ShoesssS Talk 14:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a member of the WP:WINE project I see no non-trivial coverage of this winery that establishes any kind of concrete of notability for an encyclopedia article instead of a WP:WINEGUIDE. All there appears to be are sources are the same type of isolated local features that your local pizza shop or deli could achieve. We wouldn't have a Wikipedia article on Joe's Pizza per WP:CORP passed on the same type of coverage and there is no reason why a winery should be any different. AgneCheese/Wine 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although with better 3rd-party coverage and awards in some meaningful competitions (beyond local/regional popularity contests), I could be convinced to keep the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Belgravia Vineyard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable and reads like and advert BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a member of the WP:WINE project I see no non-trivial coverage of this winery that establishes any kind of concrete of notability for an encyclopedia article instead of a WP:WINEGUIDE. All there appears to be are sources are the same type of isolated local features that your local pizza shop or deli could achieve. We wouldn't have a Wikipedia article on Joe's Pizza per WP:CORP passed on the same type of coverage and there is no reason why a winery should be any different. AgneCheese/Wine 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. Fails criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely no sources at all - only link at end is to a page having nothing to do with them as far as I can tell. DreamGuy (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete G12, copyright violation of [47]. Amalthea 08:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silly Boy (Rihanna song)}} (delete) – (View AfD) Sources confirm this single was not performed by either artist mentioned] The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious copyvio, from pieces of [48] and possibly others. Amalthea 07:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation if sourced, but at present is either a hoax or breach of WP:CRYSTAL Rodhullandemu 21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Essential Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article was created with no reliable sources. There is no information available to support assertions such an album is going to be released. Possible hoax. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I had a look for notable third party sources yesterday and couldn't find any. I will keep trying but until then I'm sticking with delete. — R2 08:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Welcome to our guests. I have closed this discussion as "delete" despite the presence of many keep comments. This is not a vote, but a discussion to determine whether the article meets Wikipedia's policies. I deleted this article primarily because it does not establish "notability" in the sense that we use that term on Wikipedia. For a stand-alone article to exist here, you need to demonstrate that reliable sources (and you can click on the link to see what we mean by that) have written about the subject in a meaningful way - the idea being that we then can use those sources to confirm the information we have, and write a neutral article. While this article had many sources, I did not see any that are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. The participants in the debate who pointed out the absence of such sources appear to be correct, which is why the article has been deleted. I'm sure that there will be those who want to know how to "appeal", you do that by going to deletion review. That is not a second bite at the apple, but instead a review of whether I properly followed policy here. Also, I can provide a copy of this article in someone's user space. The article can then be re-written, and reliable sources added. If an article emerges that meets Wikipedia's policies, the article could then be restored. Thanks for taking the time to read this far. I hope many of you choose to become involved with editing here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Full Armor of God Broadcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My first thought was this was an involved hoax and then that it was a Christian something and then a heavy metal something. I looked at a few of the references and they are nutty and didn't clarify the issue and I couldn't bear to look at any more. A Google search doesn't clarify it either. It's either a hoax, an attempt to sell tee shirts, a viral marketing scheme, or a combination of these, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though not the most famous syndicated radio program in the world, The Full Armor of God Broadcast is clearly NO HOAX. They have regualar advertisments published in well known magazines such as HM Magazine. The interviews with well known artists in Christian Metal clearly show the program has some level of notability. They have endorsments from established ministries such as Way Of The Master (Kirk Cameron), Teen Challenge & XXXChurch. There are several stations that air The Full Armor of God Broadcast and which are easily referenced online. This show also has a strong Google rating. The Full Armor of God is certainly not a hoax by any stretch of the imagination.173.88.8.29 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)— 173.88.8.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Article obviously not a hoax. There are 8 references to episodes of the show containing interviews with well known artists and 8 references to third party internet broadcasters who list the show on their schedule. Zeagler seems to be on a personal mission to have this article removed. He tagged the article for Notabilty, but when Notabiltiy (Web) Criteria was established, refused to allow tag to be removed. This action is a direct escalation in retalliation to prior dispute. Article does not deserve deletion.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — Ivanhoe610fa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- As I explained on the article's talk page, WP:WEB does not apply here because the broadcast is not solely distributed on the internet. (Though even if it were, we'd still need sources of information that go beyond the broadcast's official site.) I've been searching Google and Factiva for some independent coverage that would help the article meet WP:NOTABILITY, but there is none to be found. —Zeagler (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Full Armor of God Broadcast is soley distributed via internet digital distribution by FullArmorRadio.com (including to terrestrial stations), thus Notibility (web) Criteria would seem to apply. It appears that Zeagler is overly knit picking this article. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. What is Zeagler's motive for scrutinizing this page so heavily?173.88.8.29 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.23.76 (talk)
- Keep The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a hoax. I have heard the guests that the Full Armor of God Broadcast has interviewed and know them to be true.162.71.100.8 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)— 162.71.100.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 162.71.100.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It's not about truth, it's about sufficient independent references to establish notability and to verify the article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one has been able to provide sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable resources to establish notability and I certainly couldn't find any. I am willing to reconsider my opinion if anyone can find such references. Drawn Some (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are 8 references to internet broadcasters who have listed The Full Armor of God Broadcast on thier schedules. I do not see how it can be said that coverage cannot be found anywhere out side of its own site. From what I read in the Notability Criteria, subject notability is not neccesarily measured in fame. The Full Armor of God Broadcast clearly has a certain level of notability in that several significatly known artist have been guests on the show (8 references have been given) and there are also several internet broadcasters have the show listed on the schedule. I realize that prior to User:Zeagler assertion of Wiki criteria that the article definately had too much excess information that could not be confirmed. However, content in question has been removed, the protions of the article that seemed too much like a press release have been re-written and adiquate refferences have been given to meet even minimum Wikipedia Notability (Web) Criteria, so article should not need to be deleted. This action seems excessive and retallitory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanhoe610fa (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 May 2009
- Delete. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; thus, the article fails the GNG. Appearing on a schedule does not constitute significant coverage, and the fame of guests does not affect the notability of the program. We can't be the first to write about it in detail; someone has to have done so before us, which doesn't seem to be the case. Deor (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The Full Armor of God Broadcast article is about a syndicated radio show, perhaps only known on a minor scale but ligitimate none the less. It would seem that references to established internet broadcasters (via SHOUTcast) such as the ones listed should be considered significant coverage enough to establish even minimum notability of this subject.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would seem to be the very definition of a trivial reference, a directory or schedule listing, maybe with a very brief description. "Less than exclusive" means, for example, an article that is about cat breeds and that has a few paragraphs on Maine Coons that discusses them in detail but also has sections that talk about other breeds as opposed to being solely about Maine Coons. I have no prejudice against the subject of this article and if someone can show me the references I will be glad to change my opinion to keep. The information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable and the subject of articles must be notable and we have guidelines to determine these things. Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can find references listed under several web sites sorces and my google search gave me several references as well. Besides, I know the show airs on several internet radio stations because I've listened to it on at least three of them. As I read this dispute, it appears that the arguement/rules keep changing. I'm not certain I understand the reasoning behind the delete action since every argument is met with substainable proof.70.214.26.128 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)— 70.214.26.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The word "Trivial" is defined by Webster as "of little worth or importance"... I fail to see a valid arguement of how a schedule listing on by a radio station could be "of little worth or importance" to a syndicated radio show which relies on radio stations to air it???Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article has shown significant references according to wikipedia guidelines. Whammy (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the references? Where are these significant, in-depth references everyone keeps talking about? Could someone please post links? Drawn Some (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure what kind of references you want. I mean it is not like The Full Armor of God Broadcast is as well known as the "Howard Stern Show", but in the Christian Metal, the show is very well known. It does not have references from "MTV", "Rolling Stone Magazine" or "Clear Channel", but in it's respective area, the references are known enough to establish at least a minimal level of notability in it area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast#References Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The kind of references I want – and when I say "I want" I really mean "WP:NOTABILITY calls for" – are the kind where "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Has anyone seen fit to do this? Kuba's hometown newspaper? A Christian music magazine? —Zeagler (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With regards to the Full Armor of God Broadcast, there are refernces externally to the radio show. I also feel that the proper procedures for checking references could have been followed better. It does appear to me that there is a underlying reason here for the attacks against this site. It has been said here about it being a christian thing, yes it is, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. How about we get a well explained request for refrences, explaining better what you think would be appropriate for these references. http://www.radioratingz.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1005 is the listing for the site with raitings going back to 2007. I don't see how a show having multimedia distrobution would make not notable. There are many many refernces and discussions about and due to the show on http://www.christianmetalrealm.niceboard.com. On the issue of it being a Hoax or Viral issue, how about looking through the ministry staff, look up those people, contact them, email them, see what they have to say about this issue. How about someone calls the office number in there. Overall seems that could be better ways to try and confirm refrences. Anakhchallath (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — Anakhchallath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That the subject of this article is Christian doesn't seem to be an issue. I am the nominator, and I am responsible for two good articles in the field of Christian music: DecembeRadio and Satisfied (album). —Zeagler (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep' As Program Director for WTGO, a christian rocks station in Lafayette, IN (we're on Wikipedia too). I can tell you that The Full Armor of God Broadcast is a legit radio show. We air it every Friday night at midnight (Technically Saturday morning), right after our hard core music hours, as it fits the genre. I first heard about the Full Armor of God Broadcast when I was PD at WCRD, the Ball St. Student radio station. I began airing the show in early 2006. I have since moved on, but I believe the show is still aired early Sunday mornings on WCRD. I still download the show in MP3 format from the FTP server and drop it in the scheduled time slot. If anyone would like to listen to see if it is a real show, check out our station on Sat. 12:00AM EST. We broadcast online so anyone who wants to can listen online by clicking on this link http://www.christiannetcast.com/listen/dynamicasx.asp?station=wtgo-fm
I often get comments from listeners about how they like the show as it is different, or asking "Whats the show that comes on at midnight?" If there's a Wikipedia page of it, that's a huge help, I can just reply with a link in the email. If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me, www.wtgoradio.com or myspace.com/wtgo -Brett Estes69.160.193.252 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't come on Wikipedia much at all, but when I heard that Wikipedia was challenging the credibility of The Full Armor of God Broadcast I had to speak up. I first heard the show on WJCU in Cleveland Oh back in 2001. This show helped me get plugged in to drug abuse recovery and get sober. I have been straight now for almost 9 years now. So if you don't think that this show is not for real, you are wrong. It helped save my life. Jeff (Cleveland, Oh)173.88.25.71 (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pretty much per Deor. I can't find any hits for this on google news and nothing that meets WP:N from a regular google search. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources seals the deal. And as obvious as it is, I can't not point out the obvious canvassing going on behind the scenes. ThemFromSpace 16:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." According to WP:WEB "web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria" and listed therein "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" There is certainly enough reference to such to establish minimum requirements for Notability here. As far as canvassing is concerened there seems to be more chronnyism present with the opposition to this article.173.88.44.186 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is important to consider why this article has been nominated for deletion. The original reason for deletion is “Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler”
- I actually agree with you on this point Mr. Zeagler. This is important because the rules seem to be ever changing and this is looking more and more like a witch hunt than a disscussion for the good of Wikipedia. On this note, there still seems to be sufficiant basic coverage if not in depth and excessive coverage enough to warrant that this subject be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Would you consider removing your tag if all additional information goes through you before posting? There is no doubt that much of the information which you removed was questionable and you were right in removing it. However, is total deletion of this article the best thing for Wikipedia, not to mention the moral principal that this subject serves? FYI -The Full Armor of God Broadcast has contacted DecembeRadio for an interview, H20 Artist management has returned the call and an interview is currently being scheduled with the band's manager Eric. Would this help establish some notability in your eyes?173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first question required is what does the nominator constitute as “coverage”? If the nominator’s intention was “is the show being played on other radio stations outside of its own website?” Then proper etiquette would require the nominator to make attempts (multiple if necessary) to contact (by email/mail/phone/fax) “radio stations” (am/fm/satellite/internet) that list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule. (contact information for radio stations are easy to obtain through several different methods) Failure to do so would not be in accordance with the guidelines established by Wikipedia: Articles for Deletions which states, “first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.”
- Reply Coverage typically means books or articles that discuss the subject. It does not mean an entry in a radio station's schedule. Since radio stations don't put out books/articles, I didn't find it necessary to contact any of them. The homework that I did involved consulting a search engine unlikely to miss a notable web source (Google) and a database of over 14,000 newspapers, journals and magazines (Factiva). —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second question that needs more clarification is what does the nominator mean by “as it has terrestrial outlets”? Taken from the discussion page (Talk: Full Armor of God Broadcast) where the nominator also posted this statement “WP:WEB does not apply to FAoGB, as it has terrestrial outlets – "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." You need to show that FAoGB meets WP:NOTABILITY. —Zeagler” From the statement “as it has terrestrial outlets” it appears that the nominator is acknowledging “coverage” beyond that of the internet. In this case the motion to delete this article needs to again be questioned because the motion and discussion is based on “coverage” versus other reasons.
- Reply "Terrestrial outlets" does not equal "coverage". —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Notability (Web) Ctriteria has been met and should be sufficiant to establish enough notability to Keep Article.173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination statement’s use of “Can’t Find” does not demonstrate what methods were used and what the outcome was. Later comments by the nominator states the use of “Google and Factiva” however, no comments were made showing if the nominator attempted to contact radio stations (which list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule) in regards to this matter. In this case, if the nominator is looking for proof of “coverage” an email/letter/phone call or fax to a radio or radio stations (which list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule) would certainly meet the criteria of “Necessary Homework” and present a more established level of credibility as evidence over “Google and Factiva”.
- Later on in the discussion the nominator states “The kind of references I want – and when I say "I want" I really mean "WP:NOTABILITY calls for" – are the kind where "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Has anyone seen fit to do this? Kuba's hometown newspaper? A Christian music magazine?” Again, when looking at this statement was the “necessary homework” done? Did the nominator search “Kuba’s hometown newspaper” or any Christian/Non Christian, Music/Non Music Publications? If the answer is no, then the nominator has to question the “Necessary Homework”. Most libraries or newspaper publishers keep copies of past articles that can be accessed by the public. Many of these publications possibly would not come up during a search (various internet search engines) and would have to be verified by different methods. Also The Full Armor of God’s Broadcast’s email and phone number is public information and easily found on their website. (This would allow the nominator the location of “Kuba’s hometown newspaper” should the nominator wish to research in that manner.) In regards to “A Christian Music Magazine” the article in dispute lists HM’s founder Doug Van Pelt. Were there attempts made by the nominator to reach out to this magazine or to Mr. Van Pelt?
- Reply I will not carry the entire burden. Surely those involved with the creation of this article, seeing as how they've admitted their connection to the show, have better access to this information than I. Why haven't they come up with anything? —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is noted that the nominator has an established knowledge level of Wikipedia. This is proven by the nominators comment, ”That the subject of this article is Christian doesn't seem to be an issue. I am the nominator, and I am responsible for two good articles in the field of Christian music: DecembeRadio and Satisfied (album). —Zeagler”
- The fact that the nominator has written two good articles in the area of “Christian Music” gives several alternative options to deletion that would have been better to see the nominator use from the Wikipedia Guide prior to nominating this page for deletion:
- (investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.)
- (consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.)
- (consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD)
- Reply These were done. Since I had no reliable sources, there was nothing to rewrite. The article was indeed tagged before nomination, although the editors were quick to remove the tag without establishing notability, and there is no good place to redirect/merge this article. —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thank you for your comments. I respectfully would like to suggest that you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_metal as the subject matter (Chistian Metal) appears to be in line with "The Full Armor of God Broadcast" (since the show plays Various Styles of Heavy Christian Metal) and would fufill the requirment for redirect/merge. At the bare minimum "The Full Armor of God Broadcast" should at least be mentioned on that page.70.153.164.153 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply A mention at Christian metal may be in order whether this article is kept or not. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this program's importance to the genre? —Zeagler (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have chosen to post this message as a “comment” and not a “keep”/”delete” because I do not regularly contribute or discuss matters on Wikipedia and hope that this comment is not considered “Sockpuppeting”. However, I do consult Wikipedia on multiple occasions especially in regards to music (both Christian and Non-Christian Music). I do find it a valuable resource and think that efforts to maintain correct information are vital to the success of this resource. In my future visits to Wikipedia, I hope to find this page here, as is, re-written (by author or nominator), or as a redirect as this information can be and is useful to those looking for a specific genre of music, radio show information, radio show history, or other reasons. 70.153.164.153 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — 70.153.164.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment This is getting utterly ridiculous! This it clearly a persoanl attack. The chronnyism and misappropriation of Wikipedia policy and authority is just ludacris. The parameters of this disscussion keep changing. This subject has clearly established adiquate references to establish at least minimum notability. We are not dealing with a written publication, so how can written sources be required. Multiple internet broadcasters have been established and confirmed. How coudl this not be good enough. I can't help but continue to ask the one question that nobody is answering. "Why is it so important that this article be deleted?" What is the motive here to be so "hell bent" on deletion?? The opposition seems to be so caught up with being able to have this article deleted, they have'nt stop to think about if the should have it deleted. There are MANY exsisting article with far less references that have been allowed to stay. This looks more and more like a personal attack.173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - without prejudice for recreation should it be demonstrated that the subject has enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. Until then, some of the verifiable content could be easily moved to either Christian radio, Christian media, Christian music, or some other related article. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Since there are several interviews with fairly well known Christian Metal artists such as Brian HEAD Welch, Demon Hunter, As I Lay Dying and Disciple and since the archived broadcasts verify these artist being guests on the show, wouldn't that in and of itself verify at least a reasonable level of notability for the show seeing as how the artists themselves have enough notabiltiy to have wikipedia articles themselves? The fact that the radio show is notable enough to have notable guests would seem to verify it's notability to some degree. I'm sorry but it still seems like this heavy push for deletion is more buracratic than logical.173.88.28.69 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a credible program. This is great article and I believe it should stay. I do frequent wikipedia to search for different things. The Full Armor of God has been know for underground Christian metal radio for a long time.98.239.45.67 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - I find it hard to understand how this entry is considered to be uncredible, as I have found this article to be helpful. The show is quite popular and well-known in the Christian metal underground. I reference Wikipedia a lot, and I've seen a lot worse articles that have stayed for one reason or another.12.108.210.47 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I am a Staff Member at Malone University Radio. We Know this Article to be Accurate and Feel it Should be Kept on Wikipedia70.63.30.252 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In regard to post by John Carter, aside from Factiva, how can significant coverage be established? Article has references to several radio stations & artists that appear on Wikipedia as well as to internet broadcasters who appear on SHOUTcast. Perhaps not the highest grade of coverage, but shouldn't that be considered significant coverage of at least minium standards, or if nothing less what about Notability (Web) criteria that is met? Please help save this atricle John. I realize it did need to be slimmed down and it has been. My prayer is that you have a change of heart on this matter.173.88.28.69 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This is the GM of "Fuel Radio" and "The Refinery Rock Radio", both listed on SHOUTcast, and we believe this article to be true and credible and that "The Full Armor of God" is a very sincere and true radio program and website. We have played the program on both radio stations for many years and are proud to see the growth and changes it has gone through. I would like to see this article remain. 72.87.12.157 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This article should be kept. I don't understand the deletion. Article displays 26 references that confirm the content. I have seen other articles with less references that have been allowed to stay. 72.69.102.159 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I realize that the opposition to this article will try discredit the supporters who are posting by asserting that they are not "Wiki Contributors" however many are wiki readers. I submit that they should not be invalidated on these grounds. Also as I have stated before the original issue imposed by User:Zeagler was "Notability". According to WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." Thus, according to WP:WEB which states "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria: 3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" The Full Armor of God Broadcast article has references to multiple internet broadcasters who have the show name published on the program schedules on websites. This should be satisfactory enough to verify notability as per Wikipedia policy. Syndicated radio shows as a member of the media are not neccesarily known by much literary publication (the media ussually does nto write about the media). So the most valuable place for a syndicated radio show to be published is on the program schedule of radio staions airing the program. According to WP:SOURCES "Electronic media may also be used." So with that noted, according to Wikipedia policy this article certainly has a significant amount of Notability (which was the original reason for WP:DP.
- Hence, I motion for this nomination for deletion to be withdrawn and the article to remain on a probationary status pending all further charges to be submitted through the wiki contributors and admin present in this proccess. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm not withdrawing the nomination, and here's why:
- None of the criteria at WP:NOTABILITY have been met.
- Comment This statment is incorrect. All of The Full Armor of God Broadcast programming is digitally distributed via http://FullArmorRadio.com (as noted on the website). WP:WEB States "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the criteria at WP:NOTABILITY have been met.
- WP:WEB does not apply to this article. It doesn't matter that the broadcast delivers episodes to its outlets via the Internet. Some of the outlets in turn disseminate the show via terrestrial radio, therefore the show is not solely distributed on the Internet. But even if it were, are any of the outlets respected (as called for by WP:WEB)? Seems they're either small Christian college radio stations, low-power radio stations, or SHOUTcast stations (which anyone can set up).
- Comment You originally claimed "Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)" Than you acknowledge that coverage is present just not good enough for you (not based WP:N but your own opinion.) Than you escalate the matter by trying to discredit the stations. Also, some of these stations that Mr. Zeagler considers insignificant small staions are listed on Wikipedia.. Is Mr. Zeagler going to go after them for deletion too?? WP:N "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." The Full Armor of God Broadcast is clearly not high profile, main stream corporate Christian Music Industry sponsored radio. That is not the question here. it is clearly and underground, counter culture entity. It's level of notability is established within it's own scope of UNDERGROUND Christian Metal, not the main stream. Many mainstream artist have endorse the show after acheiving a higher level of notability to honor the street credibility of The Full Armor of God Broadcast. The show is not known for corporate "sell out", thus it's underground appeal and notability.173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An entry in a radio station schedule does not constitute significant treatment of the subject. Mere name-dropping does not establish notability.
- Comment PLEASE REFERNCE THIS STATEMENT! WP:WEB "3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" I do not see where your subjective inturpretaion of this policy applies.173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That bit about electronic media at WP:SOURCES means one can reference television or radio programs, etc. For example, I can reference this week's episode of NOVA in the article on Hugh Everett III. (A reference to this week's episode of The Full Armor of God, however, will not help to establish the notability of The Full Armor of God.) —Zeagler (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references to Full Armor of God Broadcast archives are listed only to reference notable guests, which also verifies some additional notability. However according to WP:N Notability does not neccessarily = fame or popularity. Your inturptetaions of Wiki policy are "fast & loose" and you are clearly taking liberties with the verbage to support your desire to have article removed. This is looking more like Ahab and the White Whale than of Wikipedia moderation on your part. It is all written down in clear black & white. You are subjectively picking and choosing what you feel supports your arguement.WP:N " This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content."173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB does not apply to this article. It doesn't matter that the broadcast delivers episodes to its outlets via the Internet. Some of the outlets in turn disseminate the show via terrestrial radio, therefore the show is not solely distributed on the Internet. But even if it were, are any of the outlets respected (as called for by WP:WEB)? Seems they're either small Christian college radio stations, low-power radio stations, or SHOUTcast stations (which anyone can set up).
- Keep Plenty of reliable, independent references. International airplay. I never heard of the program before now. I would be classified as a Wikipedia contributor, not only a reader. Royalbroil 05:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Comment WP:MUSIC doesn't cover radio stations, therefore this article is under WP:ORG, which says: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". A had a look on the sources and at this point, I do not see a very sufficient coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources in this article. So I recommend to the creators/contributors of this page to back up the content, find reliable sources and then add them or (if the page gets deleted before you do so) to recreate the page with reliable sources. (If it gets deleted before you back it up, ask the admin who deleted it.) But take into account that (if it gets deleted and) you will not be able to find additional/some reliable secondary sources, you don't need to recreate the page, because the sourcing is not very convincing at the moment. Cheers.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 10:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears that the guidelines of WP:ORG have been met within the article, where reference is made to the various radio stations that the program is playing on various radio stations, both on the internet and on the air. Also, the while the OP's comments regarding not being able to find any reference to the program outside of their website may be true, it would possibly be because he's not used Google to do a cursory search of the program. Doing so, I found references to the program at online radio stations, band websites, social media, and message boards. While the program may not be as notable as, say, Howard Stern's show or the Rush Limbaugh Program, it is notable within the context of the subject of Christian Metal. Perhaps the original poster is unaware of this notability. Either way, the basic guidelines of Wikipedia's standards are being followed, and deleting this article is neither necessary nor within the bounds of those standards. 5minutes (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no evidence that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria which I agree are those at WP:ORG. I see a lot of misunderstanding of our criteria (or just plain ignoring our criteria) from people who want "to continue having this website up as a way to share info about the show, and to share our ministry work" and to give "the devil a black eye on Wikipedia" [49] which also shows a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. The fact that it reads almost purely like an advertising page and that at least some editor's see it as a website for the program reflects its lack of notability with no significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Ivanhoe610fa (talk · contribs) has canvassed the complete membership list of WikiProject Christian Metal, on their talk pages, with his message asking them to "help The Full Armor of God Broadcast keep giving the devil a blackeye on Wikipedia." Deor (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I can't speak for anyone else, but while I was asked to contribute to look at the article and contribute to this discussion, I could care less about giving the devil, or anyone else, a black eye. Again, I do believe that this article does meet the guidelines. Is this program as well known as, say, the King Biscuit Flour Hour? No. But as a program that is distributed on several radio stations, I believe it does qualify. I will go on record as saying that I would challenge the notability of the host of the program (Kuba) and I will certainly oppose any attempt to use this article for proselytizing. I do think the article needs to be re-worded to be a little less of an advertisement and more of an encyclopedia article, but deletion is, IMO, unnecessary and not validated by Wikipedia standards. 5minutes (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction and Note I was asked to "give the devil a black eye" and have corrected my previous statement accordingly (it didn't quite register with me that it was on my talk page). However, I'm not sure why asking members of a project to contribute to a discussion is a negative. If members of the Waterfalls project were canvassed regarding the discussion of waterfall height, or to contribute to a discussion on the removal of Niagara Falls from Wikipedia, it wouldn't be considered a negative. 5minutes (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Votestacking - See Votestacking which says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". I think the content and target audience of the message make the notification count as votestacking. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - agreed. It was a bad way to approach the issue. However, the original comment also has been shown to be invalid as well. 5minutes (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. Wether B (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have edited the page to be less advertising-y and more encyclopedia-y. 5minutes (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know about these accusations of Votestacking and Canvassing, it seems like an attempt to compound the issue and divert the disscussion from the facts. However, if notifying certain like minded individuals that this article has been nominated for deletion and informing them that any "advice, assistance or help would be appreciated" to avoid deletion is a violation of Wikipedia Policy, it was completely inadvertent. I sincerely and humbley appologize. As an obvious representative of The Full Armor of God Broadcast, I have perhaps taken this matter a little too much to heart. If my words have been in any way offensive to Zeagler or any of the other user and admins representing the opposition to this article I sincerely and humbley appologize. I am sorry. As such at this point, I will yeild to the more expreienced Wikipedia users and accept the decission of the deciding Wikipedia Admin upon the closing of this disscussion. But, I truly hope that all those who desire this article to be deleted will re-think their possition and allow it to be kept on Wikipedia. I am responsible for helping contributors with much of the information previously listed on this page. I know it to be true and able to be documented in writing if not online. But, I regret not being more familiar with Wiki policy and agree with Mr. Zeager and others having removed much of what could not be resourced online. I do not, however agree with the deletion of this article. I once again urge Mr. Zeagler and others who oppose this article to allow this updated version of the article to be kept. I now understand how to go about referncing the type of information that has been removed and in the future I will only submit new information through more experienced wiki contributors and admins. I thank everyone for thier time and effort with this discussion and hope that this article is allowed to remain. TY Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Guys this is really out of control. It's not about giving the devil a black eye, it's about meeting notability requirements by having significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. If anyone has such references just add them to the article and then list them here. That's all it takes. Nobody wants to delete notable, verifiable information from the encyclopedia, not even the people saying delete. It's about guidelines for inclusion, not opinions. Drawn Some (talk)
- Additional Reply "Give The Devil A Blackeye" is a slogan used regularly on the program and was not directed towards the those pushing for deletion on this discussion in any way, but to encourage those familiar with the program. Please don't misunderstand the nature of the comment. I think it is very important to stay focussed on the essentials here. I do not see ANYTHING about "in-depth coverage" in WP:RS I am not sure why this keeps getting brought up?? Note: at this point User:Drawn Some is citing "in-depth coverage" is required as apposed users prior claims that subject is a "HOAX" and "Viral Marketing Scheme". It appears that Notability has been established according to WP:N, WP:WEB & WP:ORG. Here are the references that meet these guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast#References Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the "Basic criteria" section at WP:N. I refer to WP:RS a lot because the sources being used are either not reliable sources or the content is trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am not a regular user but I am a regular reader. I feel this article is accurate according to references listed. They may not be the most popular sources, but they are certainly adequate to validate the subject71.59.254.50 (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, whenever I have a question and I'm looking for a quick answer. Whether I want more information on a character or actor in a movie or television show, or some background on a band I just stumbled across, or even to help me understand someone else's religious beliefs, side-effects of pharmaceuticals or scientific discoveries - THIS is the first place I look. On that basis, I see this article as being relevant to users of Wikipedia such as myself. Also, as one of the contributors to the original article I can confirm that information presented in this article is accurate and true. This is not a marketing stunt; but background information on a radio program with a significant listening audience.PastorZ (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was asked above what would be required to save this article according to the criteria I stated. That is actually fairly simple. If two sources which meet WP:RS criteria are found which provide significant coverage for the subject, it qualifies to be kept. Reliable sources in this context would include either print magazines, online equivalents which meet RS standards, encyclopedia entries of some sort or other, etc. If two of them can be found, that would verify that the article meets notability criteria. They might also be sufficient to have a Wikipedia:Deletion review request allow the article to be restored. Personally, that would be the option I think most likely to succeed here. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject does not meet WP:N; despite the heavy canvassing, no one has been able to present even one reliable source with significant coverage on the program. Prolog (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh.... what about the references listed on the page? Take the canvassing out of the equation. A list of radio stations the program plays at seems, to me, to be good enough for a list of references for notability, and it's a lot more than some radio shows on Wikipedia have. 5minutes (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The references only confirm the show's existence, not its notability. Take the other articles out of the equation. —Zeagler (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wow. It took me 20 minutes just to wade through the AfD. This does not, from my estimation, meet the minimum threshold of WP:N. The refs include are either a) self-published (useful for info, but not establishing note), and b) trivial, listing-type (proving existence, not notability). Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please explain how you came to this conclusion aside from obvious connection with ThemFromSpace based on your user page? The implication seems to be that you don't consider the subject to have enough populatity or fame by your personal standards. WP:N clearly define that "Notabiltiy" is not based on poularity or fame". Subject is not self-published.173.88.39.37 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I go to wikipedia all the time I never log on but I go to it alot.I would like to say The Full armor of God brodcast is very real and I ENJOY IT VERY MUCH!!!!! I see no reason why ya want to delete it.I enjoy it very much and know many who are in the Christian motorcycle scene who listen to the show.The definition of the show was very accurate.SHOULD BE KEPT!!!71.226.104.241 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a regular wikipedia browser, I would like to say I have been a listener and supporter of The Full Armor of God for years. I totally support this entry on wikipedia and see no valid reason to delete it.98.238.65.75 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 01:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Videodamus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neologism, this is the first use of this term on the internet. Wronkiew (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lots42 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 May 2009
- Delete Neologism and as pointed out practically nonsensical babble. Drawn Some (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm inclined to say WP:CSD G1. There is no meaningful content. It is patent nonsense, section 2. Dlohcierekim 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Raison d'être (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:BAND. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google News search turned up evidence of coverage in various languages other than English, and it looks like there may be enough there for notability purposes. There is also this review at Allmusic. Other coverage from a Google search: Interview in a German web magazine, News article in Side-Line, News article in Re:Gen + [50], coverage at essence-music, some of which may be ok as sources.--Michig (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article also lists numerous CDs which could mean they meet the criterion for multiple albums on a notable label. Together with the potential sources by Michig, it appears the nominator didn't do the required homework before nominating. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Source mentions seem to be enough. Page however needs a good scrub to get rid of weasel and gush. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Azerbaijan–Switzerland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
although these countries have embassies, the level of relations seems rather non notable outside competing in the same sporting competitions. Only 2 things came from a Google news search an energy "cooperation" agreement and another memo. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google news isn't suitable to establish this. The study added is more informative. -- User:Docu 00:59, 14 May 2009
- why not? that is the test of WP:N, there needs to be significant coverage? sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails to establish notability. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for established notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- established notability? currently only has 1 reference. of course you are welcome to find some more that actually establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep based on Docu's addition to the article, which is a link to a SECO article entitled "Swiss economic development cooperation with Azerbaijan". Google news is the ultimate tool in determining press coverage, and I commend the nominator for doing the news search before the nomination. As with a U.S. State Department release, this would not turn up in a news search, but SECO is Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs. Switzerland's aid to Azerbaijan is part of a program that they call "Reducing Poverty and Promoting Peace". From the study, "Switzerland invests about CHF 2.1 billion a year to combat poverty and promote economic development in countries of the developing world and Eastern Europe." A couple of kudos going out here-- kudos to LibStar for looking for news sources, kudos to Docu for locating and posting a valuable link. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CHF 2.1 billion a year, but what share to Azerbaijan, I ask as many of the richest countries give substantial aid but how much they give to individual countries is significant here. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent coverage of the article topic as stated by the title. The SECO study is a primary source and thus fails WP:RS. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Where the main ref is something which basically says the other country needs help, that is insufficient to establish notability of internationsl relations between the two countries at all. Note clearly the list of countries at [51] which would allow the cite to be used for more than two dozen countries CH wishes to aid. Collect (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article makes credible claim of notability in article. Additional reliable and verifiable sources are available to expand on content already in article. Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Foreign relations of Azerbaijan which now holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, it's also part of the Foreign relations of Switzerland... after looking at the improved versions of the foreign relations articles (which merge content of the Groubani articles into a concise form), I can see where they might be an adequate replacement for many of these. Mandsford (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A google news search checking "all dates" throws up a number of sources. A lot of them are just coincidence of words, but I think there's enough in there to establish notability. HJMitchell You rang? 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing much here beyond directory entries; best handled in the Foreign relations of Switzerland and of Azerbaijan articles. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I would, repsectfully, invite you to reconsider in the light of my own, ongoing, improvements. Indeed, their foreign ministers met just yesterday HJMitchell You rang? 11:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now merge to the foreign relations articles. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would, repsectfully, invite you to reconsider in the light of my own, ongoing, improvements. Indeed, their foreign ministers met just yesterday HJMitchell You rang? 11:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reasonable secondary sources discuss this non-notable relationship. Hipocrite (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a series of summaries of protocol press releases (i.e."The junior ministers for cabbage breeding and mice training cordially expressed the two countries great and growing mutual effection and the desire for growing inter-governmental memorandums of understanding intending to express and amplify the efficaciousness of a deepening of bilateral ties."} does not a notable bilateral relationship make. There are hundreds of notable bilateral relations in the world. These two are not among them, as demonstrated by the absence of reliable independent sources that treat the relationship in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Germ Warfare (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Like similar noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content, except for rampant off-topic speculation about the possible philosophical ramifications of two different inferred meanings to a joke. It is redundant to the far more brief List of Episodes. The image isn't viable for keeping or merging as it lacks the real world content connection to pass Fair Use terms. Article has been GNG prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per others Kudos to the rescuers. Dlohcierekim 14:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to the episode list, since no reliable sources address this episode in a fashion that would make it independently notable. That non-notable seinfeld articles are here is an argument to go nominate them for deletion, not an argument to keep an article that fails the GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have still moved on to start nominating season two. I stand behind this statement. You can argue the chronology, in that you started nominating in season 2 before you finished season 1, but the fact is correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. The episode guide sources added to other M*A*S*H articles can and should be added to this one, and once that is done notability will be established. Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that not every episode of the nightly news would be notable. I would agree that not every episode of a game show is notable. I would agree that not every episode of a late night talk show would be notable. Those can be summed up in a chart. What makes MASH notable, and other episodic television is that the media has taken note of them and written about the individual episodes, and provided context and commentary. There is more commentary of shows that come after Al Gore invented the Internet and people learned how to use The Google and navigate through the series of tubes to get the information. Google Books has ample paper references providing commentary and criticism, even if it is less than available for a South Park or Simpson episode. We need to avoid covering only recent events, where the information is easy to obtain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep M*A*S*H episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I have added to the other 24 articles up for deletion, and I will add here shortly. Per WP:PRESERVE, this should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion of 24 articles.
In regards to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks.
A lot can be learned from the last attempt to delete the South Park episodes, frustrated editors restarted Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park to make South Park episodes good and featured articles, and assure that all episodes exceed wikipedia guidelines. There is already a dormaint Wikipedia:WikiProject M*A*S*H which can be restarted. If South Park episodes have the potential to become featured articles, surely M*A*S*H episodes do. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Closing nominator please note there have been improvements (removing unsourced sections to talk) and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing nominator please noteNone of those sources is used to support any form of assertion of notability. ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- assertions of notability are a CSD concept and not relevant here as this is AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable per the sources provided.Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(Struck duplicate. Didn't see I'd already opined. Keeping additional comment though). This AFD was overly hasty and misguided. This is not articles that need improvement. Dlohcierekim 14:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate Vote - please note this editor already voiced his opinion at the top of the AfD. (Should DLohcierekim return to clean this cuplication error up, he may also remove this comment.) ThuranX (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability (as the last episode to feature one particular character, for example). Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the episode list, with liberty to break out when there's something other than a plot summary to put in. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect Enough sources for only a plot summary does not establish notability in my mind. Cazort (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guglielmo Baldini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable fictional dictionary entry —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. If this hoax is good enough to be mentioned in a New York Times article, it's good enough to be mentioned in the Grove Dictionary main article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per LinguistAtLarge. Significant though not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content unless there is consensus to delete some of it. Why are these being brought here? Is the merge being opposed? . DGG (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as no assertion of importance or significance. And let's all remain civil, thanks again to ThuranX for taking time to sort through all of these and put them up for AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect per DGG DGG and I differ strongly on notability requirement, so please spare me the incivility hurled in his direction. Process wonkery? There is a process for dealing with most matters on Wikipedia. AFD is not the place for this article and those like it. Dlohcierekim 02:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong. There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. Michael Schmidt makes a good observation below. Dlohcierekim 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing worth merging, just an unsourced plot summary and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an accurate assessment. What do you find to be inaccurate about it? Every season one was nominated and a start was made in season two, that escaped notice by most of the people commenting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note there was no discussion about this on the episode page, as is usually the custom. Ikip (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an accurate assessment. What do you find to be inaccurate about it? Every season one was nominated and a start was made in season two, that escaped notice by most of the people commenting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I have added to the other 24 articles up for deletion, and I will add here shortly. Per WP:PRESERVE, this should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles.
In regards to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks.
A lot can be learned from the last attempt to delete the South Park episodes, frustrated editors restarted Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park to make South Park episodes good and featured articles, and assure that all episodes exceed wikipedia guidelines. There is already a dormaint Wikipedia:WikiProject M*A*S*H which can be restarted. If South Park episodes have the potential to become featured articles, surely M*A*S*H episodes do. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. The episode guides and critical sources which have recently been added establish notability. (An episode guide is not a phone book.) More real-world context is needed, but that is an editorial issue, not an argument for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The episode guides reflect notability of the series, NOT of the individual episodes. Please find writings which are dedicated to examining the real world notability of this particular episode, which your current sources do not appear to do. I remind you again that Notability is not a heritable trait. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I point out to you again that this is not an "inheritance" argument. It's taken directly from the general notability guideline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YES, it is an inhertiance argument. Notability for the show is demonstrated by the episode guide, not notabilty of each episode individually. You premise that if the show is notable all episodes are. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll have to agree to disagree on this, and see what the community thinks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to do anything you say I have to.I keep saying this. Episode guides demonstrate notability of the series, not the episodes, because they make no distinctions at all between episodes in terms of coverage. It's all the same. Wikipedia is not an episode guide. We have standards for notability. Each episode article must on it's own describe why that particular episode is notable. Coverage in an episode guide merely establishes that it's an episode in a notable series, and since notability is NOT inherited, that's not enough. ThuranX (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I've made my argument, and you've made yours. Neither of us is going to convince the other. But you can have the last word for now, since it seems so important to you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll have to agree to disagree on this, and see what the community thinks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YES, it is an inhertiance argument. Notability for the show is demonstrated by the episode guide, not notabilty of each episode individually. You premise that if the show is notable all episodes are. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I point out to you again that this is not an "inheritance" argument. It's taken directly from the general notability guideline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The episode guides reflect notability of the series, NOT of the individual episodes. Please find writings which are dedicated to examining the real world notability of this particular episode, which your current sources do not appear to do. I remind you again that Notability is not a heritable trait. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the list of episodes in the series; nothing much substantial to say about it. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edwina (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."
- WP:INTROTODELETE Essay "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."
- Was there any efforts to "look for sources yourself" is deletion a last resort? Considering there were no conversation about these 23 episode deletions beforehand? Ikip (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content unless there is consensus to delete some of it. And adding the conclusion of the episode; what happens on the date, or however the episode finishes? We do not do teasers. Why are these being brought here? Is the merge being opposed? . DGG (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself. Article tagged for the GNG prod two years ago. ThuranX (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to DGG, I have been joining in a series of these discussions and there was, for many similar episodes, a strong consensus that they were not notable. I see nothing different in this case--no reliable independent sources with significant coverage. I think if you want to argue to keep this you are going to need to argue for notability by finding such sources. Cazort (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: "To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself." First, I have found labels never help your argument, second, DGG wants all of these articles merged, hardly a hard core inclusionist. Ikip (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to DGG, I have been joining in a series of these discussions and there was, for many similar episodes, a strong consensus that they were not notable. I see nothing different in this case--no reliable independent sources with significant coverage. I think if you want to argue to keep this you are going to need to argue for notability by finding such sources. Cazort (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge as above; properly split-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG. I also don't understand why these are brought here, and also, I don't understand what "process wonkery" is. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Process wonkery is that if I just start redirecting, they will be reversed, and i will have to bring them here. I don't want to 'merge' and redirect, because these articles are redundant to the LoE already, and should be deleted. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode and a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Editing your comment after someone has replied is rude. And seriously, do not create an essay then try to claim it trumps one that has both longevity and clearly demonstrable community consensus just because you wrote yours later. That is beyond ridiculous. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a real problem with editors who call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An essay is an essay is an essay. It is not Wikipedia policy, and shouldn't be presented as if it were more than an essay. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only ever presented it as an essay, not as policy, saying Your argument matches that described in the essay. i did not simply link and run. ThuranX (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Process wonkery is when people follow appropriate policy or guidelines that gets in the way what other people want to do. Dlohcierekim 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a hardcore inclusionist, though I think DGG is, and Ikip? well never mind. However, Switch to keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong. There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. And I think we need a little more process wonkery if AFD's like this are the alternative. Dlohcierekim 13:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Process wonkery is when people follow appropriate policy or guidelines that gets in the way what other people want to do. Dlohcierekim 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a short plot summary which is already covered in season list and this is an unlikely search term. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, doesn't belong here. M*A*S*H wikia for transwiking? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or mergemy mistake, I thought this was about a character, not an episode. Ikip- Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I have added to the other 24 articles up for deletion, and I will add here shortly. Per WP:PRESERVE, this should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles, causing unnecessary work and drama.
In regards to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks.
A lot can be learned from the previous attempts to delete the South Park episodes, frustrated editors restarted Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park to make South Park episodes good and featured articles, and assure that all episodes exceed wikipedia guidelines. There is already a dormaint Wikipedia:WikiProject M*A*S*H which can be restarted. If South Park episodes have the potential to become featured articles, surely M*A*S*H episodes do. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Any episode that has millions of viewers, is clearly notable. Dream Focus 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't about numbers of viewers, it's about being documented, receiving significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are pieces of graffiti viewable from major interstates that have "millions of viewers"...but they don't become notable until someone decides to write about them in detail. Similarly for this episode or any TV episode. Plot summaries of non-notable episodes belong on fan wikis, not wikipedia. There is actually a "M*A*S*H" wiki: [52]. If you want to keep this article, show us that it is notable by showing us significant coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is determined by consensus. No one has to show you anything. If most people believe an episode is notable, based on how many millions of viewers it has, than the article remains, as has happened in all the episode articles for other popular series people have tried to delete. The opinions of millions of people, who found it notable enough to watch, is far more important than the opinions of a couple of guys who work for a newspaper or magazine with fewer readers than the show has viewers, who decided for whatever reason to write about it that day. Dream Focus 00:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have searched thoroughly and find no sources giving any evidence of notability. The people above arguing to keep have not provided sources and have not addressed the underlying issue of notability. If people want to keep, they will need to find sources that demonstrate that this topic is notable. Cazort (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment notability of the individual episode is not the issue. The media franchise M*A*S*H is notable, and so the issues are its WP:LENGTH and the WP:SPLITTING of it. JJL (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. This is about the Notability of This episode. There's no issue of splitting, as this episode is also covered on the LoE, without the needlessly large and thoroughly unsupported plot and trivia. This is about whether or not this article makes any assertions which justify the presence of this article on the project. It does not. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until someone with a lexisnexis account can actually check the notability of these. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, but they do not source any notability. My initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, but they do not source any notability. My initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the list of articles in the entry with liberty to break back out when there is something explaining how this particular episode is individually notable. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Love Story (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. Article has been prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content unless there is consensus to delete some of it. And adding the conclusion of the episode, if there is one. We do not do teasers. Why are these being brought here? Is the merge being opposed? I do not see the article ever having been prodded at all. It was tagged for improvement, though, and it needed it. DGG (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself. Article tagged for the GNG prod two years ago. ThuranX (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge as above; properly split-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was not properly split for length; there's nothing there but PLOT. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was referring to the overarching plan for splitting M*A*S*H. JJL (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn;'t aware there had been one at some point. However, what ever plan was there clearly broke down. Cleaning these up and, should merges be the result, making stronger articles of the LoEs is a more realistic goal. ThuranX (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was referring to the overarching plan for splitting M*A*S*H. JJL (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was not properly split for length; there's nothing there but PLOT. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG. I also don't understand why these are brought here, and also, I don't understand what "process wonkery" is. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of process wonkery, why are all these listed separately instead of in a single AFD? Dlohcierekim 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and try to expand with a fuller plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a very brief episode summary that seems an appropriate length. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles. Unlikely search term, so redirect unnecessary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) and Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Strong keep per Richard. There is no WP:DEADLINE as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merging should have been discussed on List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) before an AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to the episode list. I'm not sure i understand this no deadline stuff. This episode aired 35 years ago, and no reliable sources have yet addressed it in a fashion that would establish independent notability for it (some mash episodes -- a pure guess about 15 -- are independently notable. But not this one and the sorts of things that might make it notable, winning awards, extensive reviews, etc... are not likely to be forthcoming over three decades later.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: "lacking any assertion of notability or real world content." WP:DEADLINE: "Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. A small number of articles might make Wikipedia 1.0, but the vast majority will not and for the balance there is no deadline."
- Your argument would appear to be that since there is no "deadline" that all content of no demonstrable independent notability should be kept until the Heat death of the universe in the hopes that someday, somehow, notability will materialize, hower unlikely that would appear to be in this case.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: "lacking any assertion of notability or real world content." WP:DEADLINE: "Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. A small number of articles might make Wikipedia 1.0, but the vast majority will not and for the balance there is no deadline."
- Closing nominator please note there have been signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing nominator please note I'm unconvinced that links to TV Guide and IMDB and "the complete Mash episode guide" establish any independent notability for this. Those sources don't even assert particular notability for this episode.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, some referenced in the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). The article does not currently meet the GNG (requires significant coverage, beyond just a reworking of the plot). Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I seem to have missed this in my comments on previous M*A*S*H episode AfDs. The Wittebols and Reiss sources are reliable and independent of the subject, therefore the requirements of the GNG are met. It is true that at the moment the article fails WP:PLOT; however, that is an argument for improvement, not deletion. There is no "except episode guides" clause in the GNG. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tuttle (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As with similar noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge properly, And adding the conclusion of the episode; We do not do teasers. This episode violates guidelines on plot, because it does not give enough oft he plot to have any idea of what happens. The thing to do with this one is to complete it and merge. ( I am looking at each individual one; I cannot add what's necessary as I know only the film.) DGG (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already an episode list. This isn't hard to understand. Most of these repeat the LoE or they are just plot balloons. There's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge as above; properly split-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG. I also don't understand why these are brought here, and also, I don't understand what "process wonkery" is. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. ThuranX (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It makes an unsupported claim to mild importance but is not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to the list. No reliable sources establish that this is an independently notable episode.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article makes a genuine assertion of notability. Look for sources to support it, but those are more likely offline due to the age of the episode. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no, the article makes no genuine assertion of notability. Certainly the writer of many of these episodes assures us that he finds it memorable, but there's nothing to support that, and 'memorable' is hardly a notability qualifier, as it is vague and unfocused praise, at best. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of sources to back the assertion of notability is a different issue. Nonetheless, there are independent sources available for the episode, which themselves demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no, the article makes no genuine assertion of notability. Certainly the writer of many of these episodes assures us that he finds it memorable, but there's nothing to support that, and 'memorable' is hardly a notability qualifier, as it is vague and unfocused praise, at best. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How so? there's no evidence of that in the article. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How so? there's no evidence of that in the article. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet again, I am forced to repeat that you have moved on into season two for deletions. My characterization is both accurate and verifiable and is neither "baseless" or an example of "alarmism". It is factual. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You, sir, are lying. Your comment specifically implies that well after this article's nomination, and recent relative to YOUR post, I had moved into the second season, when, in fact, it was nominated at the same time as a lot of others. You continue to lie about my actions, misrepresent my statements by redacting yours to make me look like I completely ignore everything you say, and then act as though you have done nothing wrong by such lies. You were cautioned against this sort of behavior, and yet you continue, therefore I can only conclude that you are intentionally acting in Bad Faith. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I have added to the other 24 articles, and I will add here shortly. This should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles, per WP:PRESERVE, causing unnecessary work and drama.
In regards to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks.
A lot can be learned from the previous attempts to delete the South Park episodes, frustrated editors restarted Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park to make South Park episodes good and featured articles, and assure that all episodes exceed wikipedia guidelines. There is already a dormaint Wikipedia:WikiProject M*A*S*H which can be restarted. If South Park episodes have the potential to become featured articles, surely M*A*S*H does. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Strong keep. This episode was nominated for a Writers Guild Award, which the nominator could have found quite easily if he'd been bothered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ringbanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. Article has been prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content unless there is consensus to delete some of it. Wh There was been a merge tag removed 2 years ago, it should have been discussed and merged at that point. , there was never a prod on it. DGG (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been tagged with the GNG warning prod for two years. ThuranX (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). There seems to be some lack of policy understanding. The GNG tag is not a PROD Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge Worth including in encyclopedia. A notable series. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's proposed an AfD of the article about the series. Is this episode notable? Please explain why here and in the article. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe 'improvements' above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. On this particular article, no such sources have even been added. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources have been added now, as has a cited section on the themes of the episode and its sociological significance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe 'improvements' above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. On this particular article, no such sources have even been added. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie article. Running in circles is very time consuming. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I will add here shortly. This should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles, per WP:PRESERVE, causing unnecessary work and drama.
A lot can be learned from the previous attempts to delete the South Park episodes, frustrated editors restarted Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park to make South Park episodes good and featured articles, and assure that all episodes exceed wikipedia guidelines. There is already a dormaint Wikipedia:WikiProject M*A*S*H which can be restarted.
In regards to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyI'll thank you to keep accusations of bad faith and intentional disruption to yourself. The presumption of notability is a failure of sense. There's a reason for WP:NOTE, to define and establish notability because it cannot be assumed. ThuranX (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep Article now seems easily noteable and per Schmidt mass nomination focussed on a single topic seems poor form. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes You Hear the Bullet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge properly, by which I mean retaining all content including the picture unless there is consensus to delete some of it. At least this one does describe the whole episode. . DGG (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's redundant to the Episode list, there's nothing to merge. No LoE for the series has pictures, and such pictures in LoEs have previously been frowned on and removed from other LoE's as Copyvios, because they aren't reflecting specific real world content related to the topic, thus failing fair-use. ThuranX (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep orMerge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary. Can be pared down some and merged into season list (which, FYI, needs reformatting, seriously). Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Strong keep per Richard. There is no WP:DEADLINE as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merging should have been discussed on List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) before an AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This episode was nominated for a Writers Guild Award, which the nominator could have found out fairly easily prior to nominating the article for deletion. I've added that information, along with some analysis and comments from the actors involved (all cited, of course.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I remind you: It's NOT MY JOB to fix up every bad article on a non=notable subject on here. They were tagged for two years for improvement and determination of a GNG acceptable level of notability. If nothing was found in two years, why should I restart the entire process? I'm not sure that nomination is enough, in fact, it seems I've seen a number of deletions pass as delete because a nomination is the only assertion of notability. Many people lose contests, that doesn't make msot losers notable. Few win, that usually makes them notable. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't saying that you needed to bring it up to GA status. Just a bit of due diligence prior to AfD, that's all. And a nomination is different from "losing". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs)
- No, that's exactly what you're saying - that I should have done all I could to make it FA, and that if I couldn't it would be ME failing, not the subject. And did they win the award? NO? then they lost. Win and lose are pretty damn binary. Pass and fail. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't saying that you needed to bring it up to GA status. Just a bit of due diligence prior to AfD, that's all. And a nomination is different from "losing". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs)
- I remind you: It's NOT MY JOB to fix up every bad article on a non=notable subject on here. They were tagged for two years for improvement and determination of a GNG acceptable level of notability. If nothing was found in two years, why should I restart the entire process? I'm not sure that nomination is enough, in fact, it seems I've seen a number of deletions pass as delete because a nomination is the only assertion of notability. Many people lose contests, that doesn't make msot losers notable. Few win, that usually makes them notable. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell all studio movies can be added to Wikipedia and the references are the reviews. What studio movies, let us say post 1950, are not notable? Not every movie wins an award, should we only include award winning movies? And once again, try not to use the essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is now clearly notable per references added by Ikip and others. Even in current state its a good piece of writing that captures the salient points about the episode. I also echo the comment that it would have been preferable to nominate only one or two episodes at a time – the encyclopaedia will loose in completeness if some episodes are deleted because folk weren’t able to improve the whole series in time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find these type of articles immensely useful and they often contain info that cannot be summarized in a list-of-episodes page format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.192.7 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Annapurna 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Likely non-notable race. No news coverage, couldn't find reliable secondary sources about it. Samuel Tan 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Crystal ball. Race isn't until 2010. May receive substantial coverage before then, but this is too soon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per CoM. Given the substantial logistical and financial efforts required to secure these kinds of ventures, it would be better to wait for independent-source confirmation nearer the time before making an article. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Belarus–Finland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
another random combination, non resident embassies. most of the talking happens in a Belarus-EU context, as the Finnish foreign ministry reveals. [53]. google news search shows up mostly multilateral and sporting relations. so a revised search shows only minor coverage [54] and the usual double taxation agreement. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is now a consensus on how to handle these. JJL (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent coverage of the article topic as stated by the title. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Foreign relations of Belarus which now holds the content - think this is the consensus. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First line is "Finland–Belarus relations are foreign relations between Finland and Albania" (my emphasis). Delete. Clearly the creator's only intention was to generate yet another article without a care for notability or value added. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Foreign relations of Belarus or Foreign relations of Finland. I already have began to merge this, so this AfD is about a redirect, not an article. Ikip (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an unsourced stub (since it's unsourced there is nothing of value to "merge") about a relationship of so little value to the two counrties that neither keeps an embassy in the other's capital. Have no opposition to a redirect later but, of course, almost all of these are highly implausible search terms.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reasonable secondary sources adress this relationship. Hipocrite (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Jurors of the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Most of these are bound to be nonentities, and for those who actually are notable personalities, their being Eurovision jurors is not an especially notable characteristic. This is relevant; this list is not. It likely breaches WP:NOTDIR. Also, I invite participants to click these links: Bill Hughes, Paul Edwards, Chris Stewart. Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I disagree. It's a cool thing to have a record of, especially in the future when there are more years of jurors available to compare. Benthorot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.238.175 (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the information into the respective country's Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (e.g Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DitzyNizzy. While it might not be a characteristic worthy of a list, it's obviously important information for the article about this year's song contest. It's the first year jurors will be used again and I disagree with the nominators that they'll be non-entities. Jurors are usually chosen because they're either famous or well-respected in their field. ESC won't be any different. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge. I like the thought of having this overview page of the jurors, but I think the information should also be on the country pages as DitzyNizzy stated. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Merge unless it is completed. The contest is over and there are still way too many unknowns to make this page useful. The few that are known can simply be stated on the Country in ESC Year page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge as per Grk1011 above. I agree that an overview would be helpful, and that the information should also be included on each country's article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sims2aholic8 (talk • contribs) 15:33, May 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Already this list contains names such as Corinne Hermes, Linda Martin and Paul Harrington. the list is not vaguely defined - all entries will be verifiable. Ask your self what is more likely - someone curious about who exactly these often mentioned jurors are, or who specifically are the jurors for country X. I was the former, and I was dismayed to find the information absent from Wikipedia. This thread will be useful, valued and of interet to many people. It should therefore be kept. (I also invite the creator of this deletion page to correct or remove the links for Bill Hughes, Paul Edwards, Chris Stewart if he has clearly noticed they were in error.) Dmn € Դմն 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL; and yes, while a handful of jurors are notable, the great majority of the 252 I'd wager don't even have articles here. Ah, and one more link I invite you to click: Pedro Martinez! - Biruitorul Talk 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a good looking notable article. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSNOTABLE; WP:ILIKEIT. - Biruitorul Talk 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Dmn € Դմն 07:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSNOTABLE; WP:ILIKEIT. - Biruitorul Talk 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above comments for keep.--Judo112 (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this can't easily be fit in the main article. Valid subpage. ViperSnake151 Talk 13:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Voting is an integeral and notable part of the notable Eurovision contest. The people with red links may well do so because the English language Wiki has its own bias ;) doktorb wordsdeeds 15:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're free to speculate, but the fact is that as far as we know, just a dozen of 252 jurors (under 5%) have been shown to have articles here. And while the fact that voting occurs may be notable (and is already recorded at Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009#Voting, precisely who votes is not of concern to us. Or shall we list all 131,257,328 individuals (many of them notable) who voted (playing a notable and integral role) in the notable United States presidential election, 2008? - Biruitorul Talk 16:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes please. It's a bit too late to for me to start the article, but if you could do it, I'll support you if an AFD is started. Dmn € Դմն 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're free to speculate, but the fact is that as far as we know, just a dozen of 252 jurors (under 5%) have been shown to have articles here. And while the fact that voting occurs may be notable (and is already recorded at Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009#Voting, precisely who votes is not of concern to us. Or shall we list all 131,257,328 individuals (many of them notable) who voted (playing a notable and integral role) in the notable United States presidential election, 2008? - Biruitorul Talk 16:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is esssential to publicize the names so that everybody can judge the real qualifications of the jury comittee of "experts" or experts.I consider also important to refer to all vews on the matter of voting (p.e. not everybody agrees with the public being deprived of the decision and the authority given to experts). Also, a reference is needed on what makes the experts objective. Aren't they also tied to group of interests? (I am sorry I am not capable of adding those important aspects myself) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omav (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It may eventually become an important historical record if continued. As this can't fit in the main article, and as the country pages are about the selection process for each country's entry, this merits its own page. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a Wikipedia reader, I found it interesting. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check out WP:ILIKEIT for why I found it interesting cannot considered a valid reason when considering AfD. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Too many blanks for a seperate article. Digifiend (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to respective countries per Ditzy. Looking at the pleas for WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, it may eventually become an important historical record, English language wiki has its own bias, ..need to judge the real qualifications of the jury..., all entries will be verifiable - I'm wondering if some of last Saturday night's parties have gone on a bit too long. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The discussion has gone back and forth, without one side's arguments being significantly stronger. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David J Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable author; does not meet the standards of WP:CREATIVE Chzz ► 01:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is, in fact, a notable author, with a trilogy published by a major house (Bantam Spectra, for what was claimed to be a record sum advance for a debut novelist) and is notable enough for former Hugo award nominees to call out the author as having brought a special talent to the Sci-Fi genre. He also has Homeworld gaming credit.Bdegroodt (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Even though, the article on Homeworld doesn't list the reviews or articles, it's safe to assume they exist since the game won multiple awards. I consider creating the story concept of a game a major role in co-creating such a game. - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Claims to notability must be backed with non-trivial sources. I have searched for 30 min or so for articles, book mentions, and web coverage that meets the non-trivial requirement but have only found a single reference in reuters, which is a press release and can not by itself establish notability, and a short blurb on MonstersandCritics.com [55]. If any editors can provide additional covereage, I would happily change my vote, but as it stands, a credit for a video game (with no sources giving verifiable info) and a publishing contract do not provide verifiable content to be placed in an article. Mrathel (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A.) Notability or non-notability is and is always purely subjective and there for is not verifiable by any empirical means. This being the case this whole discussion is off base, unwarranted and seemingly a malicious attempt to defame an author for no other reason than the initial individual does not seem to enjoy the authors work. B.) References: Nisi Shawl - Seattle Times, "Mirrored Heavens" cleaves closely enough to the cyberpunk canon to be clearly identified with it, while departing from it sharply enough to refresh and renew its source. [56] / RANDOM HOUSE [57] / io9.com - "Secrets Of Great Characters, According To 6 Science Fiction Authors" [58] C.) If author David J. Williams was so "non-notable" why does every major retailer of books carry his work? Amazon.com [59] Barnes & Nobles [60] Borders [61] D.) The definition of "notable" is "worthy of note or notice; noteworthy" and the simple fact that someone took there own time out of their own valition to track down author David J. Williams and make the comment they did clearly shows David is indeed notable, ironically that proof is given by the same one whom claimed otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.9 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I encourage you to read wp:notability (people) for the answer to the majority of your questions. The reason for notability requirements is to make sure that article content is able to be verified. I would like very much to see this article remain, and I actually took the time to do the search because I was inclined to believe I would find more than I did. The Seattle times article is a good source of content and goes towards helping to give content for the article, but I encourage you not to make accusations or claim comments to be a "malicious attempt to defame an author for no other reason than the initial individual does not seem to enjoy the authors work". I would like very much for the article to be kept, but not unless the content comes from reliable sources. Mrathel (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: reply Reading the above link to the Wikipedia guidelines again only affirms my initial points, and the mere fact the books are published by Random House one of the largest publishers in the world by this sites own guidelines makes David J. Williams as an author "notable". As far as making accusations or claims, where was this ideal when the initial user posted their opinion??? Please if you are going to enforce ideals make sure you do it all around the table not just pose it to one individual. As well the Seattle Times article and the io9.com article easily ascert and follow the Wikipedia guidlines of "notability (people)" so this discussion should be ended and the article should remain, but if for some reason those do not here are some more to add to them: Richard Dransky - GreenManReview.com [62] / FantasyBookCritic [63] / FantasyHotList [64] / SFsite.com [65] / Scifi.com [66] I found all of those in less than 5 minutes of a search. If these are not "reliable sources" then please link to the guidelines for what Wikipedia considers reliable sources and I shall inundate you with those further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.149.210 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply: The mere publishing of a work by the most famous of publishing houses does not meet the requirements. Of the sources you listed, those that were written in blogs by authors whose work is not widely recognized do not meet WP:V, and the only one I would count as being "non-trivial" is the Sci-fi weekly. Also, try reading the general WP:notabilityand WP:Reliable sources if you have questions about source value. Mrathel (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE:reply Once again your subjectivity is out of hand, SFsite.com has been online since 1996 that is 5 years before even Wikipedia came about, if you consider them an unreliable source or "trivial" than in the same sense so is Wikipedia. As well Richard Dansky from GreenManReview.com is a published author and video game writer whom was featured as GamaSutura.com's 20 Top Game Writers [67] for his writing work on games such as Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six and Cold Fear... is he trivial? By Wiki guidelines for self published sources (which GreenManReview is not self published by Richard anyway) Richard works in a relevant field and has been published by a reliable 3rd party source. Further sources: Student Operated Press [68] / io9.com [69] / SFFworld.com [70] / FantasticFiction.co.uk [71] / GoodReads.com [72] / SFsignal.com [73] All of the prior are reliable sources most of them have been online long before even Wikipedia. I can also go through and see on how many other Wikipedia articles these sources have been allowed as reliable if you need me to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.149.210 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Would like to state for the record that my intention was not to defame the author, but rather to support notability by calling out the fact that some have cited Williams' work as a new take on cyberpunk--or perhaps a sub-sub-genre--which in my opinion futhers the notability requirement. I took time to create this entry out of interest in the author and as a fan unable to find much material on Williams. I thought Wikipedia would be a welcome repository for such an entry, but perhaps I've overvalued the respect for a published author on Wikipedia. Notability feels highly subjective to me and I've tried to meet a reasonable standard for what I feel meets the vague guidlines of Wikipedia's Notability requirement. I'd suggest, having studied the publishing industry, that any author that actually makes it out of the pile of manuscripts that bombard agents and publishers is by definition notable. I'll reiterate, as creator of this entry, my vote to keep this entry.Bdegroodt (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Links provided establish notability but should be integrated into article in reference format, with expansion and additional material available. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the Seattle Times book review looks like the only reliable source listed in the deletion nomination or the article, and it's about the book with only one biographical sentence about the author: his nation of birth and current residence. The author doesn't seem to qualify as notable enough for an encyclopedia biography yet. If anyone finds other sources that qualify, please add them to the article. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-14t21:43z
- Reply Please denote exactly why the Seattle Times review is the only reliable source and why the others (Scifi.com especially) are not, I have read all Wikipedia standards posted (which are not clear and leave a lot of room for interpretation) and it would seem 80% of the sources I posted CAN INDEED be accepted and with that I am confused to why there seems to be such an adamant refusal to allow them (which is odd if not unsettling). If you could please be very specific as to why EACH ONE is not a reliable source it would indeed help to clarify this whole debacle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.9 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article:
- [74] personal page, 404
- [75] image of a book cover, ad
- [76] "A lifelong SF fan, well, at least as far back as he can remember, he decided it would be cool to start a weblog about SF and stuff. So, together with a few friends, he did, and SF Signal was born!" [77]
- [78] publisher's page, ad
- [79] "The ISFDB is a community effort to catalog works of science fiction, fantasy, and horror." The bio link is a wiki page, 404.
- In AfD, but not in the article:
- [80] electrifying, masterful advertorial
- [81] Seattle Times book review, the only encyclopedically "reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but it's a review of the book, the only biographical info on the author is his nation of birth and current residence
- [82] publisher's page, ad
- [83] blog, isn't loading for me
- [84], [85], [86] a book being for sale does not make the author encyclopedically notable, especially not if the book is ranked 441,058.
- [87] collection of reviews emailed in?
- [88] blog
- [89] blog
- [90] webzine
- [91] "THE WORLD’S #1 SOURCE FOR NEWS, REVIEWS, AND INTERVIEWS"
- -- Jeandré, 2009-05-18t22:02z
- ReplyI too would be after similar data. I'm certain the editorial process for inclusion of Williams' work at the ST was rigorous and objective. Dismissing a major print publication out of hand as not sufficient enough to carry a vote for notability seems subjective and lacking in rigor. How about Publisher's Weekly? This is a very important source for librarians across the nation in making buy/pass decisions. A review there seems, again, to pass a reasonable notability threshold.Bdegroodt (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you responding to what I wrote about the Seattle Times?
- The single paragraph book review in the trade news magazine doesn't have anything biographical in it. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-18t22:02z
- The behaviour in this afd is so wrong. Accusations of defamation with no basis in fact, claims of dismissing publications were that did not happen. Bdegroodt should get his/her facts right before making accusations. As should all these anonymous IP particpants (76.79.188.9, I'm looking at you) (I ask my feet where they came from). Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Duffbeerforme once again this is not about opinions, both myself and Bdegroodt ARE THE ONLY ONES who have brought forth proper evidence to support our cases and every other nay sayer has simply returned nothing but rhetoric, no facts, no objectivity, nothing. You are 100% right this afd is wrong. It should have never been started as even by Wikipedia standards it is clear David Williams is indeed a notable author. My accusations ARE based on the actions of the initial claim that was made without any substance to it and I have clearly proven beyond a reasonable doubt my case and the ones (like yourself, Jeandre, Mrathel, Chzz) have done nothing to prove your initial claim of "non-notability" but are clinging to it with no factual basis hence the accusations of malintent. Yes that is an assumption but so was the initial claim to David Williams being "non-notable". Also Duffbeerforme, what was your purpose for posting in here??? You brought absolutely nothing to this debate and I am still waiting for someone to clearly denote why the sources provided are either not reliable or trivial specifically. Id est, list the outlet and exactly why Wikipedia finds them to be either non-reliable or trivial. This is now the third time I have asked for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.9 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Duffbeerforme, I've made no accusations of defamation. If I have, I'd appreciate proof and I'll gladly correct my intended message. Otherwise, I'm uncertain what your vote is for keep/delete. Can I assume it's keep? I believe the guideline for participation in this AfD page is for consensus building only. Without an explicit vote from you it's difficult to count your position. Your a digital hanging chad if you will. I'll reiterate my call for this entry to be kept in Wikipedia and if documentation/references are not sufficient that the entry be moved to a request to increase them and the entry "cleaned up" to meet Wikipedia standards--but not marked for deletion.Bdegroodt (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- my feet would feel much more comfortable if I put on some socks. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I would like to respectfully request the Wiki Admins take Duffbeerforme's responses as limited to no value for the sake of this discussion. References to his feet, comfort and socks are in no way related to this discussion.Bdegroodt (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Links provided establish notability; all of the sites mentioned establish credibility within the genre/community and/or within the publishing industry. He specifically meets the criteria set per the specifications that were questioned; he now has two books published by a major publisher - "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" - he meets the criteria.
- Neutral hi - Dave Williams (the author) here; some fans alerted me this conversation was going on. I certainly appreciate everybody's efforts on both sides of the fence--I've no idea whether I'm notable enough, I leave that to you guys to determine! I will say, though, that there does seem like some grey area here as to how much attention one's book needs to have achieved in the market to merit Wikipedia inclusion, and perhaps this discussion thread will spur the clarification of those standards. (Most of the sources cited are well known within the SF industry, and less known outside of it.) As to relevant sources re Homeworld: my story concept credit is listed on the MobyGames database; the game itself won PC Gamer's Game of the Year for 1999; and my story concept/co-writing credit won Eurogamer's story of the year award. Here are the links: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,5823/; http://www.answers.com/topic/homeworld-game-of-the-year-edition; http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gg2000_2 I apologize in that I realize this isn't standard format; I'm new to Wikipedia, but someone more adept than me at this is welcome to use the sources for footnotes as needed. Again, I take no position on whether or not this qualifies as notability; that's for everyone here to decide. Thanks a ton for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.5.236 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thank Jeandré for the list of sources he has provided. As you can see, there is a lack of information from reliable, third-party sources from which an article can be written on the subject. Despite claims of subjectivity in dealing with the notability issues, the guidelines are quite clear on the matter; in order for an encyclopedic article to be written on a subject, there must be reliable, third-party sources to back up the claims the article makes. If a blog where only a username is given is used, there is no way to verify that content to make sure the person giving it did his or her homework on the matter. Of the sources that meet this criteria, (Seattle Times and Scifi.com), there is not enough biographical information to put together an article on the author. This is in no way a critical judgement of the author's work or value; it is simply an issue of coverage. In the future, more publications by credible sources can be used to fill in the gaps that exist, but at present, I don't think one can find enough reliable sources to meet the requirement of notability. Mrathel (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I disagree. Much of the commentary on each source made by Jeandré is poorly recapped or lazily researched. The author is now a twice published American author of science fiction at a major publishing house. His book is currently in the low thousand for Amazon sales rank (as if this can be any sort of reliable source of an author's value/notoriety, but I'll play along). I'll continue to make my request that this article be marked for clean up, but not deletion. Deletion is not the only potential solution here. Bdegroodt (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - vaguely familiar name in SF world. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LSE celtic society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable student group. Google and Google News searches do not confirm its importance. The article does not meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. 9 days is long enough. Keep. Notability has been established although this stub needs major expansion. (non-admin closure) - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanessa Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Poorly sourced BLP containing no information besides a list of publications. A google search throws up little more information and nothing resembling a WP:RS. HJMitchell You rang? 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: I'd actually heard of this person based upon some reference to her on some other article I am involved in and I researched her a little then to see if she had expert status for what was being claimed. When I saw this listing now I thought I'd be able to quickly find sources demonstrating notability for what she did do, but it's not really happened. She wrote one book by herself, which WorldCat lists as being in 85 libraries world-wide (not necessarily an accurate account), which might mean that the book meets the first step for not being ruled immediately nonnotable. She wa a coauthor on some kids books. Wrote a short story in a collection. Wrote for some magazines. Filmed some segments for places that would be notable. There's a video of her being interviewed about her book on TV on her YouTube page, but I don't know if that was local news or a one off. She does seem to be doing pretty well at promoting herself. Don't think she's notable enough for an article yet, but I can see her maybe getting there someday. DreamGuy (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WeakStrong keep Verifiable. Some evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated to strong keep per very substantial coverage in reliable sources. Definitely notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid Keep per diligent WP:AFTER and Sydney Morning Herald, Brisbane Morning Herald, Herald Sun, Brisbane Times, ABC News, WA Today, Discovery Space, Wildlife Extra, Why Files, Google Scholar and Google Books, and much more. There is easily enough to show notability through reviews and coverage in relliable sources. Just a matter of WP:CLEANUP... and AFD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as sourced now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucy Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, and I can't find anything more than a passing mention in any reliable sources Chzz ► 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not show verifiability, credibility, fails WP:MUSICIAN, and does not signify importance. It seems like another MySpace band. Renaissancee (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Found an interview (or two) on a blog, but nothing that really establishes notability. BTW-- The google image search result for "lucy diamonds" quoted is surprising! Gigs (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of importance or significance or even any claim that she has performed or recorded. Only reference cited is her MySpace page. The Google Image search is indeed interesting. It's a good thing she has turned her life around and found religion. Drawn Some (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I also did a Google image search for Lucy Diamonds and found that only the first few, I think, are actually of her. But I also agree that this article should be deleted as there is not enough information to support the article. It seems her "career" was short-lived. --Jklein212 (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Najmuddin(Rehan Razvi ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not at all sure if the subject is notable enough for an article. I am also nominating the following related pages because it is identical, and one should be deleted if not both:
Michael Johnson (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Films are non notable. Never heard of film-maker or his films. No awards or recognitions. Seems like an aspiring college passout to me. --Deepak D'Souza 04:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find anything. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tried finding sources using various permutations of the names, but found nothing reliable. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Stedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person with no apparent reason or justification for having an article on Wikipedia. Laval (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Here is an article from The Boston Globe, while here is one from the Montreal Mirror. Both of these news articles are significant, reliable coverage of this individual. This article from The Advocate verifies that Stedman won the Teddy Award. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Two articles about this artist winning a minor award do not seem to justify an article on WP. How much could even be written about him that is verifiable other than this award? Perhaps in a few years, but now? Laval (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard's references. Material seems verifiable, subject seems to be reasonably notable having won a significant award (significant enough for international news coverage, at least). --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to WP:N, a couple of articles about a minor award are not sufficient to establish notability. Aside from this award, there is barely anything else verifiable to add to his extremely short article. A line must be drawn as to what is acceptable to WP and what is not. Laval (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two news articles I cited prove that Stedman passes WP:GNG. In addition to giving information about him winning the award, the articles also lists his other achievements and information about his personal life. Cunard (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to WP:N, a couple of articles about a minor award are not sufficient to establish notability. Aside from this award, there is barely anything else verifiable to add to his extremely short article. A line must be drawn as to what is acceptable to WP and what is not. Laval (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The award is a minor one... not an overall award, but one of many given out and in a very specific subcategory. The articles cited are quite short, not showing a major focus on him in any real way. He may meet WP:CREATIVE some day, but not there yet. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep As per with Cunard, but I see no information that makes him worty of a Wikipedia article. Renaissancee (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there's enough notability to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathan Kotula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:ONEEVENT, no proof that they are notable for anything other than winning a single event Terrillja talk 04:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The World Series of Poker is a major tournament and winning it makes someone notable (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Athletes). ONEEVENT doesn't apply. The real issue appear to be the lack of biographical information and the fact that althought the game was in the World Series of Poker, the player doesn't appear to have been a professional player. - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails the significant coverage test. [92] LibStar (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Casino Employees' event is in all likelihood a non-notable sub-event of WSOP. Hence he didn't win any main tournament. --Pgallert (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ComboFix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The tool has an assertion of notability on web forums, and is a widely popular security tool, but little documentation is existent online. The reliability of good references, on this tool, are slim to none. The references currently used, though I added some myself, aren't good enough for a Wikipedia standard article. In a nutshell, it's just not expandable and doesn't assert its notability past web forums. blurredpeace ☮ 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This software is currently being used by both IT professionals (at my Job) and non-professionals as a last resort to remove malware. ComboFix's utility probably warrants it having an entry in the Wikipedia, and the tone of this article (descriptive or explanitory) is valuable, because most of the web-references I have seen only describe the use of the program. -vincent powell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.34 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This looks like a decent source, but it was the only one I could find. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be KEPT. I'm trying to clean a computer, and I need information like this. The program is recommended by various people, but I want a quick way to find out what it does and whether there is anything negative I need to know about it before I start using it. Wikipedia is a convenient place to find such information. So long as the article is not deleted! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a good reason to keep the page Eric. If you need the information, you can get it elsewhere. If it doesn't exist in another source, it is unverifiable and unsuitable for Wikipedia anyway. If you need it, it should be available somewhere, that doesn't mean that place HAS to be Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's unlikely this needs to be deleted outright. Maybe merged to an article on antispyware techniques in general, but let the people who would actually write such an article decide. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leah Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability, fails WP:MUSIC and reads as a fansite or promotional piece. It's also a single source material from a myspace page, and doesn't attribute to that site. Sigma 7 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's copy & pasted so I tagged it for copyvio. Drawn Some (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only a portion of the text was copy-pasted, from what I could tell, so I removed just that portion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've searched for sources, in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but I did not find anything that would help to verify the assertions in the article or establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing here satisfies wp:music. unsourced promotion. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Toucan (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication that this is a notable tool/product/program. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another self-published SourceForge software project with no indicia of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self promotion. Milik (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Chealer (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ab Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable golfer. Appears to have played six rounds of golf in two tournaments. I understand that a "pro" is a "pro" but looking at WP:Notability (people), I see: A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. I don't see six rounds of golf as falling under "generally notable", and I can't find any separate reason to support notability. Frank | talk 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom.Weak keep Entirely unsourced WP:BLP. However, if it were sourced it appears it would pass WP:ATHLETE? Strange considering only six rounds of golf, but if it is in pro tournaments, this would count? Symplectic Map (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - I found this [PGA tour website. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's the link above, showing he played six rounds of pro golf. As I said, I'm not sure that qualifies him as "generally notable". Frank | talk 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He came, he swung, no one cared. ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He played in the PGA which is the "competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis", which is the first criteria of WP:Athelete. Notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Major League Baseball players who have only played one game in the majors pass WP:Athlete, playing six rounds of golf in the PGA is no different.--kelapstick (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is not surprising that not a lot of online sources are coming up for a golfer who played six rounds in the PGA in the 50s (from what I can tell from the article summaries that is when he played), GNews for "Ab Justice" and "Donald Justice" bring up about three-four pages of sources combined that are locked behind pay walls. It appears that he may have been pretty good on the NCAA scene, the article says he was All-American at Oklahoma State.--kelapstick (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- update I found an article about the 1958 NCAA championship that he was playing in, second round he was in the lead, only thing it was really citable for (with the paragraph that you can preview for free) is his name and where he goes to school.--kelapstick (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The two tournaments were in 1990 (see the second link in the nomination). Frank | talk 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they must be the same person since I doubt that there are two golfers named "Donald M. Justace", even a father/son it would be odd for them to both have the nickname "Ab". If he was playing NCAA in 1958 (per the NYT reference) that would make him about 50-55 by the time he was playing in his two tournaments in the PGA in 1990, that's plausable. Without purchasing the article to see how deep the coverage about him was the cite I have really just proves that he exists and played NCAA golf at Oklahoma state, and was pretty good at it, not much else, but I am sticking with my WP:ATHLETE rationale.--kelapstick (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Malin GAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
One sentence article, states little other than location and existence of club. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at present. Club plays in Donegal Div 2 but has no record of national success in club championship that I can find. Would seem to fail WP:ORG on lack of national scope. Similar notability in football (soccer) project would also require this I think -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source. A new pitch opening sees the Ulster GAA President attend a match between Malin GAA and Donegal (the inter-county side presumably?) --candle•wicke 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source This one mentions a match with a side from Antrim! That's not in Donegal, in fact it's on the other side of the province so they must have played at provincial level at some point. --candle•wicke 21:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source This one would appear to contradict the claim they are in Division 2... it appears they were in Division 1 last season and beat Fanad who themselves were demoted to Division 2. --candle•wicke 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source This suggests the club did more for one family and a community than the Irish government... --candle•wicke 21:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source This one would appear to contradict the claim they are in Division 2... it appears they were in Division 1 last season and beat Fanad who themselves were demoted to Division 2. --candle•wicke 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source This one mentions a match with a side from Antrim! That's not in Donegal, in fact it's on the other side of the province so they must have played at provincial level at some point. --candle•wicke 21:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really convinced. I think, given the GAA structure, we should be looking at them playing in some kind of national championship? I don't see that yet - but they may have and the sources, which for the GAA I find tricky to be honest, may just not be easy to find. I think Div 1B is essentially the second tier provincially btw, which doesn't suggest a high level of play or national notability within Ireland. But if you can source national notability then I'd be *very* happy. Until then I think I'm still with delete Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources has them playing a match outside their county on the opposite side of the country (or a different one in fact, considering Antrim is in Northern Ireland). --candle•wicke 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, looks like a provincial championship though doesn't it? Rather than a national championship? If you can find them having won the Donegal championship and therefore technically representing Donegal in the All-Ireland's then I'd certainly say that was significant. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would not say that the scope of the club's activities are "national or international in scale" per WP:CLUB. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee Kwun Leung Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable painter. Lacks independent references to establish notability or verifiability of this auto-biographical article.Drawn Some (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm particular bad at reading Chinese. Why do you consider the references not independent? - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I use http://www.Google.com/translate to translate. There are no independent references that establish notability, see WP:CREATIVE, he is locally known at best, and most of the information in the article cannot be verified by reliable resources even if he were notable. Drawn Some (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer the question raised above. How is Ta Kung Pao not an independent source? Do you think that the article subject has some influence over its editorial content? If that is the case, then that fact on its own would imply that the subject is notable. And how, when the references are to a national newspaper in a country containing a fifth of the world's population, is the subject "locally known at best"? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I use http://www.Google.com/translate to translate. There are no independent references that establish notability, see WP:CREATIVE, he is locally known at best, and most of the information in the article cannot be verified by reliable resources even if he were notable. Drawn Some (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are putting words in my mouth as well as focusing on the word "independent". Review the guidelines for artist and you'll see that he lacks independent references to establish notability and to verify the contents of the article. WP:CREATIVE:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
Regardless of the independence of the references, the guidelines are not met. Drawn Some (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:creative is "Additional criteria". The basic criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people) still apply even if none of the above are satisfied. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no significant accomplishments. An art show of his work when he graduated from ollege, and that's it. Fails the guidelines for creative artists. DGG (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. RP459 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indie Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete Recording company that does not assert or prove its notability. A google search only seems to turn up a myspace page Dougofborg(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 Doesn't assert notability. Most of the blue links in the artist roster are false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. 'Most' is a very strong statement. Many of them weren't wikilinked correctly (they now are) but we have articles on over half the bands listed. To me that's enough of an assertion of notability to avoid speedy so I removed it. Don't currently have an opinion on whether the article shoudl stay or not. Dpmuk (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a general problem with establishing the notability of independent record labels as the artists generally get much more press coverage than their labels. In some senses it would be nice to have a clear guideline for such things, as it would certainly benefit WP:MUSIC. The guideline there defines an important independent label as having "a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". Indie Recordings is apparently the brainchild of the people behind Tabu Recordings, and if so I'd argue that they certainly fulfill the criterion of having being around for "more than a few years". The roster clearly contains some highly notable bands, in the shape of Enslaved, Satyricon, Gehenna, God Seed, Keep of Kalessin and Borknagar; there are several others in there as well, which is beginning to look like a pretty heavyweight roster in heavy metal terms. They've apparently also recently signed Solefald (as reported here and Sahg (as reported here. I note they are also releasing the Sarke album; the band is not yet notable (the album isn't out yet), but given they contain Nocturno Culto of Darkthrone fame and are playing Wacken Open Air, there will certainly be significant coverage. I appreciate the last is a WP:CRYSTAL argument, but I'd be tempted to err towards Keep on the strength of the roster. Sources badly needed, obviously. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Especially because of the connections with God Seed, and that between Espen Rohne and members Gaahl and King ov Hell, which was pretty crucial during the Gorgoroth name dispute. Dark Prime (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added sources and rewritten things.Dark Prime (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given Baz's arguments as well as Dark Prime's cleanup, which has helped the case for notability. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emma Hannigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Real author with one published book, which got a few minor reviews. Claimed besteller status highly dubious. Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR Passportguy (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this search established that the book exists, that's it. The Independent search link in the article gives nothing (and I'm removing it). 207.157.121.50 (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note--there was something there, but not much. An article with one paragraph on the book (I added URL to the article), the announcement that it exists, and a biographical, personal note on the author (on a topic which the article didn't mention, so I didn't add that). It doesn't alter my opinion. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The INdependent covers the author and the book a bit. Seems worth including? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:N Pink cloudy sky (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One review does not establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Book in in zero worldcat libraries. One short paragraph in a group review, which I can asa nondistinctive listing, not a review at all.
- Weak Delete - There is also this article devoted solely to her. But this still represents scant coverage and not enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Harringay Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable local website, has won one award, which itself doesn't appear to be too notable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Kind of like a local Facebook. The area it serves is not that large,
and there are no third-party sources cited.-- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Provisional merge to Harringay if it stays in its current form but it's at least theoretically keepable as a stand-alone article if it can be shown that it's had an impact on the development of similar sites, or that it's had a significant impact on the community. The comment above me regarding "no third party sources" is incorrect, though; there are two ([93], [94]) cited in the article, besides the three others in the EL section. – iridescent 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I'll deal with them one by one, if I may:
- 1. Awards/Recognition: The Catalyst Awards are a national award sponsored by No. 10. The awards were presented by Gordon Brown. Here are the awards written up on NESTA's website. We are featured on the European Union's best practice website, particularly because we are considered a model for the development of other sites. We have now also been short-listed for the National eWell-Being Awards. Harringay Online is the only hyperlocal website to get this recognition because it is doing it's job so well. So, I think there's a fair case there for notability in it's class.
- 2. If the issue is the notability of the class, i.e. hyperlocal websites, I think there's also a good case.
- Government departments and well respected research establishments are increasingly focussing on the key role of hyperlocal websites. Local sites like Harringay Online are specifically mentioned as a group in a whole raft of recent guidance from the Department of Communities & Local Government around Coomunities in Control. Government sees them as core to a key part of their agenda. The DCLG have recently awarded £1m to local councils to encourage them to establish more hyperlocal activity.
- Just recently Head of the Royal Society of Arts, Matthew Taylor wrote about the issue in one of his blogs. He specifically mentioned Harringay Online and indeed in one of his follow-up comments said "If we had 5,000 Harringay on lines our society would be much richer".
- Hyperlocal is an issue for Government and third sector influencers. Harringay Online is a leader in this movement. We've spawned sites in Virginia, Durban and of course in the UK. (For example a nearby local site recently Twittered "@Harringayonline been very inspired by ... your network when rebuilding the East Finchley network"
- I'm not clear why its serving a small geographic area is an issue. Size of geography doesn't seem to be an issue for Wikipedia.
- 3. Impact on the community - the site is aimed at a neighbourhood of 15,000 people. It was started two years ago and has a membership of over 1,500. Any media that has a penetration of 10% within two years should be making some impact on those numbers alone. Staying with numbers, Google Analytics shows that the site gets an average of 250 visits a day from 150 unique visitors - a greater level of penetration than Channel 4 News or BBC's Newsnight. It is rated in the top decile of sites by Hubspots Website Grader tool. Alexa ranks us in the top 3% of websites worldwide (Traffic rank of 1,958,599 out of about 66m active websites. It is number 2 in results on a Google search for Harringay. On a numbers basis, not sure what else would satisfy.
- But so much for stats. In terms of local impact, the people in the area are the best arbiters and we have hundreds of testimonials from them - happy to supply. We've also had significant on the ground impacts in the neighbourhood. These can be referenced by local press stories. They include:
- - a successful campaign resisting the local opening of betting shops
- - a successful movement and campaign to resist a plan from Haringey Council for the nearby Wood Green which would have rerouted traffic through our area
- - the biggest summer party ever in the area
- - the initiation of a Council sponsored Local Charter for the area to develop a vision and 5 year plan for the area
- - the first ever street festival for the area which will involve the closure of one of North London's busiest roads.
- - Support and info to support individuals with countless occasions of local action.
- 4. What other commentators have said:
- "I'm a great fan of this remarkable local site because of the huge number of digital conversations it generates among residents". Kevin Harris' article, Digital engagement: transparency and power, published on New Start, 31st March 2009. (And another post referencing the same story here
- Richard - I am trying to do precisely this, having been very impressed with Harringay-Online. I also thought I would try to build up an advice wiki on this issue and will copy and paste your great advice over to it now. I hope that is OK. http://onlinecommunitybuilder.pbwiki.com/
- Posted by: Paul Johnston | Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 12:43
- That's a brilliant example Paul. A really, really, brilliant example. So many participants, activity.
- Posted by: Richard Millington | Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 13:14
- "Really impressed by the Harringay Online Community. Perfect example for others to follow" Richard Millington on Twitter, March 21st, 2009
- "The key aspect to all of this is to start to open up and explore the new connections and to create an information and conversation flow between residents and councils (or council staff) and then creating and developing new opportunities to communicate out. There is a huge potential to support these environments which also foster social capital. A great example of this is Harringayonline, which is not a council lead initiative." Carl Haggerty on Carl's Notepad, February 6, 2009
- Happy to go through my files and find stronger examples if these aren't enough.
- I hope this helps. The reason the article should stay, quite apart from it's notability is that it is a an example for other to follow. It is a leader in its field and it should be as easy as possible for people to find. No one is making any money out of it. It's a 100% community not-for-profit venture.
- Keep, per above. CF90 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After looking at this one carefully, I believe that there are insufficient reliable sources out there to provide material for an article. I was going to suggest merge, but I feel that the one-line external link (with mention of the award) in Harringay is correct coverage. I see no evidence of reliable sources to provide anything further than that. The comments regarding alleged web statistics and 'tweets' do not help the cause. Chzz ► 00:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another reliable source from a couple of days ago. And, also a reference in The Guardian
To get an idea of what reliable sources are allowed as references for websites, I had a look at Category:British websites. It seems that many have fewer references than this one. So, it's hard to work out what's acceptable. In terms of the sources we do have, let's just review them:
- The European Commission's own website
- A UK Government website, in the form of NESTA
- A mention in the Guardian newspaper
- A Press Association website, in the form of Commmunity Newswire.
- The well-respected regeneration & economic development magazine, New Start.
- The Royal Society of Arts Website in an article written by the Chief of the Society.
- A host of mentions in other smaller well-respected specialist sites.
There's no two-page spread in the FT, but let's be realistic, for a hyperlocal website, this is substantial verifiable sourcing from a whole range of reliable sources. Please explain what's missing.
As to the web stats, they're all verifiable. Alexa is the most referenced guide to website performance and is open for public scrutiny. Google Analytics stats are also verifiable - happy to give access to those.
hjuk (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: sources cited are reliable and enough evidence presented to show that this site is seen an exemplar of hyperlocal websites and is therefore notable. There is also evidence in the sources that it is building community networks and social capital, - topics currently at the forefront of government thinking worldwide.
User:Walter Delve 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Walter Delve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tedder (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I've had conversations with hjuk on this in the past, and I've proposed it for deletion. Certainly there are COI issues and it is only borderline notable, but the award and mentions are (barely) sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Tedder, this is my first lengthy contribution. Although a regular user of Wikipedia I haven’t been a contributor. I work in the community in the borough of Haringey and am an avid supporter of hyperlocal. I became aware of this debate through a watch I have on items on the borough across the web - http://twitter.com/wikiwars/status/1719153087. I wanted to step up, support the inclusion of articles on hyperlocal on Wikipedia in general, but on Harringay Online in particular. I’ve read the AFD guidance and whilst not an expert editor, It seems to me that this article meets the notability and reliable sources criteria. So, I’m a firm, if novice, keep. Walter Delve (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sources cited seem good enough, and seems notable to an extent from what I have read from this discussion. Taelus (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Hasn't had what I'd exactly call significant coverage in reliable sources, but an indepth interview in a local government newsletter, a passing mention in the Guardian and some award nominations just scrape it for me. Not just another website. Fences and windows (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to History of Harringay (1880–present) (that seems a good target to me), since this is not independently notable, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: sources cited are reliable and it should be kept as a stand-alone article --IsarSteve (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think the sources are strong for a hyperlocal site and this is a notable example of one. I work in local government and Haringey Online has been used as an example of the kind of community run local websites we should try and encourage in our area. -- Mikebrophy (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rusty Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Still no verification as to the independent notability of this character. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tons of passing mentions, but I could only find one news story that actually seems to focus on the character:[95], and this interview with Brad Pitt about the role:[96], which is mostly him blathering. Aside from just giving a plot summary focussed on Ryan, this article contributes nothing, and gives no evidence that the character has any independent notability. There are stacks of other likely non-notable fictional character pages, but that doesn't excuse this one. Fences and windows (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability can't be inherited from the film and the character isn't notable on its own. Drawn Some (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP
this article was put up for deletion just 9 days ago. Nominator says "still no verification". First of all, the article was just closed today by nominator. Second,per WP:DEADLINE there is no deadline for these articles to be cleaned up.Third,there appears like there is a lot of metion of this character in google news.[97] Ikip (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That AfD was last year. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh thats embarassing. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Brad Pitt, Talk:Ocean's Thirteen, Talk:Ocean's Twelve, and Talk:Ocean's Eleven (2001 film) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Keep per User:Fences and windows and his "Tons of passing mentions". Guideline does not demand that sources must absolutely be substantial and in-depth as long as they are not trivial: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". "number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred". Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here, as a major character in a major film series is easily confirmed. Character notability exists as part of the film's notability, and is not inherited from it. The two are intertwined like a strong rope. One does not exist without the other. Pity that this article was not spourced since the last AfD. but wiki has no WP:DEADLINE that this must be done, and has as long as it takes... impatience aside. Tag the kept article or improve it. AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep central character in series of films. Some out-of-universe material should be available in a plethora of film magazines and Pitt bio etc. Casliber (talk · contribs)
- Keep excellent article, just needs references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of characters from the Ocean's Trilogy#Rusty Ryan. We've got a lot of "He's a main character, he must be notable!" but no explanation of where we're going to get sources that deal with this character other than in a glancing way in discussions of the films or Brad Pitt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect The material is almost all plot oriented, without any "meat" to the article. Being portrayed by a "star" does not make any individual character notable for a WP article. Heck -- "Mammy (Gone with the Wind) " does not get her own article - and it was an Oscar-winning performance. (not an argument in itself, of course). Collect (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , but add specific references to specific scenes, & look for criticism, Some of the reviews must discuss the character. The only requirement in WP:NOT is that the treatment of the overall work be not entirely plot, & it isn't. A major character in a group of medium-important films. It's clearer to treat major characters separately, I suppose it would be acceptable to merge, if the entire content were merged, but experience shows that it's easier to keep significant content if the article is separate. DGG (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep solid article on notable character. Ample reliable and verifiable sources are available and should be added to expand and improve article further. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources exist to show independent notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The character is a main character in 3 quite notable movies. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The character is notable, and there is enough information to warrant his own article(as opposed to be combined with others). Dream Focus 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All I can see is editors saying they like the article, that he's a character in three notable films, and that lots of sources refer to him. Please present some sources that show independent notability of this character, and edit the article so that it is not just an unsourced plot summary. If that can't be done, then why exactly should we keep the article? Fences and windows (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notability independent of the film. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interesting to see that four keep !votes arrived here within two and a half hours of a rescue tag being added, while no work whatsoever has been done to the article. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to obvious notability (played by a blue link actor in multiple successful films discussed in numerous reliable sources). Interesting to see that most of those voting to delete have made no effort to search for sources or improve the article in question. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Nobody, you might want to retract that. I support deletion, and I've actually bothered looking for and presenting sources rather than just asserting that they exist (see above), and I couldn't find anything substantial to work with. That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but so far this AfD is simply a talking shop. Fences and windows (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found and added somewhat to the actual article (I am the only one to edit it since nomination) and now going through the remarkable number of sources available on Google News to see what can be added in the way of a reception section. That interview you cite could be helpful in the production section and anyway, I was not directing my comment at you, which is why I didn't say "all"; rather it was a reply to comment directly above mine. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for snapping. Good luck with expanding it. Fences and windows (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found and added somewhat to the actual article (I am the only one to edit it since nomination) and now going through the remarkable number of sources available on Google News to see what can be added in the way of a reception section. That interview you cite could be helpful in the production section and anyway, I was not directing my comment at you, which is why I didn't say "all"; rather it was a reply to comment directly above mine. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The subject does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben Gu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
All contents are from the blog of this person, contributed by a Wiki user who has the same user name as this person's pen name. Wikipedia is not a personal resume posting service.--Mongol (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like a resume to me. Not encyclopedic at all. Turbo900 (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:PROF. Even if re-written to not be a CV, it is non-notable and mostly unverifiable. Fences and windows (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--a few articles, but that does not help turn this resume into an article. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sardar Meer Dilmurad Khan Khoso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any third-party refs. Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the nominator's searches were hindered by the South Asian habit of adding multiple honorifics to names. The common spelling for the subject's name seems to be "Dil Murad Khan". This Google Books search confirms that he was a notable leader. I've done what I can to add sources to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
I believe the story is based on history and have a contact with the family, so will suggest they document more fully. Please keep. Also deals with long ago history so zero risk of distorting or hurting reputation of living people, organizations or national interests. BJMorrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.36.186 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Well done, Phil. I'm not convinced he was that important a figure, as all he is noted for is a failed rebellion, but OK. Fences and windows (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having his glasses crushed and going with uncorrected vision did not make him go blind. That is a myth. Also the article needs to be moved to the proper title if it is kept. Drawn Some (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like there are real sources that back up that he was real historical figure. Next step will be to make sure that the article matches the verifiable facts, but this has the potential to become a decent article. Avram (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Being in a real world encyclopedia qualifies as notable enough to me. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alawode Oladele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Questionable notability under WP:BIO. I can find no evidence that this individual is any more notable than any other doctor. There is some laudatory coverage on sites promoting medical organizations he is connected to, including a little biographical information. There is also a biography article (http://www.publichealthleaders.org/alumni/bios_04_05/oladele_alawode.htm) that appears to have been written by the individual. There are enough sources that I would ordinarily assume notability, but so many of the sources are advertisement-like that I am concerned, and have nominated for AfD. Despite any possible presumption, I personally believe that the individual is not notable, despite some coverage in sources. Delete. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Not just your average medic. He has some coverage, mainly as head of a clinic for refugees: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&q=%22Alawode+Oladele%22&cf=all. He is the CEO of a healthcare organisation, but it appears to be little known. I'm going to sit on the fence. Fences and windows (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. You can see him give a talk at GSU here. Fences and windows (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The highest notability is " Emerging Leaders in Public Health Fellow" note that word emerging. DGG (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some of the organizations with which he is associated are notable but he isn't. He may be one day. Drawn Some (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Life Saver bottle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable product Pjacobi (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If I'm not mistaken contaminated water is the #1 killer of children in the world. Could we pull in some experts to see if this is notable or not. This isn't the sort of product that is going to be well known by people who participate in AFD discussions I'm listing on Talk:Water pollution if anyone knows of a better place to pull in people who know whether this is notable or not please link off. jbolden1517Talk 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be a number of articles about the product. The biggest is here: "'Lifesaver' Bottle Purifies Water in Seconds" at Foxnews.com. This source does not appear to be a blog, and might count as well: "LIFESAVER: World’s First Ultra Filtration Water Bottle" at Inhabitat.com. Also, the article appears misnamed - it should be at Lifesaver bottle based on the manufacturer's spelling. Will Beback talk 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I just added a lot of that info to the article.Grundle2600 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability isn't related to whether or not something is important or not, plenty of completely unimportant people and things are notable and a few important people and things are not notable. This is notable because there is significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? The linked Daily Telegraph article? Or the website the company that sells this product: Lifesaver Bottle USA? Splette :) How's my driving? 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this also needs to be moved to "Lifesaver bottle" if the result of the AfD is keep. Drawn Some (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable and verifiable sources in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Without even reading the article, I know that it is well sourced because I wrote it! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One link to
a tabloidDaily Telegraph and another to Treehugger makes this article 'well sourced'? Splette :) How's my driving? 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- The reference is The Daily Telegraph, not The Daily Mail. The former is a respectable broadsheet newspaper, not a tabloid. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ups, sorry I mixed up the two. Splette :) How's my driving? 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference is The Daily Telegraph, not The Daily Mail. The former is a respectable broadsheet newspaper, not a tabloid. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its written like an advertisment for a product. Non-notable, "life saver bottle" gives only 1550 google hits (10.000 for "lifesaver bottle"). I would vote for keep if this article was not about the single product of a certain company but instead about a certain design/concept of bottles to purify water.Splette :) How's my driving? 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the technology is under patent, then maybe that's why only one company is producing it. I did not mean to make the article seem like an advertisement. I have nothing to do with the subject, or with the person who invented it. I just like science. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Only two references, one of which is a blog that references the other, but more sources are available. Needs cleanup, but it does seem to meet the requirements of notability. Recommend moving this to Lifesaver bottle and fixing the redirect once AfD process is complete. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you put this in quotation marks it gives only 22 results. Is that notable? Remember, notability includes significant coverage and notability is not temporary... Splette :) How's my driving? 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Scjessey's link pulled up Jane's about as RS as this product could get. Can we close WP:SNOW? jbolden1517Talk 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non notable product, I agree with Splette. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge into Water purification
and/or Water filter.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: My main problem about the article is that it is product-based, not technology-based and concentrates on the (successful) marketing efforts of one manufactur. While the company has convinced the patent office, that their device is a specific novel combination of features, nothing in its components is even mildly new. Ultrafiltre membranes to remove molecules above a specific size (including viruses) are a mainstream technology. Think of the dying children! is not valid argument, and if you want to think of the dying children, then you should ask yourself, where patent-grabbers are in the equation of rescuing them. --Pjacobi (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said - I agree. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the fact this this article is product-based does not preclude the creation of a technology-bassed article. Based on guidelines, this product is notable with coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Specifically, Fox News, Guardian, Toronto Star, Janes, and BBC. And these are not the only ones but certainly is more than enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural close, created by abusive sockpuppet. However, the concerns raised in the legitimate other opinions should be adressed, probably best by merging this article back. Otherwise, a new AfD may be the best solution. Fram (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redcaps in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I nominated this article for several reasons. The most pertinent being that the article is nothing more than a a list of useless trivia. Entries relating to popular fiction should be about how that subject impacted popular fiction with one or two notable examples. The article itself was even made in bad taste without proper discussion on the Redcap (which was not overly long), and the author making the page without listing citations. If notability can be established for this article as is, then by all means keep it, otherwise I believe the article itself should be deleted with a few notable examples being merged back into the main page.Hyacinth99 (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC). — Hyacinth99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- struck comments per blocked socketpuppet results. - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar/Archive. -- Banjeboi 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into redcap, should never have been split. Folklore is just pop culture from another age. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. WillOakland (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge into redcap. A bit heavy on WP:OR and fails WP:CITE, which gets the "weak" from me. Nanowolf (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list bound together by the new and novel concept that redcaps compose a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 talk 10:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close per this AfD initiated as an attack edit by User:Hyacinth99, a now indef-blocked sockpuppet of User:Flygongengar. See Checkuser Evedince. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this horribly-written content fork (filled with original research and speculation about what fictional monsters not specifically called redcaps are in fact redcaps) and redirect to the better written and appropriate redcap article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close per Michael, if not, Merge back to Redcaps. Ikip (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural close, created by abusive sockpuppet. However, the concerns raised in the legitimate other opinions should be adressed, probably best by merging this article back. Otherwise, a new AfD may be the best solution. Fram (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Manticore in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I nominated this article for several reasons. The most pertinent being that the article is nothing more than a a list of useless trivia. Entries relating to popular fiction should be about how that subject impacted popular fiction with one or two notable examples. The article itself was even made in bad taste without proper discussion on the Manticore (which was not overly long), and the author making the page without listing citations. If notability can be established for this article as is, then by all means keep it, otherwise I believe the article itself should be deleted with a few notable examples being merged back into the main page.Hyacinth99 (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — Hyacinth99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Struck comments of blocked sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar/Archive. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into manticore, should never have been split. Much of mythology and Folklore is are largely pop culture from another age. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to both WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. WillOakland (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into manticore. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list of I-spy trivia bound together by the new and novel concept that manticores compose a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 talk 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close per this AfD initiated as an attack edit by User:Hyacinth99, a now indef-blocked sockpuppet of User:Flygongengar bring. See Checkuser Evedince. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per Michael, if not Merge to Manticore. Ikip (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Manticore but verify. I suspect sources could be found to address WillOakland and Allen3's concerns, perhaps e.g. Mythical and Fabulous Creatures: A Source Book and Research Guide by Malcolm South. I find the statement "Manticores appear frequently in fiction" in the article amusing, because it is a fictional creature, and thus that is where one would expect to find it. Шизомби (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.