Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 28
< January 27 | January 29 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone needs userified content, let me know. — Scientizzle 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
List of session musicians[edit]
- List of session musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
That an individual session musician is notable is fine. But this type of list of "all the notable session musicians under the sun" is unworkable, unmaintainable and thus becomes no use at all as an alternative navigation route into session Musicians. Usually I support both a list and a category because each has a different value to the WP user, but here I have to suggest that only a category is workable and the list is not. The list, while a lot of hard work for the originator, is a quantity of indiscriminate information. It cannot avoid being one. I think the idea was great, but I cannot see how this idea can be implemented in an encyclopaedic manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - I agree with the nom almost completely. This list is nearly infinite in its scope. Shadowjams (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Allow some time to let it improve. I just created this article to get this admittedly unreferenced and random list out of the session musicians article. I agree that as it stands, it is weak. But it can be improved. Timtrent stated that this idea might not be able to be workable or encyclopaedic. I think it could move in that direction if we add some standards..like each name needs a reputable source (music encyclopedia) indicating that the person is a session musician. Then we could add another standard, such as "must have performed on at least XXX major label albums" or something, to screen out minor session musicians. As well, the list could have more categorizing, such as by era and by genre. Plus screen out the minor, little-known people. I say give the list a chance to improve. It just started its life as a stand-alone article! :) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment How much time is enough? This list has been part of Session musician for a substantial time and all that's happened is that it has become more and more unwieldy. AfD runs for 5 days unless snowballed. Even if every member of the list is referenced the whole thing remains totally unworkable. Unless, of course, you are a miracle worker. Believe me, if you can work miracles then great, but I cannot see how this can possibly be made into a comprehensive and encyclopaedic list. This is a place for categories I'm afraid, not lists. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - impossibly wide scope. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Hopelessly unmaintainable, any potential criteria for inclusion would be arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep If everyone included on the list have Wikipedia articles, and are notable, I don't see why having a list of them is a bad thing. It would be, by definition, limited to those musicians who are notable, which means that it wouldn't be an infinite, unmaintainable list. I'm not sure why this is any different than other lists of notable people by vocation. If we delete this, then we should delete other lists of people by vocation that happen to be very long. In my opinion, the fact that there are a great many notable session musicians isn't a good enough reason to delete the list. Clean it up, make it workable, but no need to delete. As for "how much time is enough" to fix it up, Wikipedia has no deadlines. You work on articles that are not great, but notable, you don't delete them because they aren't perfect. SMSpivey (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: this list is just way too broad in scope. Just about every musician at some time or another has sessioned on a recording. Maybe if the scope had been more specific I would vote keep but this list in its present form is unmaintainable and endless. JamesBurns (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, session musicians are inherently non-notable so there is no need to provide a way to search for a session musicians who play a particular instrument. That would be a function for a directory of musicians, presumably used by soloists looking for backup. Not our job. Benefix (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Give it a chance per User:OnBeyondZebrax. To TenPoundHammer: relying on reliable sources to describe them as session musicians would hardly be arbitrary. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Per WP:SALAT this is "too general or too broad in scope". Bongomatic 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Too many millions to list (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Myles Blade376[edit]
- Myles Blade376 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication of notability Shadowjams (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It seems pretty clear that this is a vanity page created by a teenager about himself. Could have been speedily-deleted, as it doesn't even attempt to establish notability (vlogging on Youtube doesn't count). But in any case it's pretty obvious that this needs to go. -- Atamachat 23:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, take away the self promotion, and the links to avoid, and you're left with..........well, nothing. I concur with the speedy-delete. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Following copied from article's talk page
- Talk:Myles Blade376, does have notabilty. And many external links for refrences for the page. Myles Dyer is a famous internet celebrity viewed by thousands and has been on a BBC Reality Show called Upstaged. He has been interviewed by a radio station and other local newspapers. Please Contact be if you can to tell me what I can do to make this page better...
- Being "viewed by thousands" and just one apperance on BBC isn't enough, nor is one radio interview or scant local coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
End copied text
- Delete as speedy decliner. Notability needs better references to survive AfD, not just the bare assertions needed to escape speedy. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: inadequate third-party references, and a search doesn't yield any better ones. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Is this the same guy? In which case we have one substantial source in which he is the primary subject. But the only other thing I could find was this mention. The Upstaged appearance was as part of a team, and his name is not found anywhere. In total, this is not sufficient to meet notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Nancy Pelosi. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Political positions of Nancy Pelosi[edit]
- Political positions of Nancy Pelosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a content fork of the political positions section that currently exists in the Nancy Pelosi article. The Nancy Pelosi article is not overly long and that section still exists there. This article has not been budded off from that article per summary style but rather exists parallel to it, so there is no reason for this article to exist. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep, encyclopedic. Ottre 23:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. There are two process problems here. First, User:Levineps created the subarticle and left a summary section in the main article with this edit, with no edit summary explanation, no discussion with other editors on the talk page, no nothing. That's not right, any major change like this requires justification and consultation and consensus ahead of time. Second, User:Loonymonkey has both restored the full section in the main article with this edit, and also nominated the subarticle for deletion claiming the content is duplicated. That's not a reasonable explanation of what's in question here. Looneymonkey is correct, however, that the unsplit Pelosi article isn't too long by size standards, as it's 29 kB (4772 words) "readable prose size", well within guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "That's not right, any major change like this requires justification and consultation and consensus ahead of time."
- Not so. However, there's no reason it couldn't have been reverted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge back into the main article. Pelosi's article is not so long that sub-articles need to be spun off. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge I almost always agree with vicious little canines.--MONGO 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect back, since the first half of the merge is already done. This didn't need to be split. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- RD back. Current article not unwieldy. If more of the sections turn into text longer than the current 2-3 sentance single 'graf, reconsider. Bongomatic 05:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Themis Music[edit]
- Themis Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is not notable (enough) per WP:Music. Album is self-published, and while there appear to be a lot of references, most of them are to the band/project's own website and associated sites. Coverage is actually limited to this, which doesn't appear to be a much of a publication; this, a site where one can download music for a fee; and this, whose information is a copy of the first link (or the other way around). Despite the claim to many very different activities, there really is no in-depth independent coverage of the band, and thus notability is not established. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Obvious delete The band clearly fails WP:MUSIC; the article has been deleted before on these grounds and in the intervening time has not been signed, released even a single album on a notable label, or received any non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources whatsoever. I'm afraid webradio biogs just don't cut the mustard. The one potential claim to notability is as the most prominent members of a notable subgenre; however, if the subgenre consist of (at present) one band of note (the subject, up for deletion) then that crierion cannot be adequate. This is a pure vanity piece. Tangentially important, but could I advise people to take a look at the article's talk page before commenting. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete deja vu, I'm not finding any more reliable sources that are better than last time around. Possible Speedy G4, but it has been over 6 months, so maybe not. Still doesn't meet notability per WP:MUSIC. If they keep going, they may get a mention in the music press as being the the most deleted band on wikipedia, which would then make them notable under Music#C1. Excuse my humour, I haven't had my morning coffee yet. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. This strikes me as a subject that will probably eventually gain notability, but hasn't done so yet. The sources given do not pass WP:MUSIC so it's a delete for the time being with no sanction against recreation if more references become available in the future. Trusilver 08:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted CSD G4 as it was substantially identical to the deleted version titled J4jumpy and the changes in the recreated page did not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
J4Jumpy[edit]
- J4Jumpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a non-notable publication, which was apparently deleted under a different name (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J4jumpy). In any case, three of its four sources are recursive and while it asserts notability for being an important publication in the Pakistan music scene, it essentially has no reliable sources. Thus, the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete CSD G4. Now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Billings, Montana. MBisanz talk 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Downtown Billings[edit]
- Downtown Billings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is unsourced and provides little in the way of encyclopedic value on its own. It is redundant in scope to both the Billings, Montana and the Sections of Billing, Montana articles. The information it contains should be merged into the Downtown Billings section of the Sections of Billings, Montana article and/or the Billings, Montana article. Mike Cline (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) MuZemike 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - There's no need to bring merge discussions here, I would recommend being bold in this case. the wub "?!" 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge With the article on Billings, Montana. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge clearly, also, be bold per Pastor Theo. SMSpivey (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - Contents have been merged into the Sections of Billings, Montana article. Thanks for the Be Bold encouragement, but one must alway remember the inscription on the three Gates of Busyrane:
"Be bold!" first gate; "Be bold, be bold, and evermore be bold," second gate; "Be not too bold!" third gate.
--Mike Cline (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Gallon challenge[edit]
- Gallon challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article violates WP:NOT (for things made up one day). This isn't a notable game or challenge in the encyclopedic sense. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. This has had a very long time to establish that it's not something made up one day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - this type of milk-drinking contest has been covered in newspaper articles like these. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Note that a google news search for "milk chugging" with gallon turns up lots of these results, many behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Yes there are incidents that have been reported like Milk bet turns sour for Marlins bat boy and Teacher Fired For Milk-Barfing Experiment but these aren't quite what this article is about. For gross-out and juvenile fun you need to rise to phonebooth stuffing, goldfish swallowing and fart lighting. If there is movement to recreate this may I suggest milk chugging as a title? -- Banjeboi 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - the first article I linked to has the gallon challenge specifically as it's primary subject with a statement of the usual rules followed and isn't a report on an incident. -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- In thinking more on this I'm open to a wp:Heymann rewrite if the article is written encyclopedicly about Milk chugging rather than as a challenge. In this way we veer off of college/sophomoric hazing rituals and focus on the activity, variants, actual notable cases, scientific basis, etc. rather than being a repository of rules so you can organize a group of friends. There can be a good article unearthed here but like many pop culture subjects or articles about words, we need to find the encyclopedic aspects and focus on those. If there are notable usages in media they can be included after the notability and other elements have been discussed. -- Banjeboi 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - the first article I linked to has the gallon challenge specifically as it's primary subject with a statement of the usual rules followed and isn't a report on an incident. -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. However, it is accepted that the article has quite a few issues, and it may well be renominated here before long should they not be resolved. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Putinland[edit]
- Putinland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article as written by Martintg has a major problem. These problems include:
- The documentary article and the Polish article only mention Putinland in their title. According to Martintg, as on eSStonia, this is not valid for inclusion into an article, and hence they have been removed.
- The lead states that it came into being after the death of Litvinenko. He didn't die until November 2006. Both of the remaining two sources pre-date his death.
- I've removed "who exposed the brutality of the Kremlin's war in Chechnya" as it is a word for word copyvio of the source.
- The Edward Lucas article mentions the term in the title only. The source provided is a subscription service, so Martintg needs to provide a direct quotation from the text of the article, otherwise the entire Lucas section needs to be removed as per the other two sources.
- The assertion "The term is intended to portray Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred, with particular reference to FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and the assassinations of prominent critics." is POV original research on the part of Martintg by the looks of it. Even if it can be sourced, its still POV, due to FSB involvement only being alleged in a number of conspiracy theory by different kooks, this goes to show that this is a point article.
- Then we have have it appeared after the murder of Politkovskaya. This needs a citation, otherwise that too is original research, because the only source left which actually references Putinland in the article is a direct quotation to Politkovskaya herself, which to point out the bleeding obvious, she isn't able to write from the grave, or is she?
As it stands, this is a WP:POINT article in relation to the AfD for eSStonia, in which Martintg was directly asked if he would create Putinland. Sorry Martin, I would prefer for this article to stay, but there is no assertion of notability in the article which is referenced to reliable sources, so instead of prodding it only to have it removed, I think its best to bring it here instead for discussion, and see if notability can be established. I can find no relevant book or scholar results in Google, I also can find no really relevant news sources, for which the majority of results are for "Put inland", and even one for "Putin's land grab". The rest seem to use Putinland as a substitute for Russia. I can't find any notability with this term. Russavia Dialogue 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A question. This is very strange. That was actually Russavia who requested to create this "Putinland" article. But the same Russavia nominated it for deletion. Any explanations?Biophys (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- User:Martintg/Putinland started according to my timestamps at 08:29, 27 January 2009. Timestamp of my post on Termer's talk page; 10:06, 27 January 2009. Don't you think I knew it was already under development? And one can tell I was being facetious, particularly with my suggestion of "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist -- this can be a laundry list of Soviet war memorials where someone has referred to it as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist -- to make it easier, find a list of Soviet war memorials and just replicate that information here on WP." And I even included a suggestion for you, Biophys. Now please don't feign ignorance to usage of the English language, and try to suggest that I suggested it's creation, when it was already well under way. Over and out. That's all for me on this AfD, unless actually required. --Russavia Dialogue 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, notability is established by multiple references to the independent reliable sources including a film documentary. Judging from the discussion on Putinjugend and eSStonia, I've come round to the view that notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays and should be kept. As long as these articles are written in an encyclopedic manner, I have no objection to their existance.Martintg (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment are you copy-pasting from keep votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESStonia? I wonder why. Don't you have your own opinion? (Igny (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- ?? As I explained, despite my intial opposition, I've come round to the view that these articles are worth keeping. Martintg (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No. You are arguing for keeping all these articles now simply because your delete opinion about esstonia failed to delete that article, you can not do anything about that anymore. So no, your delete opinion about esstonia did not change a jota. By "changing your opinions" you are trying to keep this article now. On the other hand, the count in this Russia-Estonia wiki-war is currently 1:3 so you do not mind if all articles stay. You can lie about change in your opinion as much as you can, but as soon as another anti-Estonian article is created, you will change it back to delete again. After all all you need is to maintain your keep opinion for duration of this Afd only, in the next Afd for eSStonia you can always change it back. So again no, your view hasn't changed a bit.(Igny (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- "Russia-Estonia wiki-war is currently 1:3" ?? I'm from Australia. As for the AfDs on the other articles, I know two or three Estonian editors voted but they were split between "keep" and "delete"; the majority didn't vote at all. Their votes represented a tiny fraction of the total AfD votes, so it made no difference at all. Your characterisations are totally wrong and border on WP:NPA, but your response does reveal more about yourself than anything else. Martintg (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No. You are arguing for keeping all these articles now simply because your delete opinion about esstonia failed to delete that article, you can not do anything about that anymore. So no, your delete opinion about esstonia did not change a jota. By "changing your opinions" you are trying to keep this article now. On the other hand, the count in this Russia-Estonia wiki-war is currently 1:3 so you do not mind if all articles stay. You can lie about change in your opinion as much as you can, but as soon as another anti-Estonian article is created, you will change it back to delete again. After all all you need is to maintain your keep opinion for duration of this Afd only, in the next Afd for eSStonia you can always change it back. So again no, your view hasn't changed a bit.(Igny (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- ?? As I explained, despite my intial opposition, I've come round to the view that these articles are worth keeping. Martintg (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment are you copy-pasting from keep votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESStonia? I wonder why. Don't you have your own opinion? (Igny (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- Merge all these conflict articles into one big article on political pejorative neologisms. Then we can provide same weight to all these "terms", and discuss article's encyclopedic worthiness without bias. If not merge, then delete them all, after all Wikipedia is not dictionary of nationalistic slang. (Igny (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- I mean something like this with a lead on usage of political neologisms. (Igny (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- Your example looks okay to me as it places it all in context, but ofcourse I'd like to hear the views of the other editors first. AfD's aren't required to merge articles, and if this article is kept then I wouldn't oppose such a merge if there was a resonable concensus. Re-directs are alway useful for searches. Martintg (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think Igny's idea is a step forward. Having all those tiny pieces of news as separate encyclopedia articles simply doesn't make sense. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Your example looks okay to me as it places it all in context, but ofcourse I'd like to hear the views of the other editors first. AfD's aren't required to merge articles, and if this article is kept then I wouldn't oppose such a merge if there was a resonable concensus. Re-directs are alway useful for searches. Martintg (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I mean something like this with a lead on usage of political neologisms. (Igny (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- Delete per WP:NEO. Term not widespread enough to establish notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:NEO. Little sources apart from Edward Lucas article.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Have you been canvassed to participate here? Martintg (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:N and WP:NEO. Non notable neologism. Two out of the three sources use the term in the title of the article and no where else. Just because someone uses a derogatory term to refer to a country doesn't mean we create an article about it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It is more of a political neologism rather than a derogatory one, used by noted writers and professors rather than thuggish headline grabbing youth groups. And a notable one too, having found another reference here and here. No doubt I will find more. Martintg (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's not encyclopedic. See here. If it were more notable it might be eligible for wiktionary but it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You may be misreading Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms. The fact of being a neologism in itself is not sufficient reason for deletion, only neologisms that are unsupported by reliable sources are candidates for deletion. This article has six sources in support, a documentary and number reports by notable people that discusses the characteristics of "Putinland". Martintg (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The authors of this wikipedia article are reaching when they claim this neologism should be kept because it is sourced by blogs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Which is an english translation of the view published in his column in German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel [5]. Martintg (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Then its an editoral which isn't a very good source either. Now that I look at it, most if not all the sources for this article are editorials. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Which is an english translation of the view published in his column in German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel [5]. Martintg (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The authors of this wikipedia article are reaching when they claim this neologism should be kept because it is sourced by blogs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You may be misreading Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms. The fact of being a neologism in itself is not sufficient reason for deletion, only neologisms that are unsupported by reliable sources are candidates for deletion. This article has six sources in support, a documentary and number reports by notable people that discusses the characteristics of "Putinland". Martintg (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's not encyclopedic. See here. If it were more notable it might be eligible for wiktionary but it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It is more of a political neologism rather than a derogatory one, used by noted writers and professors rather than thuggish headline grabbing youth groups. And a notable one too, having found another reference here and here. No doubt I will find more. Martintg (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I have a suggestion. I think in one of the Eastern Europe arbitration cases it was suggested that some kind of noticeboard for EE matters/conflicts be established. I don't know if such a thing exists, but it clearly isn't working. I think we really need such a common board with a more limited task of sorting out non-encyclopedic, politically motivated stuff like eSStonia, Putinjugend etc. It would make sense finding a consensus concerning such stubs and establish a threshold on notability. Every encyclopedia would need this. Thoughts? Alternatively, if someone wants to continue setting up political battleground stubs, I'd list here long overdue Ansipism, Putin-Dobby, IlveSS,Obamajugend, Dorogoy Leonid Ilyich («Дорогой Леонид Ильич»), Näksip, Nikita Kukuruznik, all of which have at least quite a number of google hits. My vote for Putinland is delete, as it's simply non-notable. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Some of these are silly, but some aren't. Obamajugend, for example, is a real wacky conspiracy theory. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I also wonder what do you think of my idea of establishing a noticeboard/taskforce or whatchamacallit, which would unite Russian, Baltic and other EE Wikipedians with the aim of reducing nationalist battleground attitudes? I found a Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board, but few people seem to use it.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The taboo policies prohibit me from discussing this in public. If you still want my thoughts, send me an email. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think it's a great idea. I suggest setting up a subpage to decide upon standards for articles such as this. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- To get the ball rolling: User:Miacek/Eastern European battleground.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think it's a great idea. I suggest setting up a subpage to decide upon standards for articles such as this. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The taboo policies prohibit me from discussing this in public. If you still want my thoughts, send me an email. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as long as it is encyclopædic. Without this article, Wikipedia's overview of Putinist Russia would be incomplete. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:NEO. A word in the titles is not really notable. Volodymir k (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Six sources (some of them notable people) are enough to establish notability of the subject. Lets not delete articles based on political convictions. As a side note, User:Volodymir k does almost nothing here except voting in a partisan manner in various AfDs, and he had been previously blocked indef. for voting fraud.Biophys (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment One can see that this is pure WP:SYN. The original article stated "The term is intended to portray Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred, with particular reference to FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and the assassinations of prominent critics"...."The term has been used in various contexts, from portraying Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred[1] to an oil and gas powered state[2] that is ready to swat away criticism at home, squash troublesome neighbours and sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of a strong centralised state"...as it has been used in "various contexts" it is not a neologism for which there is a definition. Bits are added to it as Martintg finds another source which mentions the term, so that we could end up with "The term has been used in various contexts, from portraying Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred[1] to an oil and gas powered state[2] that is ready to swat away criticism at home, squash troublesome neighbours and sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of a strong centralised state, whilst he orders hit on journalists, poisons opponents, embezzles money, molests children and eats babies for breakfast, in the presence of his new wife Alina Kabayeva." I have also raised questions here, and they have gone unanswered, although the editor in question has found time to revert revisions of mine on List of most common surnames. It is plain to see that the editor has simply done a Google search for Putinland, gathering sources to string them together to come up with a WP:OR/WP:SYN definition of Putinland. --Russavia Dialogue 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Possible falsification of sources Why was this reinserted into the article with the comment "A 2 minute Google search will reveal a copy of the article on Lucus' blog". Why is the article sourced to europeanvoice.com? Does Martintg have access to the europeanvoice.com website? Or is it simply being referenced as a result of a google search? And he has now found the article on a blog. There are some problems here. Edward Lucas' blog is not a reliable source for information, and there is no guarantee that the article on europeanvoice.com is the same as on his personal blog. This appears to be a case of using sources which an editor has not even cited, and is a breach of WP:V. --Russavia Dialogue 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The article has been substantially rewritten since nomination. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
The Cartel (record distributor)[edit]
- The Cartel (record distributor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Deleted as an expired WP:PROD, restored per request by User:Andy Dingley at my talk page — Aitias // discussion 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- delete Appears to be spun off from the KLF article (it shares some text) - probably better dealt with by that article unless some material dealing with it in a non KLF context can be found. Artw (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Hmmm - I can see why it was prodded in the past! The Cartel are notable within the trade and really very little to do with the KLF. They're a trade organisation between some significant indie publishing labels to share the costs of distribution and level things up a little with the bigger labels. The topic deserves an article, but I'd be hard-pressed to justify this as it stands, even as a stub. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Delete, from what I can gather from the KLF references, it is just the distribution arm of a larger record company, something which is not that uncommon from where I'm from. Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:CORP, as there is a lack of reliable sources to allow stand alone notability outside what is already mentioned in The KLF#KLF Communications article.Keep in light of the rewrite that Andy Dingley has done. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment If I could ask you all to take another look please, there's a new article there. Could still use some work, particularly around the collapse in 1989, but I think it now warrants preservation. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Keep. A hugely significant organisation in the history of independent music in the UK.--Michig (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep since Andy Dingley rewrote virtually the entire article it is now well researched, has good sources, and for the most part is written from a neutral point of view. (I moved a further discussion to Talk:The_Cartel_(record_distributor) since it probably belongs there)--Ludasaphire (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Gaël Kakuta[edit]
- Gaël Kakuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN as he has never played a professional game for either Chelsea or Lens. No other references to assert notability. Eastlygod (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Eastlygod (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom as failing WP:ATHLETE; recreate when/if he makes an appearance in a fully-pro league and therefore becomes notable. GiantSnowman 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete what East said, and recreate if needed. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete We do get a lot of these. Not notable till he's played even a fraction of a second of a notable match. A footballer who hasn't yet played football? Not notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gael Kakuta - he still hasn't played for the club. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- He has been called up to the squad of Chelsea F.C. The best in Europe according to UEFA co-efficients. I would consider this to be more than enough to meet notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan1312 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- When he has actually played for them he is notable. Just being called up to the squad means nothing, irrespective of what club it's at. He could be sent back to the youth team next week and never get near the first team again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- PS delete per everyone above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- When he has actually played for them he is notable. Just being called up to the squad means nothing, irrespective of what club it's at. He could be sent back to the youth team next week and never get near the first team again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Déjà vu delete Nothing has changed since last time. Fails criteria, not appeared as pro in pro league, only youth int, not enough coverage. Why was this not stopped at recreation?--ClubOranjeTalk 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Not played for the Chelsea first team. DeMoN2009 11:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Fails the criteria at the moment, if, as would seem likely, this changes then the article may be recreated. Rje (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Reed Cowan[edit]
- Reed Cowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete for non-notability. Reed Cowan is but one of many, many local news anchors and reporters in the US. He is not Brian Williams Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete sad story, but WP≠NEWS. fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- KEEP Sure he's one of many... and he might never be listed among The Greats... but as an Emmy Winner and because he gets significant coverage in reliable sources, he qualifies for inclusion. 2008 Emmy recipients, WSNV 1, CBS News, Utah Radio News {forum), Power In You, WSVN 2, CNN, Wesley Smiles, et al. The article requires WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- NOTE Since the article was nominated, it has been cleaned up and sourced. Notability has been established. Ain't perfect.. but its now worth keeping. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment- Note, he is the winner of a Regional Emmy, not a National Emmy. I was there when he received the award. Many Regional Emmy winners don't have articles here on Wikipedia. What makes Cowan so special here? Also, the "reliable source" you cited were mostly from stations that he worked in, networks that his station affiliates with, or the organization he established. Those are not independent sources at all. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 05:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Response That other winners do not have articles on Wiki is a good reason to write about them and not delete articles on the ones that do. That aside, Cowan is particulary notable because having completely re-evaluated himself after a personal tradgedy. In order to help others, Cowan released an award-winning documentary on the very personal tradgedy of death of his son and his own subsequent efforts to build schools in Kenya during that country's post-election violence of 2007. Cowan started The Wesley Smiles Coalition to work in tandem with Free the Children. After raising substantial monies for the projects in Africa in the first year after his son's death, Cowan opened schools, water treatment facilities, mobile-medical clinics and other community infrastructure along Enelerai road in Kenya and in Kenya's Motoni district. Cowan is on the advisory board for Free The Children and is producer of the youth organization Power In You. Cowan drafted the first legislation in Utah specifically aimed at curbing bullying in school. Sponsored in the Utah house by Representative Ronda Menlove and in the Utah Senate by Senator Patrice M. Arent, the resolution against bullying, harassment and intimidation in schools was the first of its kind and called for a formal reporting system and cohesive school-to-school response in instances of school bullying. The resolution passed unanimously in Utah's House and Senate. But of course... all this is IN the article. His notability exceeds wiki requirements. Thank you for voicing your concern over the Emmy awards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment- Resolutions in State Legislatures are also not an indication of a person's notability. Many, many resolutions on many, many different people are passed in State Legislatures each session, for a variety of reasons. Also, the term "award-winning" is cliche. Winning an Emmy can be "award-winning", while winning the "Block 5 of 14th Street Award for Excellence" (made up award) can be "award-winning". Also, having an epiphany after a personal tragedy is not a notable matter. Many people have such transformations. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 06:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- You might consider revisiting the article. Per guideline for notability, he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If you do not agree, nothing will change your mind. It is hoped a closing admin will see it a bit differently Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment- Resolutions in State Legislatures are also not an indication of a person's notability. Many, many resolutions on many, many different people are passed in State Legislatures each session, for a variety of reasons. Also, the term "award-winning" is cliche. Winning an Emmy can be "award-winning", while winning the "Block 5 of 14th Street Award for Excellence" (made up award) can be "award-winning". Also, having an epiphany after a personal tragedy is not a notable matter. Many people have such transformations. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 06:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. I don't beleive there is a consensus that regional awards of this nature are indicia of notability. There is no other material claim of notability. Bongomatic 06:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- ??? That is not the only sourced assertion of notability... and you and I am a bit confused by you picking out only one of the many sourced assertions of notability within the article. I assume good faith that it is possible that you perhaps inadvertantly missed all other assertions of notability. Why not revisit it to see its further improvement since you decided his Emmys don't count. Notability is confirmed by significant coverage by multiple sources NOT related to the subject: Deseret News[6]][7][8], WHDH-TV of Boston, Massachusettes[9], Time Magazine[10], Youth Crime Watch of America[11], Phoenix Woman[12], National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences[13], QSaltLake [14], CBS News[15], among others... as well as having a superfluity of WP:V.. but then... these ARE in the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a clear preponderance of delete arguments and while several of them may be discounted for various reasons, the consensus clearly favours deletion. I understand that some of the article's defenders may disagree with me, and would invite them to open a DRV if they wish as I have carefully considered this closure and do not intend to reverse it. Of course, the deletion holds true only through 2012. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
United States presidential election, 2016[edit]
- United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, it will happen, but it is entirely speculation and it is not significantly documented. United States presidential election, 2012 was not created until the day of 2008's election, and even that contains fantastical speculation - an election still eight years away is really pushing it. There are no facts; even Obama hasn't said anything - that's only assumed. I will also point you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination), which was only 4 years before the event.
Any and all hypotheses made by the media is complete conjecture, and none refer specifically to 2016. An article from a reliable source is surmising that Jeb Bush may run for the Senate and "it's fair to assume he's also now open to a presidential bid, either in 2012 or 2016, when the Senate term would end." Does that really mean it should be listed in a 2016 article? The reference for Gillibrand says nothing about her and 2016. The ref for Jindal says "Think a few years ahead (even eight years ahead to the 2016 election) and think about:" That should be listed in the 2012 article, not 2016. Whatever happens in 2012 is crucial in what will happen later. And as said in the previous AFD, nothing predicted 8 years before this past election proved reasonable or correct. Obama was an unknown then, and 8 years before 2000 George Bush had never been elected to anything. Reywas92Talk 19:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep- As was stated in the previous afd (which was what, less than 2 weeks ago? Come on), the intent WP:CRYSTAL is to prevent editors from doing their own speculation as to future events. However, since reliable sources are doing plenty of their own speculation, an article on the topic is perfectly viable. The article could probably use some cleanup, but most articles could, quite frankly), but that is not, never was, and doubtfully ever will be a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'd agree that the article is mostly pointless, but it's even more pointless to keep arguing about it every 2 weeks. What we really need here is a clear policy on upcoming elections (beyond "well documented speculation"). Personally I'd support only permitting articles on immediately upcoming scheduled elections (as well as the exceptionally notable). But absent an agreed upon guideline, I concede that there are legitimate arguments for the existance of the article -- although I trust that everyone agrees that it requires significant work! LSD (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Umbralcorax, I suggest you read the second paragraph of the deletion reasoning at the top. Yes, there are sources, but are they appropriate for the article, specifically refer to 2016, or even support the text of the article? I think not. Timmeh! 02:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - I agree with LSD on the point that we do need a clear policy on upcoming elections. However, this does seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. The article does cite reliable sources that speculate about 2016, and it would therefore seem to meet the requirements. However, almost all of the cited articles only mention 2016 in passing with a sentence or two of speculation on it, while some even state that "it’s practically impossible to tell at this juncture who might run in 2016." Another source admits that its speculative candidate for 2016 is even unlikely to run (Jeb Bush). In fact, it looks that half the sources don't even support the article text they're cited for. Sure, there are some reliable sources that speculate about 2016, even if only in passing. However, even if there is speculation, I don't believe there is a significant amount of well documented speculation. I say delete for now per CRYSTAL and create some kind of policy on upcoming elections as LSD proposed. Timmeh! 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I also wish to bring up another point made by someone in the last AFD: "The creation so far ahead of articles about US events in the absence of those in other countries fails WP:CSB." Timmeh! 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - I think Timmeh hit this on the nail. All the sources agree it is too early to speculate, and only mention a few words like "this person could run in 2012 or 2016". All the sources will be just like that, so I say that we just use this as a redirect for now, and at the earliest recreate after the 2012 primaries. Rockyobody (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - I see this article as following the letter but not the spirit of our reliable sources policy. Yes, reliable sources can be found that discuss this election, but they are so vague and reliant on so many other events that are yet to occur, that they make the sources virtually useless. Our other recent U.S. Presidential Election articles weren't created until the preceding election had occurred. That policy works, because it ensures that a quality article based on more than vague speculation with caveats from pundits can be written.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, the only existing sources are vague. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per CRYSTAL. This article shouldn't be created until after the 2012 US prez election occurs. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete
because the world will end in 2012, making this article uncessaryper WP:CRYSTAL. It's too early to talk about the 2012 election, let alone 2016.SPNic (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- 'KeepPeople start planning early, and the refs added reflect it. Per WP:CRYSTAL, events that are almost certain to be held merit articles,and the example they give of something too far to be reasonable is the 2028 election. Thus, both this and the 2020 and 2024 elections would be reasonable topics. Speculation can be notable, even based on lack of firm data--we cant do the speculation, but if others do we can report it. DGG (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Of course, your preference to keep the article is based on the assumption that there is a substantial amount of well documented speculation by reliable sources. However, there is not. A few of the sources cited don't support the text in the article. At least one other asserts itself that the possibility that it mentions of the specific candidate running in 2016 is extremely slim. Yet another claims that it's just about impossible to tell who will run in 2016. The rest (2 or 3) only mention the 2016 election in passing and are extremely vague in their speculation. Timmeh! 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I also think that you are making an overly literal reading of WP:CRYSTAL when you say that it sanctions the 2020 and 2024 elections as reasonable topics. The 2028 election is just used as an example of an election that is too far out for an article. I've never seen any speculation on who might run in 2020 or 2024, and I doubt that you could find me a single article if I asked you to. As I said above, even the speculation that is cited in the 2016 article barely qualifies as speculation.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Timmeh asked me to revisit my comment, but i just feel all the stronger about what I said. In politics, speculation is part of the subject matter. That's what politicians talk about, what newspapers report, and the basis for articles here. It just has to be published in a reliable place, and about half the refs in the article even at present are very good standard RSs. If Time thinks it appropriate to speculate over this election, what they print about it makes such speculations notable. As for Danamah's comment, the next election but one is a very reasonable time span for such things. I could argue yet one further, but I agree that as we get further out than this it becomes more uncertain. The election will be held, and it will be an event of world importance. There are RSs talking about it. What more could possibly be needed? DGG (talk)
- Well, there really isn't well-documented and valid speculation cited in the 2016 election article, as WP:CRYSTAL requires of future event articles. As I've said, some of the sources only speculate that "Bob Smith may run in a future election, possibly 2012 or 2016," and the article assumes that the source is speculating that Bob Smith will run or is planning to run in 2016, which is just not true and is too vague anyway. If you look through the sources, you'll see that many don't even support the text in the article. Even the Time article says, after mentioning a presidential run would come after a Senate run, that Bush is unlikely to run for the Senate (and in fact he's since said he won't run); therefore, if he won't run for the Senate, according to the article, he wouldn't run for President. That would make the Time source on Jeb Bush running an inappropriate one to have in the article. Also, as another source does, simply showing a list of possible contenders for president in either 2012 or 2016 without any reasoning is much too vague to have any place in the article. Timmeh! 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete A legitimate encyclopedia should not be reporting on the speculation of upcoming elections, that's the job of the news media. There currently is no good reason for keeping this USA centric nonsense around. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So we should then remove all articles on all US elections? They're all US-centric. And once a newspaper reports something, that's a source. our rule is not to anticipate the media. DGG (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Articles on elections that have already happened are perfectly legitimate fodder. Articles about future elections should be left to the news media. Just because a newspaper reports on something doesn't make that something a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. RMHED (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So we should then remove all articles on all US elections? They're all US-centric. And once a newspaper reports something, that's a source. our rule is not to anticipate the media. DGG (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It doesn't matter the speculation is done by reliable sources. It's still vague and relying too much on events that have yet to occur. No one, including reliable publications, can make any reasonable predictions as to who will run so far in the future. The only election you can reasonably speculate about is the next one -- in any country. - Mgm|(talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep For the reasons stated above by others.Ratemonth (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - I am very curious as to why this deletion request for the 2012 article (back in late 2008) was passed with absolutely no opposition, while this one, which should be much less controversial, as it is much earlier in relation to 2016 than it was to 2012 when that article was deleted, has some opposition. Can anybody for keeping this article tell us what has changed since that other AFD that merits keeping this article? Timmeh! 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Perhaps it didn't have evidence of notability, as this one does? A strict following of WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL would see this article kept, because of the sources available. However, I think this is one instance where strict following of the rules should defer to WP:Common sense, given that there is little informational value to be had even though the subject is notable and not crystal balling. For that reason, I won't be making a suggestion one way or the other this time. I'm just here to note that those who voted keep last time were following the rules closely... perhaps too closely. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: Timmeh, what has changed since late 2008 is that we've experienced the fevered pitch reached during the climax of the 2008 election, the election of the first African-American president, the collapse of the Republican party... and thus, the ensuing skyrocketting interest in politics in general and future elections in particular that has developed as a result. It's a very different ballgame than it was a few months ago--and, perhaps by coincidence, fewer radical inclusionists were involved in the last AfD. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. I have no view as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. But discussion of events that are highly dependent on nearly eight years of other events need to be couched carefully to avoid making logical errors or gazing into balls. See this diff to see the pitfalls of loose thinking / writing on such topics. If Obama wins in 2012 but with a different VP, or if he wins with Biden but Biden doesn't serve out his full term, or if he wins and Obama doesn't serve out his full term, there would be at minimum a replacement vice president who could stand as an incumbent. These are not far-fetched scenarios (I'm not even considering wild ideas such as further amendments to the Constitution that would make it possible for a two-term president to seek a third.) Bongomatic 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That is yet another reason to delete the article. Just about anything could happen by 2016. I could list several more scenarios than those you made examples of. There is just no way to make the article abide by WP:CRYSTAL until at least 2012 because of the infinite number of huge changes that could happen before then and because of the lack of well-documented speculation by reliable sources that supports the article text. Timmeh! 03:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Just too tenuously sourced. I'm not adverse to an article written on published speculation, but this is mostly speculation based on published statements, which is a very different animal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Any violation of wp:Crystal is not "blatant" it's just that sometimes some editors put some violative content in the article. The article is not, nor does it need to be, violative of wp:Crystal.—Markles 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There really is no well-documented or published speculation in this article or cited by it, as WP:Crystal requires. I doubt you could find much if any published speculation on the content. This is not mentioning that it does blatantly violate WP:CSB. A question I posed before, but maybe you could answer is why nobody objected to this AFD which was only four years before the event instead of seven like this one. Timmeh! 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- How does something "fail" or "blatantly violate" a WikiProject? You do realize that WP:CSB is a WikiProject, not a policy or guideline?! You might as well say that this article blatantly violates WP:FOOTY because it doesn't talk about soccer! The way to counter systemic bias is to create articles on subjects which tend to be ignored because of that bias. If you can find reliably-sourced speculation on the Swedish general election, 2014, for example, by all means create that article to counter our America-centric bias! That is what WP:CSB is explicitly about. DHowell (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There really is no well-documented or published speculation in this article or cited by it, as WP:Crystal requires. I doubt you could find much if any published speculation on the content. This is not mentioning that it does blatantly violate WP:CSB. A question I posed before, but maybe you could answer is why nobody objected to this AFD which was only four years before the event instead of seven like this one. Timmeh! 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This is what crystal-balling is all about. Just because one expects it to happen does not mean that there is anything informative to say about it. One might as well write an article guessing which current elementary school students who might be running for President in 2036. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per Timmeh and WP:CRYSTAL. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. The facts are that many reliable sources have been speculating about potential candidates in 2016. Thus an article documenting those speculations is appropriate per WP:CRYSTAL. If there is speculation not based on reliable sources than it should be removed, but there is plenty of reliably-sourced speculation for an article to exist on this subject. DHowell (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Is there really? The creators of the article couldn't seem to find more than one or two which mention the election in a sentence or two. Also, why do you think this AFD was deleted without opposition only four years out from the election? Timmeh! 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Correction: there are now 9 or 10 reputable sources (although one would be plenty, IMHO). As for previous election AfD's...they have little relevance because of the extraordinary coverage of the 2008 election, the amount of speculation by RSs has skyrocketted. Obviously, interest in future elections is consequently hightened. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Is there really? The creators of the article couldn't seem to find more than one or two which mention the election in a sentence or two. Also, why do you think this AFD was deleted without opposition only four years out from the election? Timmeh! 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per Timmeh and WP:CRYSTAL. Blubberboy92 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Reliable sources discussing the subject exist - we are not to judge the quality or the utility of such speculation. As for notability, go to Google and type in "2016 presidential election your favorite candidate here" and you will get thousands of hits. Joshdboz (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- On what grounds do you deem The Washington Post, USA Today, RealClearPolitics, the New York Daily News, and the National Journal to be irrelevant and unreliable? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No, I get your point. A little bit of well-documented speculation isn't good enough in your opinion. Fine. I have a different opinion, and so do a lot of other editors. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Last I checked, "well" was a qualitative adjective, not a quantitative measurement. The sources are good, so the documentation is done well. Do you think it's impossible to have a small well-done steak or a well-made compact car? "Well-documented" is not the same as "widely-documented"...and anyway, you haven't set a threshold on how much documentation you think constitutes "well-documented". With ten current sources, I think this article is rapidly becoming both well- and widely-documented. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This article will exist and will be well sourced. Why set a threshold for the first source? That just makes things difficult. We want to collect as much information (based on secondary sources) as possible, and we want new editors to help do it. Remove inappropriate content by all means, but this article should remain at least as a stub. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, of course it will exist and be well sourced. That's not what's in dispute. Right now, it's not well sourced and there really isn't well documented speculation by reliable sources for it. Timmeh! 12:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We don't delete for "not well sourced", we delete for "unsourceable". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I know that, hence my words, "there really isn't well documented speculation by reliable sources for it." Right now, almost eight years before the election, there are no sources that have articles dedicated to the 2016 election. In four years, there will be a great deal of speculation, but right now there is almost none. Timmeh! 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Why are you so eager to delete? The sources we've got are fine. Yes, they're short, yes they're few and far between. So what? If the entire article were unsourced, then that would be grounds for deletion. If *most* of the article were unsourced, you might have a point. But can you point to a single thing in this article that is actually wrong? No. Is there a single thing that is unsourced? At this point, I don't think so. So, this all comes down to a gut feeling that it's "too soon". Well, you may be right, but you should tell that to the pundits who are speculating. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- There are no sources for Jindal or Romney. Also, anything could happen between now and 2016. Obama could refuse to run for a second term. He could be unable to run for some other reason (impeachment, death). He could lose reelection in 2012. All of these very possible scenarios would dramatically change the field of candidates for 2016. Any speculation right now is more likely than not to be proved completely incorrect within any number of years. No speculation done now could possibly have any facts to back it up, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should only contain facts or conclusions based on facts. Timmeh! 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I support deleting any candidate suggestions not backed up by RSs, go for it. Wikipedia is emphatically not just about absolute fact, it is also about reputable speculation, per WP:Crystal. Everything else you've said here is your own speculation, so why should we take your speculation over speculation by RSs? To put it another way--how do you know that any of these suggestions will prove wrong? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- There are no sources for Jindal or Romney. Also, anything could happen between now and 2016. Obama could refuse to run for a second term. He could be unable to run for some other reason (impeachment, death). He could lose reelection in 2012. All of these very possible scenarios would dramatically change the field of candidates for 2016. Any speculation right now is more likely than not to be proved completely incorrect within any number of years. No speculation done now could possibly have any facts to back it up, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should only contain facts or conclusions based on facts. Timmeh! 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Why are you so eager to delete? The sources we've got are fine. Yes, they're short, yes they're few and far between. So what? If the entire article were unsourced, then that would be grounds for deletion. If *most* of the article were unsourced, you might have a point. But can you point to a single thing in this article that is actually wrong? No. Is there a single thing that is unsourced? At this point, I don't think so. So, this all comes down to a gut feeling that it's "too soon". Well, you may be right, but you should tell that to the pundits who are speculating. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I know that, hence my words, "there really isn't well documented speculation by reliable sources for it." Right now, almost eight years before the election, there are no sources that have articles dedicated to the 2016 election. In four years, there will be a great deal of speculation, but right now there is almost none. Timmeh! 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- We don't delete for "not well sourced", we delete for "unsourceable". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, of course it will exist and be well sourced. That's not what's in dispute. Right now, it's not well sourced and there really isn't well documented speculation by reliable sources for it. Timmeh! 12:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete I agree with TimmehPonileExpress (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete There is not nearly enough well documented speculation. It fails WP:CRYSTAL. 204.186.77.143 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete PonileExpress is the man!204.186.77.116 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Has anybody here actually read Wikipedia:Crystal? The policy specifically allows speculation, as long as the references are significant, so dismissing reputable sources is actually a violation of WP:Crystal. Last time I checked, all of the sources in this article are clearly acceptable under WP:Reliable sources. After the unprecedented 2008 election, it shouldn't be surprising that there is unprecedented interest in upcoming elections. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Random section break[edit]
- Comment Due to the constant misunderstanding and misuse of Wikipedia:Crystal, I quote the policy below. Any future invocations of WP:Crystal should quote the portions relevant to alleged violations. My own emphasis has been added to the quotations. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Wikipedia policy states:
- 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.
- 2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC, before isolation in the laboratory, are usually considered encyclopedic.
- 3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent, and fact-based speculations are welcome.
- There has not been constant misunderstanding or misuse of WP:Crystal. You have the specific disputed portion in bold already: "speculation about it must be well documented". There is hardly any speculation about the 2016 election by reliable sources. For something to be well documented, people must have written a lot about it. That is just not true of the 2016 election. There has been some brief speculation (Bob Smith may run in 2012 or 2016) located inside articles with a totally different main focus. The 2016 election will happen and it is notable, but speculation, there is little; well documented, it is not. That's why the article merits deletion until there is more and well documented speculation (likely after the 2012 election). Timmeh! 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We've got speculation in several well-respected sources, and there are literally thousands of less notable sources out there. To me, that makes the subject "well documented". If you want to put a threshold on how much documentation constitutes "well-documented", then rewrite WP:Crystal and I'll go and dig up enough references to meet your threshold. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right now, there is not one article cited whose main focus is on speculating about the 2016 election. Well documented means exactly what it means, well documented. If speculation about the election is well documented, you should be able to find several articles by reliable sources whose focus is on the 2016 election. You may also notice that the 2012 election article has plenty of reliable sources speculating on the election and possible candidates (35 to be exact), and this one has just about none. Timmeh! 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "Well documented means exactly what it means, well documented." So, apparently your argument is that your view is just self-evidently correct? You're welcome to your opinion, but there's nothing in WP:Crystal that says "there must be X number of sources, of which X-3 must focus solely on the subject of the article". I think several sources that mention possible candidates for the 2016 election, plus thousands of hits on Google, makes the subject well-documented with regards to the guidelines in WP:Crystal. You don't like the guidelines, change the guidelines or seek a consensus on what constitutes "well documented", don't just take the policy to mean "Whatever Timmeh thinks is well-documented". The fact that about a third of the editors here disagree with your interpretation of WP:Crystal is evidence that yours is not the only possible interpretation. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Let's take the definition of well documented from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: "if something is well-documented, people have written a lot about it." The truth is that people have not written a lot about the 2016 election. In fact, as I stated earlier, there is not one cited article dedicated to the 2016 election. Therefore, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe there is well documented speculation when you cannot provide some specific examples? Also, a third of the editors here do not disagree with my interpretation of WP:Crystal as none (other than you) have tried to refute my point that there is not well documented speculation on the 2016 election. Also, I suggest you use the show preview button when making comments instead of having so many edits in a short period of time on one page. Timmeh! 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- As I pointed out before, there are five major news outlets that have already been cited in the article. Specifically, they are: The Washington Post, USA Today, RealClearPolitics, the New York Daily News, and the National Journal. Along with these notable sources, a Google search provides over 5000 less notable hits for "2016 election" and 3500 for "election in 2016". That's a lot, so yeah Longman is on my side. As for the other editors who disagree, just because they haven't taken the time to refute you on this specific point doesn't mean they agree with you. If WP:Crystal were unambiguous as you imply, then why do you think they disagree? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- First, as I've said before, those news sources only mention 2016 in passing and don't really speculate about the candidates that might run. Second, a Google search is hardly evidence that there are thousands of articles published by reliable websites that speculate about the 2016 election. Of just the first page of Google results for 2016 election, the second is a compilation of some kind of user blogs. The third is a Yahoo answer. Two are stores that sell election apparel. Some others are bloggers joking about running themselves in 2016. 95% of these results don't even contain reliable speculation, and you'll be lucky to find more than one that is an actual article dedicated to speculating about the 2016 election. Timmeh! 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I didn't say there is a lot of notable speculation, I said there is a lot of speculation, at least
fiveten instances of which are notable--and this is just from the first couple dozen I've had a chance to sort. After going through all 8500 results, no doubt there will be more. Yes, a lot of it is irrelevant--although the merchandising and jokes are not at all irrelevant, they are very telling, even if they happen to not be notable. See my reply to Reywas92 below for a fuller explanation of my position. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]- So, you found ten articles about possible candidates for the 2016 election? Timmeh! 04:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Actually, if I recall correctly there are currently nine WP:Reliable sources cited in the article--now that I think about it, one was a repeat. But if ten is the magic number, then I can probably find you a tenth. ;) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- All nine of those sources only mention 2016 in passing with a sentence or less. For speculation to be well documented or widely documented (however you wish to describe it), it needs to be the subject and bulk of an article. The sources cited and their speculation are just too vague and brief on the subject of the 2016 election that they don't belong or even qualify as "well documented." I know when you're the creator of an article, you don't like to see your work destroyed. I am assuming that is the main reason you wish to keep the article. However, the election being eight years away and the only speculation about it being extremely short and vague, there is just no reason for the article to exist until after the 2012 election. That is when a huge amount of speculation will be published very quickly, and there will be reason for the article to exist. That is also when the 2012 article was unprotected and created, and the 2008 election article still had no cited sources even after the 2004 election. Timmeh! 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I didn't actually create the article, I re-created it. Other editors had attempted to make this article, only to get a prompt deletion. But yes, of course nobody wants to see their work deleted, both because of the waste of my time and the waste of other editors' time--somebody will eventually have to redo the work I and others have put into this article--why reinvent the wheel? But I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the main reason. I created the article after I heard a commentator on CNN mention that Biden won't run for president in 2016. I was surprised that the commentator was speculating that far in advance, but after thinking about it, I realized why it's a particularly important election...like this election, there will probably be no incumbent running, so the field is going to be wide open. It's no wonder lots of people, including some "notable" pundits can't resist commenting on it...the Democrats want to usher in a new Democratic era, the Republicans can't wait to try and turn the tables, and people in general have become more politically aware as a result of this election. Combine that tidal wave of speculation with my own belief that we as Wikipedians have a responsibility to record both the correct and the incorrect positions taken by the pundits (call this accountability), plus my belief that most editors are waaaaaay too obstructionist--when they could be improving an article by sorting through the references and finding the bits of useful information, they tend to take the lazy route and delete. I think this behavior pushes new editors away from Wikipedia, and turns the editorship into an old boys' club, more interested in quoting policy than expanding the encyclopedia. I also think that most editors have absolutely no sense of scale. In this case, do the math... I've looked through a couple dozen--let's say 40--articles out of about 5000 hits for "2016 election", plus another 3500 for "election in 2016". Out of those 40, I've found nine that are notable. That's almost a 25% success rate. Extrapolate that across 8500 hits, and what do you get? 2125 notable sources. Even if every single one of those only contains only one sentence of relevant information, that's a novel's worth of research available out there...and don't forget about all the other possible permutations, "run in 2016", "running in 2016", "2016 contender", etc, etc, etc. Can there be any doubt at all that this election is the subject of massive speculation? So, maybe the speculation is distributed out over a thousand reputable sources? Isn't that much more notable than a factoid based on one or two fat articles? Yeah, it's tough to sort the wheat from the chaff, but that's just a question of parsing. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- All nine of those sources only mention 2016 in passing with a sentence or less. For speculation to be well documented or widely documented (however you wish to describe it), it needs to be the subject and bulk of an article. The sources cited and their speculation are just too vague and brief on the subject of the 2016 election that they don't belong or even qualify as "well documented." I know when you're the creator of an article, you don't like to see your work destroyed. I am assuming that is the main reason you wish to keep the article. However, the election being eight years away and the only speculation about it being extremely short and vague, there is just no reason for the article to exist until after the 2012 election. That is when a huge amount of speculation will be published very quickly, and there will be reason for the article to exist. That is also when the 2012 article was unprotected and created, and the 2008 election article still had no cited sources even after the 2004 election. Timmeh! 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Actually, if I recall correctly there are currently nine WP:Reliable sources cited in the article--now that I think about it, one was a repeat. But if ten is the magic number, then I can probably find you a tenth. ;) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So, you found ten articles about possible candidates for the 2016 election? Timmeh! 04:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I didn't say there is a lot of notable speculation, I said there is a lot of speculation, at least
- First, as I've said before, those news sources only mention 2016 in passing and don't really speculate about the candidates that might run. Second, a Google search is hardly evidence that there are thousands of articles published by reliable websites that speculate about the 2016 election. Of just the first page of Google results for 2016 election, the second is a compilation of some kind of user blogs. The third is a Yahoo answer. Two are stores that sell election apparel. Some others are bloggers joking about running themselves in 2016. 95% of these results don't even contain reliable speculation, and you'll be lucky to find more than one that is an actual article dedicated to speculating about the 2016 election. Timmeh! 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- PS: In response to your suggestion above... I do use the preview button. However, I am an editor. I edit, I correct, I reword. I don't mean to offend, but it's how I work. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- As I pointed out before, there are five major news outlets that have already been cited in the article. Specifically, they are: The Washington Post, USA Today, RealClearPolitics, the New York Daily News, and the National Journal. Along with these notable sources, a Google search provides over 5000 less notable hits for "2016 election" and 3500 for "election in 2016". That's a lot, so yeah Longman is on my side. As for the other editors who disagree, just because they haven't taken the time to refute you on this specific point doesn't mean they agree with you. If WP:Crystal were unambiguous as you imply, then why do you think they disagree? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Let's take the definition of well documented from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: "if something is well-documented, people have written a lot about it." The truth is that people have not written a lot about the 2016 election. In fact, as I stated earlier, there is not one cited article dedicated to the 2016 election. Therefore, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe there is well documented speculation when you cannot provide some specific examples? Also, a third of the editors here do not disagree with my interpretation of WP:Crystal as none (other than you) have tried to refute my point that there is not well documented speculation on the 2016 election. Also, I suggest you use the show preview button when making comments instead of having so many edits in a short period of time on one page. Timmeh! 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "Well documented means exactly what it means, well documented." So, apparently your argument is that your view is just self-evidently correct? You're welcome to your opinion, but there's nothing in WP:Crystal that says "there must be X number of sources, of which X-3 must focus solely on the subject of the article". I think several sources that mention possible candidates for the 2016 election, plus thousands of hits on Google, makes the subject well-documented with regards to the guidelines in WP:Crystal. You don't like the guidelines, change the guidelines or seek a consensus on what constitutes "well documented", don't just take the policy to mean "Whatever Timmeh thinks is well-documented". The fact that about a third of the editors here disagree with your interpretation of WP:Crystal is evidence that yours is not the only possible interpretation. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Right now, there is not one article cited whose main focus is on speculating about the 2016 election. Well documented means exactly what it means, well documented. If speculation about the election is well documented, you should be able to find several articles by reliable sources whose focus is on the 2016 election. You may also notice that the 2012 election article has plenty of reliable sources speculating on the election and possible candidates (35 to be exact), and this one has just about none. Timmeh! 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We've got speculation in several well-respected sources, and there are literally thousands of less notable sources out there. To me, that makes the subject "well documented". If you want to put a threshold on how much documentation constitutes "well-documented", then rewrite WP:Crystal and I'll go and dig up enough references to meet your threshold. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- There has not been constant misunderstanding or misuse of WP:Crystal. You have the specific disputed portion in bold already: "speculation about it must be well documented". There is hardly any speculation about the 2016 election by reliable sources. For something to be well documented, people must have written a lot about it. That is just not true of the 2016 election. There has been some brief speculation (Bob Smith may run in 2012 or 2016) located inside articles with a totally different main focus. The 2016 election will happen and it is notable, but speculation, there is little; well documented, it is not. That's why the article merits deletion until there is more and well documented speculation (likely after the 2012 election). Timmeh! 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: Our job is to document the fact that major pundits are already speculating on the 2016 election--an astonishing fact which is in itself noteworthy. Our job is not to pass judgment on the quality or likelihood of the pundits' predictions' accuracy.Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Pundits are not truly speculating on 2016. They are speculating on 2012 with a side note of "or maybe 2016." Please give me the sources that you are talking about that are fully devoted to speculating about 2016. Passing judgement may not be our entire job, but other factors must be taken into account than simply that someone's saying it. Reywas92Talk 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I didn't say anything about sources being fully devoted to speculating about 2016, but when a notable writer says "so-and-so may run in 2012 or 2016" then we should take that at face value. We should not do some handwaving, and say "...well, the source might have written "2012 and 2016", but I think they were reeeeaalllly just talking about 2012". That might as well be WP:OR. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Can you give me a source that give more than a couple sentences of serious thought to 2016 specifially? Really, anyone theoretically running in 2012 could run in 2016. Why do we need articles for two future elections, one of which is four years away, one is eight years away, both have the same set of unsubstantiated, conjectural people, and neither of which has a single fact? Maybe I'm not taking crystal literally to the word, but when the entire article is based on unfounded hypothetical assumption from sources that only mention 2016 in passing, although from multiple reliable sources, then we don't need an article on an election eight years away. Reywas92Talk 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The fact that anybody is talking about 2016 at all is amazing (and, incidentally, it's a good sign that this country is starting to overcome its dangerous shortsightedness). Though I have only seen one article that writes about the 2016 election in detail [16], there are currently at least ten reliable sources that mention 2016 in passing (and that's just from the couple dozen I've sifted through so far--it takes a while to sort through 8500 Google hits). Besides reliable sources, there are thousands more regular people looking towards the long-term goals of their respective parties in the form of article comments and blogs. While I have always granted that many of these speculations will be wrong, that is not at all the point. Twenty years from now, I want to be able to open up this article and read that Krauthammer said this and Kristol said that and Oberman said the other...and let's see who was right and who was wrong and who flip-flopped and who held their cards, etc, etc, etc. Wikipedia has effectively infinite space. There is no reason to set arbitrary limits on documenting the facts and speculations of our time. Every source that doesn't get recorded is another piece of information down the memory hole that keeps society from being self-informed, and keeps us from telling the truth about our past. That is why this is important. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Um, that article is a very nice read, but it's not about the 2016 election at all. It's just using that date as an example for how the country should do elections. None of that information is useable in the article. Oh of course, our article on the 2016 is the the best place to find long-term goals of the Democratic Party. You have a very nice arguement for inclusionism there, but it doesn't explain why we should have an article on 2016 specifically. Seeing what predictions Krauthamer, Kristol, and Oberman said about the election eight years before the fact is not necessarily for Wikipedia, and who says not having a source on this site now means it's down the memory hole? Would/should their columns even be listed on Wikipedia 20 years from now? Do we or should we list columnists' predictions about 2008 that were made in 2000? And I don't see the 2004 writers' ideas on the 2012 article; I'm sure some could be dug up. If what we really want to know is "who was right and who was wrong and who flip-flopped and who held their cards", then maybe the article should be Columnists' predictions for the United States presidential election, 2016. Reywas92Talk 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- ...which is why I didn't include it in the references on the article itself. Should we have 2004 (or 2000) speculations on 2008? We don't. I wish we did; that's why I'm trying to strengthen our coverage of upcoming elections. Yes, as the volume of speculation increases, we should certainly create articles like the one you suggest, but at the moment, I think this is the best place for the small amount of notable speculation that currently exists. Finally, with Wikipedia rapidly becoming the central clearinghouse for all information, I think this is certainly the right place. With any luck, our pundits will one day be able to use it as a resource for improving their own punditry. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Um, that article is a very nice read, but it's not about the 2016 election at all. It's just using that date as an example for how the country should do elections. None of that information is useable in the article. Oh of course, our article on the 2016 is the the best place to find long-term goals of the Democratic Party. You have a very nice arguement for inclusionism there, but it doesn't explain why we should have an article on 2016 specifically. Seeing what predictions Krauthamer, Kristol, and Oberman said about the election eight years before the fact is not necessarily for Wikipedia, and who says not having a source on this site now means it's down the memory hole? Would/should their columns even be listed on Wikipedia 20 years from now? Do we or should we list columnists' predictions about 2008 that were made in 2000? And I don't see the 2004 writers' ideas on the 2012 article; I'm sure some could be dug up. If what we really want to know is "who was right and who was wrong and who flip-flopped and who held their cards", then maybe the article should be Columnists' predictions for the United States presidential election, 2016. Reywas92Talk 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The fact that anybody is talking about 2016 at all is amazing (and, incidentally, it's a good sign that this country is starting to overcome its dangerous shortsightedness). Though I have only seen one article that writes about the 2016 election in detail [16], there are currently at least ten reliable sources that mention 2016 in passing (and that's just from the couple dozen I've sifted through so far--it takes a while to sort through 8500 Google hits). Besides reliable sources, there are thousands more regular people looking towards the long-term goals of their respective parties in the form of article comments and blogs. While I have always granted that many of these speculations will be wrong, that is not at all the point. Twenty years from now, I want to be able to open up this article and read that Krauthammer said this and Kristol said that and Oberman said the other...and let's see who was right and who was wrong and who flip-flopped and who held their cards, etc, etc, etc. Wikipedia has effectively infinite space. There is no reason to set arbitrary limits on documenting the facts and speculations of our time. Every source that doesn't get recorded is another piece of information down the memory hole that keeps society from being self-informed, and keeps us from telling the truth about our past. That is why this is important. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Can you give me a source that give more than a couple sentences of serious thought to 2016 specifially? Really, anyone theoretically running in 2012 could run in 2016. Why do we need articles for two future elections, one of which is four years away, one is eight years away, both have the same set of unsubstantiated, conjectural people, and neither of which has a single fact? Maybe I'm not taking crystal literally to the word, but when the entire article is based on unfounded hypothetical assumption from sources that only mention 2016 in passing, although from multiple reliable sources, then we don't need an article on an election eight years away. Reywas92Talk 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I didn't say anything about sources being fully devoted to speculating about 2016, but when a notable writer says "so-and-so may run in 2012 or 2016" then we should take that at face value. We should not do some handwaving, and say "...well, the source might have written "2012 and 2016", but I think they were reeeeaalllly just talking about 2012". That might as well be WP:OR. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete this article should be deleted. It is complete BS. No one knows anything about this election.Mountedpolice (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- nobody knows much , actually, bout a great many things, but it doesn't stop people from talking and writing about them, and their guess and predictions and speculations from being notable. Consequently, Wikipedia is not about Truth, and verifiable speculations by noted figures are notable. Of all the afds in the last month or so this is the one where I find any significant support for deletion most inexplicable. It's surer that this event will talk place than that almost anything else at that period in human affairs. it's of such critical importance to so many people, that of course people will already talk. And its reasonable that they should. This is probably the next forthcoming election where there is serious question over the Democratic nominee. Of course anyone interested in US or world politics will be thinking of what comes after him. If they aren't, they ought to be. --DGG (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment cf. the following Wikipedia articles: 2016, 2032, the 2070s, 2100–2109, the 31st century, the 48th century, the 10th millenium, and The End of Time. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is completely different, though the fictional events are a little excessive. But that's not speculation! Reywas92Talk 03:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A book about the end of time is not speculation? Anyway, why do you cite the 2012 AfD in your case for this one? After all, according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons...Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too..." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A book about the end of time is a book, not an election. It has already been written and isn't a future event. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because one editor ignores advice it gives doesn't mean it gives you the right to do so as well. Timmeh! 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Point conceeded on the book, though the other articles I cited do contain plenty of speculation.
If it really offends you that much that I like to clarify and otherwise tweak my remarks, then I'll try to keep it down to a minimum, as I have been since you made your last comment on the subject--however, the preview button has not proven an effective tool for me in the past.As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, my point is not to excuse my own actions, but rather to point out that the foundation of this entire AfD is, in part, a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]- I removed that statement about the preview button after I saw your response above. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that page is neither a policy nor a guideline, just an essay giving advice, so it cannot be violated. Timmeh! 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Good point. I see several of us have made similar mistakes regarding the nature of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CSB. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I removed that statement about the preview button after I saw your response above. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that page is neither a policy nor a guideline, just an essay giving advice, so it cannot be violated. Timmeh! 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Point conceeded on the book, though the other articles I cited do contain plenty of speculation.
- A book about the end of time is a book, not an election. It has already been written and isn't a future event. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because one editor ignores advice it gives doesn't mean it gives you the right to do so as well. Timmeh! 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A book about the end of time is not speculation? Anyway, why do you cite the 2012 AfD in your case for this one? After all, according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons...Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too..." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Suggestion As requested in the last AfD for this article just a couple weeks ago, if this AfD does result in a deletion, I suggest a date be set for its earliest possible recreation. Likewise, if it does not result in a deletion, I strongly recommend setting a date for the next allowable AfD nom. Otherwise, this could get very disruptive. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I support November 6, 2012, when concrete facts may start showing up, and most of the unknowns around Obama are cleared. Reywas92Talk 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep While the election may be far off, credible media/news organazations have already begun to speculate. Hence, an article should exsist.Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Speculation and violates crystal, can be recreated closer to the time. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- How does it violate WP:Crystal? Don't you think it equally true that second-guessing notable sources violates WP:OR? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. The last US election was simply huge and President Obama wants what every first term US president wants - a second term. That's the 2012 election. Career politicians, consultants and strategists map out these things far in advance. Bluebloods look to the "right" pre-school to groom their spawn for success 20-30 years out. You don't think the Republican and Democratic parties are also mapping out the next elections for the next couple of rounds? At first blush the article sure seems premature but this is the bread and butter of politics and futurists. Here's a few books that may help and, no, not all of them are sci-fi. Here's a few articles that may also help showing how various paths to the 2016 White House are being worked out. The New York Times reports VP Biden said he had no plans to run for president in 2016, when he would be turning 74 years old, meaning he will be free to structure his operation to serve Mr. Obama’s ambitions rather than his own. That makes him unlike virtually every other modern vice president — with the exception of Mr. Cheney, who while serving President Bush likewise never harbored his own dreams of the Oval Office. I see room for clarity, better sourcing and crystal watching but those aren't reasons to delete. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Unfortunately at this point there are no sources that are not crystal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
- Actually there are plenty that talk about long-term planning. If you focus on who is or isn't running you're likely to be knee-deep but that is true of all politics articles regarding election. They need to be watched to prevent that. -- Banjeboi 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Unfortunately at this point there are no sources that are not crystal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
- Comment According to WP:Deletion, these are the reasons we delete articles:
- Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's fair-use policy
- Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages which exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
- Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
- Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate)
- Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles which are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
- Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
- Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
- Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
- Redundant or otherwise useless templates
- Categories representing overcategorization
- Images that are unused, obsolete, or violate fair-use policy
- Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
- Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
- Many reasons have been given for deleting this article, most of which do not appear anywhere in our deletion policy. The only actually acceptable reason that has been cited in this discussion is the last one--that it violates the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. However, a reading of WP:Not reveals no clear reason here either. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I hope that the closing admin would already know the Deletion criteria, so there was no reason to list all that. For both Nathan McKnight and Timmeh, this is what was said to me before when I had repeatedly commented on an AFD: "If in an AFD, your arguement is strong, state it once and the closing admin will see it. But if you argue every keep/delete vote, it exudes weakness on your part and makes it look personal. It makes it look like you're desprate to have it deleted/kept." It was even worse on the previous debate. Are you really going to quit Wikipedia if this ends the other way? I see absolutely no reason why an article on an election eight years away for which there are no concrete facts should be kept, but if it is I won't think the world is wrong. Reywas92Talk 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm not obsessed with deleting the article. I just love arguing with people I think are wrong. :) Of course, I am not quoting large chunks of Wikipedia policy, I am just arguing my view on the issue to attempt to sway some editors my way and gain consensus. I might not agree with the potential ruling on whether this article will be deleted or kept, but I will by no means be angry or upset about it. I will keep on editing Wikipedia, and I hope Nathan feels the same way.Timmeh! 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think that a lot of people chime in in a kneejerk fashion and I hope that some of the arguments I've made her might give these editors food for thought--including occasional reminders of what our policies actually say. I like to have a robust discussion because I think there are bigger issues at stake here than one article--namely, that we have a tendency to dismiss as trivial information that doesn't interest us but may interest others, and perhaps more importantly, that kneejerk deletions have a tendency to drive away new editors. Will I be disappointed if this nom doesn't go my way? Of course I will. An editor's convictions ought to be important to them. Will I take it personally? No, although some remarks have come close to personal attacks, I'm pretty thick skinned and I don't take offense. I hope that nobody has interpreted my own remarks as personal attacks either. I'm glad that Timmeh and I agree on this much at least. Finally, I don't think there is a right and wrong answer here. There are just different views of what Wikipedia's function should be. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm not obsessed with deleting the article. I just love arguing with people I think are wrong. :) Of course, I am not quoting large chunks of Wikipedia policy, I am just arguing my view on the issue to attempt to sway some editors my way and gain consensus. I might not agree with the potential ruling on whether this article will be deleted or kept, but I will by no means be angry or upset about it. I will keep on editing Wikipedia, and I hope Nathan feels the same way.Timmeh! 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Timmeh, if we're cluttering up this AfD, maybe we could take this debate to one of our talk pages, because I really don't get your point of view and I would genuinely like to understand where you're coming from for the sake of future debates. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I hope that the closing admin would already know the Deletion criteria, so there was no reason to list all that. For both Nathan McKnight and Timmeh, this is what was said to me before when I had repeatedly commented on an AFD: "If in an AFD, your arguement is strong, state it once and the closing admin will see it. But if you argue every keep/delete vote, it exudes weakness on your part and makes it look personal. It makes it look like you're desprate to have it deleted/kept." It was even worse on the previous debate. Are you really going to quit Wikipedia if this ends the other way? I see absolutely no reason why an article on an election eight years away for which there are no concrete facts should be kept, but if it is I won't think the world is wrong. Reywas92Talk 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. It is just too early to say anything useful about the 2016 U.S. presidential election. If people still want to work on it based on speculation, they can spend the next three years and nine months working on this article at the Future Wikia, then transfer it back to Wikipedia under the GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete in 2 years (or more probably four) there may be something to put here, but right now there is nothing but speculation. Some of it can be sourced but most of it deals primarily with the 2012 election which quite rightly has an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delet Vive Barack Obama! Vive Barack Obama! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.77.142 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC) — 204.186.77.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
- Delete it is pure speculation and taking up unneccessary space. Though I cannot practice the same form of elocution as the user Timmeh, I agree with him in all sentiments. Wikipedia could use more fair and unbiased and dare I say intelligent users like him. Raywas is also a very good user who started this page. Kudos to both gentlewomen.Rickji2 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - it's way too early to have this. The only certainty about the 2016 Presidential election is that it will be held. The article ("sourced" or not) is loaded with speculation, assuming that Obama serves two complete terms (hardly a certainty - see Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy) and predictions as to apportionment based on a yet-to-be-held census. Let's wait a few years when more than speculation becomes available.B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted, G4. Non admin close. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Kevin Cariato[edit]
- Kevin Cariato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ok, there are a few references, but I can't spot why some campaign flunkey is now notable and not just another piece of indiscriminate information. "Mail and Messenger Managwr"? So he's a mailman? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This is a hoax. A good hoax. But a hoax. Check the references closely. For example: # ^ http://www.whitehouse.gov.administration.home-html.org/ and http://www.change.gov.transitionupdate.com/ These are fake sites. This should be a quick deletion. Simon12 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
-
- The transition site is www.change.gov. www.change.gov.transitionupdate.com could be owned by anyone, and should not be considered reliable. Doing a little research shows it's a private site, created on January 13, 2009, and not a government site. The White House official site is at www.whitehouse.gov. www.whitehouse.gov.administration.home-html.org is another private site. The democratic-underground cite is likely taken from Wikipedia. It doesn't provide an external link anywhere else, so can not be considered reliable.
This one http://www.senate.gov.nominationsindex-html.org/ is a really good fake, but, again, it's not the Senate site. That would be here: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/nom_cmtec.htm, and Cariato is nowhere to be found.
Whoever is doing this hoax has been at it for two months, and the name is getting out there. I was taken in at first, also. But until someone provides one actual, real, verifiable source for this, it should be considered a hoax. Simon12 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- More importantly, White House staff are not subject to Senate confirmation. Rahm Emmanuel didn't need to be confirmed. If that's not a giveaway, I don't know what is. A speedy delete is quite warranted. Simon12 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy redirect to Pizza by someone else, Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Pizzeria[edit]
- Pizzeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete, wiktionary already has a WP:DICDEF - this article is unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to Pizza as a plausible search term - this article has been happily doing just that since 2005, until it was converted into the current less-than-useful dictionary definition a few weeks ago. I'd suggest just restoring the status quo is the most sensible option. ~ mazca t|c 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama[edit]
- Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page is as redundant with Presidency of Barack Obama as Barack Obama's first 100 days which was deleted last week. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days) TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete WP is not the place for a day-by-day summary of the president's actions. Reywas92Talk 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I've started section on Talk:Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama to breakdown what kind of info belongs and what doesn't. Obviously there's no obligation at all to cover every single day, but the beginnings of presidencies are usually more event-filled. Joshdboz (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - Timeline articles can serve as a more detailed source of information not worth keeping within the main article. See United States presidential election, 2008 timeline for a good example of this. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete While a worthwhile project, this seems to be way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Every day has its own entry. By the end of four years, or eight!, this will run into hundreds of pages. Really more like a primary source than a readable article. Give it its own website, but not WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep WP has other articles like this, such as 2009#Events and 2009 in music. No, it's not "like an encyclopedia", but WP isn't like an encyclopedia in many, many ways. Whether editors keep this article up to date, and the entries at a consistent level of selection, that remains to be seen. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment this AFD seems relevant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - Although at present this article may be redundant with portions of Presidency of Barack Obama, this will certainly change in the future. As the list of actions taken by President Obama grows, it will eventually be necessary for the Wikipedia community to decide which of his actions are important enough to be mentioned in the main article in order to keep it from being too lengthy. This page should be kept in order to serve as a record of ALL the president's actions, regardless of their believed worthiness for the main article. — Shawn81 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY of everything the POTUS does. Reywas92Talk 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That argument is pretty much why I wanted to keep Barack Obama's first 100 days. I think his first hundred days will eventually have too much content to be viewed as worth keeping in the larger article. Consensus is that this was not a valid reason to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY of everything the POTUS does. Reywas92Talk 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep As creator, the only reason it was started was because the Presidency of Barack Obama section was rapidly filling up with daily info that would quickly overwhelm the article. There's no reason why this timeline must be daily, but I find no difference (in form or notability) between it and the many other timelines on this site. The Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict was created for the same reason when the relevant info was too much for the parent article. Joshdboz (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It was created before the article was rapidly filling up since it is not even filling up yet. It is probably 10-20% of the acceptable size. Barack Obama's first 100 days was also created for overflow so as to section the article in a manageable way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm speaking about the size of a single section, which was already of substantial size and just covered a few days in January. Since this information will inevitably be removed or greatly reduced over four years, there's no reason why it shouldn't be moved elsewhere. Joshdboz (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I can foresee separate articles for each year of his presidency plus pages for foreign, domestic, military, and economic policies and numerous other pages. I think the first 100 days will be such a large volume of encyclopedic content that it should be WP:PRESERVEd. If this is kept, I am going to WP:DRV that article. When the WP:AFD occurred everyone said have one article and then if it fills up see if we need WP:SUMMARY articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm speaking about the size of a single section, which was already of substantial size and just covered a few days in January. Since this information will inevitably be removed or greatly reduced over four years, there's no reason why it shouldn't be moved elsewhere. Joshdboz (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It was created before the article was rapidly filling up since it is not even filling up yet. It is probably 10-20% of the acceptable size. Barack Obama's first 100 days was also created for overflow so as to section the article in a manageable way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Conditional keep: Possibly rename, and make sure it doesn't end up like news coverage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - The page is going to evolve, and the important points of the presidency will become apparent, the less important ones will disappear. Having a separate page to the main page about the presidency allows a broader view on the main page, and a more detailed timeline on this. It's not exactly the only timeline in Wikipedia: List of timelines Mihtjel (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hmm. Currently, this is a mindbendingly dumb article, grossly failing WP:NOT#NEWS. It won't be after a while. I'd say userfy until there's actually enough of a presidency to justify a timeline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete --TorsodogTalk 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep We will need a timeline of baracks time in office, otherwise, his presidency page will get filled with trivia. I think this article is neccessary for people to know exactly what the timeline is/was. Portillo (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Keep: Now that the First 100 days section of Presidency of Barack Obama is beginning to get pretty lengthy, it has been shortened. This will continue to be the case, and all the information that isn't notable enough to be on the main article (though still notable) would remain here. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep – a good way of keeping Presidency of Barack Obama from clogging up. The timeline article must be maintained on a regular basis so that only truly notable events are listed, but the fact that not all events currently listed are equally notable is no ground for deletion. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Keep - A time line that is constantly updated is incredibly useful, its also better than the silly 100 days notion because a presidency is not and should not be defined by the first 100 of its 1460 days in office HawkShark (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - It's a useful source of information on the subject (what wikipedia is supposed to be, yes?) and prevents other articles from clogging up with data. If editors fail to keep up to date in later months it is still a detailed, reliable source of President Obama's first impact in the position. --Logonberry (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep this list for now -- most of its entries seem notable/concise. ↜Just me, here, now … 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Keep We NEED to keep this, at least until his 100 days are up. I don't think any othe president in recent times has been such under the scope in his first hundred days. I think for a variety of reasons but mainly because he's walking into one of the most busiest times in american history (economic meltdown, global warming, two wars, etc.) And the fact that he ran on change throughout his campaign, therefore people are very interested in each day that passes. People in the media are actually doing programs and what have you regarding this. So yes, KEEP. Neverfades (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This article is an aggregate of the news, and therefore patently fails WP:NOT#NEWS. If the Presidency page quickly gets filled up with short pieces of information such as those on this page, the correct response is not to create another article to hold all the trivia. It's to select only important issues, and weave them into the content of the main article. Currently this article is filled with trivial reports on everything he has done, and so also fails WP:NOT#IINFO. I would also like to point out to the eventual closer that the four immediately preceding comments have zero basis in policy (respectively: no policy even alluded to; notability doesn't apply to content itself, and no refutation of the arguments for deletion; useful and useful) and should therefore be disregarded on closure. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- From WP:Recentism: "[...] As a growing phenomenon on the Web, Wikipedia is generally looking for ways to increase its relevance and breadth in comparison with other reference sites. One area in which Wikipedia excels is its ability to compile reference information on current events and news. [...] After 'recentist' articles have calmed down, the instigating news story has dropped from the Main Page and the front pages of newspapers, and the number of edits per day has dropped to a reasonable minimum, concerned Wikipedians ought to initiate comprehensive rewrites. Most articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to major issues to which the article is related. Much of the timeline content and day-to-day updates with minor details can safely be excised. [...]"
- This methodology (ie allowing coverage to current events to remain in flux, ultimately to have its more notable parts distilled out) only makes sense -- as it allows there to be in existence community-produced articles about current events from which the community can thereafter cull the best bits. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I appreciate the concern and I think it is useful to take into account in terms of the content chosen for the timeline (discussions of which should take place on the talk page). In terms of Not News, the policy states "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" - and absolutely, most of the items listed are not individually sufficient for an article, but are highly relevant to his presidency, and therefore a chronological account of his presidency. Neither is this an indiscriminate collection, because it is relatively clearly defined by the title what kind of general information is relevant and what is not, which also happens to be based on an agreed to be notable article, the Presidency of Barack Obama. Joshdboz (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite. Jtrainor (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I highly doubt people are making this as a fanpage because they like President Obama. In what way does this resemble a fansite? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep. It's informative and useful. I'd say it should be condensed or merged into a different article when it gets too big or possible bias enters into it. But at the moment it's important and quite practical. And perfectly reasonable to be on Wikipedia. 86.25.127.142 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep per Portillo and HawkShark. The notion of "100 days" probably has more to do with people's fascination with powers and/or multiples of 10 than with anything else. And a timeline can do what a typical article can't: present an abundance of information in summary form. In Presidency of Barack Obama, quality is king, but in a timeline, quantity can have its moment in the sun. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep I can see why some people want to let it go, but wikipedia is rapidly becoming a source for valid information of all sorts. If they can find it here and it's well cited Why wouldn't we keep it? Misery507 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete for now. Once we get to ... April/May of 2009 then the 100 days of Barack article would make sense without being too recent-ish. To me this does seem like a list that will careen out of control and may be better suited for a political wiki with wikipedia keeping the most notable bits. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Many news sources cover the actions of a U.S. president on any given day, which means that an article Actions of Barack Obama on February 15, 2010 would probably be notable and should be kept under Wikipedia policy. (Whether they should remain or not, there are even articles like Casey Knowles and Ann Nixon Cooper which are about people who are known mostly because they played a peripheral role in events surrounding Obama for a few days). But rather than having a different article for each day in Obama's presidential terms, we can combine them into a few "timeline" articles like this one. Such an article is sourced, notable, and relevant. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Notability is not the only concern for inclusion. Transitory events of little lasting consequence, even if notable, may not be appropriate encyclopedia subjects. Indeed, it has been acknowledged already here that eventually this won't be a day-by-day breakdown. The debate is what to do until that eventual time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Timelines articles are acceptable in Wikipedia. Do we really have to discuss the notability of President Obama's actions? --J.Mundo (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Alot has been said, and editor:Jmundo wraps it up nicely.--Buster7 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep unless there's a way for this article to be automatically generated from other dated information, which as of now I don't think there is. ciphergoth (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. I must admit, I wasn't aware that libraries were generally considered notable. Shows that you still learn something every day here. Black Kite 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Bozeman Public Library[edit]
- Bozeman Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It's a library. Unsourced, no reason given why it's particularly notable, have tried to find them but nothing really out there. Black Kite 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Although I am not entirely convinced that a public library is particulary notable, Wikipedia seems to have established that library articles are worth keeping, and there are plenty of them. See, e.g., Category:Public libraries in the United States by state. •••Life of Riley (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - The Institute of Museum and Library Services awarded this library the 2003 National Award for Library Service.[17]. Also the in-depth subject of secondary sources, easily demonstrating passing WP:NOTABILITY. [18][19] --Oakshade (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation. Needs to be improved (with links like Oakshade's), not deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per Oakshade. Articles on libraries have become Good Articles and I think there's even some FA's out there. Neither would be possible if libraries are not inclusion-worthy. - Mgm|(talk) 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep The sources for the information in the article can be located via Google: [20]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
DeleteI'm in the minority here, but I don't see what makes the public library in Bozeman, Montana more notable than any other library. Articles like these are good practice for someone wanting to sharpen their writing skills, but libraries generally offer the same services wherever they might be -- including their own web page Bozeman Public Library. Why do we need to duplicate something the library already has? "The Bozeman Public Library is a beautiful space where users can get a cup of coffee at a coffee shop located within the building and then study or read. When the reader tires of the book, a glance out the window will treat the eyes to a view of the local Bridger Mountain Range. A full range of services for young and old include computer access, an extensive newspaper and periodical section, a young reader area, and comfortable readings chairs and work tables. To ensure the fair access for the use of the computer, the computer users are limited to 1 hour." With the exception of the view of mountains, there's not much said of this that can't be said of any other public library. Obviously, this isn't written by someone on the staff -- Bozeman has had a library for more than three years! Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per improved citations. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Joop Bersee[edit]
- Joop Bersee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete article without independent sources and no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete--subject has been anthologized but that's all the coverage I can find. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - based on google book and scholar searches, the subject exists, however the coverage is trivial. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Nonsense Tone 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Wah ni qui wah[edit]
- Wah ni qui wah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Halo Solitude[edit]
- Halo Solitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Normally I would prod articles like this, but I have a feeling this might be easily contested. First, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can provide any notability of this mod of Halo. Second and more importantly, the article greatly fails the What Wikipedia is not policy, including using Wikipedia as a webhost and as a place to promote the mod. MuZemike 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hm. An incomplete mod of an obsolete game, with no release date set? I think delete is safe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Only primary sources are given in the article. SharkD (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete per items mentioned above and lack of any sources.じんない 03:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Library consultant[edit]
- Library consultant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an original research essay, possibly a copyvio by the way it is written, but I haven;t found it yet. It's interesting but not valid in an encyclopaedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete I don;t think its OR, since it is sourced; but what its sourced to is not usable, being just an advertisement for a particular library consultant, www.acohen.com/. There probably are real sources, but this article would have to be re-created properly. DGG (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I never noticed the A Cohen link. A Cohen is also the creator of the article. Suddenly this looks like spam and this pretty much Speedy Deletion material. Since this AfD is already running I'll leave it to the community to choose where to go with it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Makoto Tateno. MBisanz talk 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Hate to Love You[edit]
- Hate to Love You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Extensive searches in English turned up exactly one reliable third-party sources that establish notability; other reliable sources note the series as the first title in the Deux imprint, but these are more about the imprint than the series itself. Basic searches in Japanese turned up pretty much only online sellers. It is believed only reason the article was created was because it was licenced for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge to Makoto Tateno since he has an article and seems at least marginally notable (though maybe not). One single review isn't enough to make it notable. Mostly just another Aurora promo thing that's been clean up to leave...nothing to talk about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The author does seem to be notable for her shoujo manga, though her article isn't brilliant at asserting it; a merge/redirect would not be out of order. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge per Collectonian. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Where are we standing with the "multiple licensing" discussion? Because this has been licensed and translated by two different companies in two different languages, which would seem to imply some notability. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Agreed, it does imply some notability. However, comma, it is not a current criterion of WP:BK and the discussions at WT:BK are not progressing towards a fast adoption of it. As such, given current guidelines, multiple translations only imply and not demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Even though the article was created by an admitted representative of Aurora Publishing as a form of promotion, the review by WP:ANIME has only turned up one review and almost no other third-party coverage by reliable sources. That is not enough to meet the significant coverage test of WP:NOTE. The fact that there is no article on the Japanese Wikipedia should also be taken as an indicator about the work's lack of notability. I hesitate to merge/redirect this article to the author's page, in part because only part of the author's bibliography can be verified and little indication that any of her other works are notable. --Farix (Talk) 12:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge. I don't understand Farix's objections; if none of her other works are notable, I don't see how they suggests Hate to Love You should be deleted or kept as a standalone article, and nothing else. --Gwern (contribs) 15:11 30 January 2009 (GMT)
- Keep There seem to be numerous search results which look like notable review sites to me. I'll add links to some of them in the article. Dream Focus (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- All I see are links to blogs, forums, or other self-published sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Numerous search results, yes, but which don't meet our guidelines for reliable sources. Just because it doesn't call itself a blog doesn't make it not self-published. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
David Talbott[edit]
- David Talbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This particular person has not received much in the way of third-party independent recognition of his ideas. There is a bit of discussion between other Immanuel Velikovsky fans in talking amongst themselves about their various catastrophist ideas, but the single third party source referenced in the article only mentions Talbott off-handedly in reference to his one-event status associated with the founding of Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered). His Saturnian ideas have NOT received notice by third party sources needed per WP:FRINGE and WP:V. There is essentially no way that this article can be sourced appropriately. Essentially, David Talbott fails our WP:BIO guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom, Fails BIO; crufty. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- keep - the article sucks, but he seems notable enough, when all his various activities are taken together. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I have wrestled with such arguments for a while. "All his various activities" that are of any note seem to be publishing a moderately successful ten-issue magazine devoted to Velikovsky. His Saturnian stuff isn't notable, his Thunderbolts stuff isn't notable, and his advocacy on messageboards and listservs can be read in internet archives, but has not received the notice of third-parties. Essentially, the issue is one of sourcing. If you could point us to the third-party reliable sources which indicate to you that his various activities taken together have been noticed by enough of th outside world for us to write an article in a mainstream encyclopedia, I'd love to see them. As it is, I think it is nearly impossible to write an article about this guy. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Notability applies to the subject, not the content. It is not "nearly impossible to write an article about this guy", it's already been done. Should ScienceApologist have any valid concerns about sourcing, he could (and should) discuss this rationally on the article talk page. Also as per my "Keep" argument below, he contradicts himself on this matter. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not (yet) a mainstream encyclopedia we currently should adhere to five pillars and what Wikipwdia is/is not which the WP:MAINSTREAM page (a proposal authored by ScienceApologist) appears to be in direct conflict with. Davesmith au (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I found a few additional sources, that help with personal notability of mr Talbot (they are not great, but there you are). such as: -www.coasttocoastam.com/ guest on the broadly syndicated nutjob radio show. -The Saturn Myth review of book and idea by a sympathetic person (who also works for Aeon, one of Mr. Talbott's journals). -review of Thunderbolts materials
- In addition, the whole field of Catastrophism seems to be getting a lot of attention these days from folks who like fringe historical revisionism. Mr. Talbott seems a moderately important figure in that realm, so better to keep the article and make it readable, rather than deal with the nutters recreating stuff to be speedily deleted next month. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I have wrestled with such arguments for a while. "All his various activities" that are of any note seem to be publishing a moderately successful ten-issue magazine devoted to Velikovsky. His Saturnian stuff isn't notable, his Thunderbolts stuff isn't notable, and his advocacy on messageboards and listservs can be read in internet archives, but has not received the notice of third-parties. Essentially, the issue is one of sourcing. If you could point us to the third-party reliable sources which indicate to you that his various activities taken together have been noticed by enough of th outside world for us to write an article in a mainstream encyclopedia, I'd love to see them. As it is, I think it is nearly impossible to write an article about this guy. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an edit war not going your way are not a good basis for an AFD. Artw (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This is an uncivil and rude comment that does not assume good faith about the nomination. You obviously didn't consider it carefully. Please indicate what third-party independent sources you would use to write this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You pretty much admit to AFDing this as a result of edit conflicts with other users here. (talk)
- That is a GROSS misinterpretation of the post to WP:FTN. My AfD nomination has nothing to do with conflicts associated with other users. I am reporting this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- After careful consideration of the recent activity on the talk page and the article's recent edit history, and having offered a correction of ScienceApologist's misrepresentation of the facts at WP:FTN, and with reference to my own "Keep" arguments below, I have to agree with Artw on this matter. Davesmith au (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That is a GROSS misinterpretation of the post to WP:FTN. My AfD nomination has nothing to do with conflicts associated with other users. I am reporting this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You pretty much admit to AFDing this as a result of edit conflicts with other users here. (talk)
- This is an uncivil and rude comment that does not assume good faith about the nomination. You obviously didn't consider it carefully. Please indicate what third-party independent sources you would use to write this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Disclosure: I am involved with the work of David Talbott as already disclosed in good faith here prior to my direct involvement with this article, see also here. Should anyone show where any bias I may have is influencing the article I am only too happy to discuss it. Having said that, I expect the article to reflect a NPOV encyclopedic biography, rather than either a glowing endorsement or an attempted discreditation of his work. Third party sources should be (and have been) discussed on the article's talk page. There are at least four in the current rendering of the bio. ScienceApologist's characterizing of people as Velikovsky "fans" does not make it so, and is only his POV. WP:FRINGE has nothing to say about article deletion, but rather, content. WP:V has also been discussed on the talk page, general consensus over a number of sources also having been reached before ScienceApologist joined the discussion. To assert that there is "essentially no way that this article can be sourced appropriately" (especially as some of his own edits - see further on - list sources) is to discount the input of many other contributors on the talk page and to the article, including himself. As David Talbott has already been considered in a previous AfD the result of which was "keep", and as there's been ongoing discussion since then about his bio, ScienceApologist should be a bit more specific than "fails our WP:BIO guidelines". Under the circumstances, one must ask why has ScienceApologist been editing the article (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), if he thinks it not notable? Surely this is some indication that he thought it had some value. I submit that whilst he thought he could get away with applying his own negative POV to the article in an attempt to discredit Talbott, someone with whom he has an undeclared COI, that's what he tried to do. He even instigated a WP:BRD action which he failed to follow through or discuss, and then after I questioned his good faith by asserting a COI from my own firsthand experience with him in other fora, he listed the article for deletion, without acknowledging or refuting the alleged COI or attempting ANY dispute resolution proceedings. On those grounds alone admins should de-list this AfD post haste, before discussion degenerates into a slanging match. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." and also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." Davesmith au (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I should also note a complete revision of the talk page is recommended to anyone attempting to assess this issue. Davesmith au (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. ScienceApologist, in the WP:FTN post you say someone you believe to be the subject or someone related to them is trying to rid the article of criticism. You never even mentioned the thought they could be non-notable after several edits and reverts. Those edits and reverts are a dispute, perhaps even an edit war and you are personally involved in it. Nominating an article for deletion during a dispute is a bad idea. - Mgm|(talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep He doesn't have to have received "much" 3rd party recognition, just enough to satisfy the guidelines, which he has done. Personally, I think we do well to provide objective information about people like this, and the present article does so very nicely. It is not necessary to have a long astronomical explanation of why he is hopelessly wrong, as simply stating his theories seems to do the job nicely.DGG (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep He's published by a non-vanity publisher and he's discussed in a couple of sources that are credible cataloguers of such people. Crazy as a box of frogs, but notable nonetheless. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Very unhappy Keep, because "AfD is not cleanup". The article sucks. It's terrible. For examples of a good treatment of these nutball (even if notable) "theories" on Wikipedia, see 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance and 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. We really need a new Z-class quality rating for articles that so utterly fail to provide critical context: "critical" as in both crucial and skeptical, and by "context" I mean such optional niceties as elementary logic, laws of nature, causality, and the historical record.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I've ordered a copy of the book "1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance" as it looks hilarious and the title is so wonderfully over the top. If it's any good I'll have two more, as birthday presents to serious medievalist re-enactors who will be equally outraged and amused by it. The Wikipedia article is also a fine read and manages to debunk without cruelty, even allowing itself a poke at Wikipedia. Isn't this sort of thing just what we're here for? The kooks aren't going away, so at least someone with a little knowledge should still make the effort to challenge their claims. Contrast this to Cold Fusion where we can no longer defend against the pseudoscience because credible science has stopped talking about it and we're running low on sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep with the understanding that the subject is every bit as deserving of a Wikipedia entry as Immanuel Velikovsky, Zecharia Sitchin, Erich von Däniken, and other similarly notable inhabitants of the fringe and with the hope that the entry can be reframed in such a manner that the reader does not confuse the subject as a potential candidate for Canonization or recipient of a Nobel Prize. While it is true that Talbott's work has not been subject to extensive critical examination by third parties in the mainstream, such as David Morrison, James Oberg, Henry Bauer, Robert Jastrow, James Trefil, and Jay Pasachoff (all of whom published criticisms of Velikovsky), it has been criticized in Skeptic by L. Ellenberger (1995) and in the subscriber-only fringe publications Aeon by R. Ashton (1988) and C&C Review by L. Rose (2000) and P. James (2000), all of whom were cited in the version drastically edited recently by Dicklyon. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
South African Translators' Institute[edit]
- South African Translators' Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I've searched around for 3rd party mentions of this body, without any luck. Google only brings up listings in various directory services. There are no articles in the major news media of South Africa (neither Independent Online nor Media24) mentioning this organisation. The entire article is written based off information found on the organisation's website. Given the lack of any external 3rd party references whatsoever, this should be deleted for failing WP:V and WP:N Zunaid 16:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Here is the information that the OP was looking for:
- Here are some links from Media24's archives:
- http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/1998/07/22/16/7.html
- http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/2005/06/01/TB/04/01.html
- http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/1990/10/23/6/7.html
- And from Mail and Guardian's archives:
- http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-09-12-not-lost-in-translation
- The organisation is mentioned on the International Federation of Translators' web site:
- http://fit-ift.org/en/africa.php
- and on the web site of the American Translators' Association:
- http://www.atanet.org//ata_activities/FIT_Survey_Report.pdf
- And some more mention of it:
- http://www.atkv.org.za/links.cfm?ipkCategoryID=175
- and even the South African government's web site:
- http://www.gcis.gov.za/gcis/directory.jsp?dir=10&cat=8&org=482
- The OP claims to have Googled for 3rd party mentions. Really? What's this then:
- http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=w6Y&q=sati%40intekom.co.za&btnG=Soek
- http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=87Y&q=SATI+combrink&btnG=Soek
- http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=sati+savi&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
- http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=VWE&q=%22south+african+translators+institute%22+site%3A.uk&btnG=Soek
- I see no reason to delete this page. Translator associations from elsewhere in the world also have wiki pages. The fact that my sole source was the organisation's own web site doesn't mean it is not verifiable or not notable. -- leuce (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, lists of translation services are not sources which establish notability. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, a 700-member organization with the article sourced to its own website doesn't confer WP:N or pass WP:ORG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The number of members is irrelevant to the notability -- read the fifth paragraph of WP:ORG. Furthermore, the organisation complies with the [Primary Criteria] and with the [Alternate Criteria for non-commercial organisations] listed on that page. -- leuce (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. The links provided above only seem to be passing mentions and directory listings, not the substantial coverage required for notability. These books give only a sentence each to the subject but this one appears to have substantial coverage, as the subject appears as a section heading with coverage going on to the following page. The real clincher, however, is this, a 25-page peer-reviewed paper in a major journal that, from its abstract, we can see focuses largely on this organisation's activities. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- p.s. For those with FUTON bias I just found this. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: I've had a read through the PDF you linked. The title is Antwerp Papers in Linguistics: Text Editing, From a Talent to a Scientific Discipline. Having read through it I have to say it fails WP:N's requirement of "substantial coverage" (or whatever we're calling it these days) of the SATI. The one section of the paper that deals with text editing in South Africa does not cover the South African Translator's Institute but rather reports the results of a survey taken of SATI's members, a survey which in fact does NOT revolve around SATI itself but rather around a code of ethics for text editors. IMHO there is nothing in the paper that can be used to provide source material in the article, because there is nothing in the source material about SATI the organisation. Furthermore, the title and abstract of the other links you provided certainly do not indicate that there is any substantial or significant coverage of this organisation, at least not to the extent that it can be used to fill out the article, which is what WP:N asks for. Zunaid 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep: if third party sources are writing about it, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. I think this is an object lesson in attempting to improve an article before deleting it. We're not short on space. T L Miles (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- But where are these third party sources? Please see my response above. The third party sources quoted above are not actually about the organisation. I'm not averse to the article being rewritten, but thus far have not been convinced that sufficient sources out there exist to write an independent article. Zunaid 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Where are the third party sources? those linked above. They are not books devoted to this organisation, but they show a) it exists b) what it's purpose is c) what it actually does. The Eva Hung mention, on page 209, establishes its notability beyond any reasonable doubt, as you have an independent written source saying this organisation offers accreditation and doing so is an important step in the professionalisation of the field in SA. I'm not sure what "not actually about the organisation" means, if the organisation's activities are being discussed. Do you mean that this org is not the primary focus of these articles? That's not required to establish notability. As "sufficient sources out there exist to write an independent article": the article created need not be extensive. If self referential material needs to be cut from the article, then cut it ruthlessly. Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten completely. But I'm really confused why that would mean we should not have an article on Wikipedia about this org, which is what a deletion is aimed at. You seem to be killing flies with hammers, here. And in the time spent creating this AFD the article could have been cleaned up. T L Miles (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Per Phil Bridger and TL Miles. The gbooks results, especially Language in South Africa mentioned by Phil, and the Towards a code of ethics for text editors paper linked above (see p66-67 & 70) are sufficient RSs. The preview, but not the snippet for Language in South Africa, which has a section on SATI on pp. 433-34 mentions the existence of an "unpublished" (in 1995) history of SATI by Dr. JH... If it is in any major library, it may count as another and a very substantial RS. The introduction to Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies vol 25 #2, 2007, explains that the issue is devoted to papers presented for SATI's 50th anniversary. The article by Beukes gives some history of translation in SA, with an account "of the modes of governmentality embodied by the South African Translators’ Association."John Z (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep On balance, a sufficient amount of evidence for notability. Being a national accrediting agency is significant enough. DGG (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nominated too soon after previous debate. Mgm|(talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek[edit]
- Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete The article is filled with original research, there are NO authoritative sources on the subject of Starfleet starship registries and classes, the canon sources can't be used because they are primary sources, and the non-canon sources are almost guaranteed to be contradicted by each other. There is nothing worth saving in this article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
I should probably also point out that the subject is the very definition of trivia. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: this looks like recreation of deleted materiel, let me check my archives, but I think this is stuff I suggested an editor take to the Trek wiki (sorry forget the name right now.) If it is, it is speedyable. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sorry, I cannot find it. It looks familiar, though. :-( KillerChihuahua?!? 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per the arguments made ~50 days ago in the last AfD. There are certainly specialized encyclopedias that cover this. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sorry but can you point me to the encyclopedia that discusses how Starfleet picks its starship registry numbers, or analyses the ranges of numbers? There are multiple published sources that discuss starships in Star Trek, but none go into this much detail about the trivia contained in this article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Procedural keep this was nominated in December 2008 and kept then - repeatedly discussing articles that resulted in a consensus one way or another in the vain hope that consensus has changed is disruptive. Had I participated in December's discussion I may well have commented on the benefits of its deletion, but here the repetition is worse than the retention of the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep this is too soon after a keep close. As fiction article standards are under active discussion, perhaps there might be a change in consensus in another 4 or 5 months, which would be a reasonable time to try again. This is case of "I didn't like the result, so let me try till I get it my way" DGG (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Small Business Computer Support[edit]
- Small Business Computer Support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an essay and original research. It's interesting, perhaps even valuable, but not encyclopaedia material. Journalese has no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Clearly an unencyclopaedic essay. Anaxial (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep The topic is notable - I had no difficulty finding more than one book about it. If the current draft is poor then our policy is to keep it for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. It is not a topic independent of other topics. The current article is unsourced OR. Bongomatic 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Brad Olesen[edit]
- Brad Olesen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I've found nothing to fulfill WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. I also couldn't find anything citing his work on Britten. JaGatalk 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Surely this is a Speedy Delete as a non notable person? You can find more about me in (eg) Google than about him, and I know I'm not notable! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Poe Elementary School attack. Or, as appropriate, the the school district or list. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Poe Elementary School (Houston)[edit]
- Poe Elementary School (Houston) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability in question. As this is an elementary school which has NOT received a Blue Ribbon Award, I am unsure of its notability. The sole criteria for its inclusion as an article of its own has been the fact that there was a school shooting there in 1959. The shooting itself has its own article. I wonder if maybe the shooting itself is notable history, but the school itself is not notable, and therefore the article on the shooting should be kept, but the article on the school itself should be a redirect back to the district. Personal note which may or may not be helpful: my son went to this school for three years, and I was unaware of the shooting until I read about it on wikipedia. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge to Houston Independent School District. Elementary schools tend not to be notable. Reywas92Talk 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Complex merge into Poe Elementary School attack and Houston Independent School District, with redirect to HISD and a note in the HISD page linking to Poe Elementary School attack. Resurrect article it it becomes notable for more than a single event. No need to delete edit history, it will be useful should the school become notable enough for an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There is a List of Houston Independent School District schools article - Maybe that will work better? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Complex merge per Davidwr. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It warms the cockles of my heart to know I coined a term. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
The Mysterious Rhinestone Cowboy/Once Upon a Time (David Allan Coe Album)[edit]
- The Mysterious Rhinestone Cowboy/Once Upon a Time (David Allan Coe Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Just a two-disc packaging of two of Coe's existing albums. While each individual album is without a doubt notable, there is nothing to say about this particular issue. This is just a budget lin compilation, and it is very similar in nature to this AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - while interesting and encyclopedic things can be written about many types of compilation album, when the album in question is simply a repackaging of two existing albums I can't see how the article could be usefully expanded. The existence of this release can easily be mentioned in a sentence in both of the individual albums' articles, and I don't think there's enough content available to do any more than that. ~ mazca t|c 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. I agree with mazca, a simple mention on each albums page will suffice. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, in light of additional sources that were not apparent when nominating (NAC) Mayalld (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
An Bord Snip[edit]
- An Bord Snip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. No relevant GHITS found. Possibly WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep This term is constantly being used in news media and common parlance in Ireland at the moment. It is intrinsically connected to the global financial crisis and Ireland's reaction to same. Most Irish people do not know there is an official name for the group or what that name is ("Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes"). It is extrememly likely that a person seeking knowledge about this group would use the slang term, "An Bord Snip", to source information. Granted it is a local-ism but it is no less meaningful in Ireland than American euphemisms like "credit crunch" or "Wall Street vs. Main Street". Admittedly, in its current state the article is quite poorly supported or referenced but it is a work-in-progress and I expect Irish Wikipedians will enthusiastically flesh it out. As for no GHITS, the term fills a whole page of Google search results. Perhaps a higher quality article will illustrate why it deserves to be kept. (Disclosure: I am the primary author of this article)--Cajmcmahon (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- KEEP This article is highly relevant to the on-going economic crisis in Ireland, the subject of this article is referenced daily on Irish television and news media, and it is vital that a record is created of the impact and development of this group Damiantgordon (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Aside - Suggesting "Possibly WP:MADEUP" as a reason for deletion is totally incorrect, this is a real organisation. As for "No relevant GHITS found", the first page of the 1500 google hits includes every national newspaper in Ireland. Finally suggesting WP:NEO misses the fact that the original board was formed by Charles Haughey in 1987 Damiantgordon (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- KEEP I agree with both the points made above by Cajmcmahon and Damiantgordon in relation to keeping this article. I particularly agree with the point in relation to the use of other descriptors such as "Credit Crunch". Surely this article is then a similar record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooneycol (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Move to Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes. Notability is clear from the sources in the article, but we should use the official name. Anyone typing in the colloquial name will still be redirected there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Both Keep and Move as Phil suggests --Handelaar (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Agreed both Keep and Move with a redirect 89.101.63.72 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I partially agree with rationale for the Move suggestion. A concern I have however is, it will create multiple pages/entries. The board from 1987 had a different name from the 2008/09 board, yet both are know under the umbrella term "An Bord Snip". If we use the official name, we shall have to create two pages with largely identical sections. If we use the unofficial name, it will make for more concise reading and better organization of thought. If, years from now, there is another financial crisis and a similar group is set up, no matter what its official, politically expedient, PR-friendly name, it can slot quite easily into this page as a new section. Furthermore, though fictitious, I would argue the term is by now a concrete noun in Ireland and part of the Irish vernacular. I would suggest, just because the name may strike some as made-up or non-standard, it is how it is known on the ground and that gives it factual weight. It is my opinion that this should be the parent/top-level/root page. At the very least, it makes for better organisation and taxonomy. (Disclosure: I am the primary author of this article) --Cajmcmahon (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Alexf(talk) 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Adam Tremelling[edit]
- Adam Tremelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete non notable amateur sportsman per WP:ATHLETE Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. andy (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Whilst there are technical issues to be resolved, the Article is an appropriate split (NAC) (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films)[edit]
- List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a Copy & Paste fork/move from List of Pixar awards and nominations with the entire history lost. This constitutes GFDL violation. Non-withstanding the good intentions, there are better ways of splitting articles. — Edokter • Talk • 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete since List of Pixar awards and nominations is sufficient and forking was unnecessary; can the nominator clarify the GFDL violations that took place? Was the list's initial edit summary, "moving List of Pixar awards and nominations (section Feature Films) to here because of it's exhaustive length and it's readines for standing on it's own", not clear? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- keepThis isn't a fork. I'm not a forker and I have a clean record of wikiedits. What I'm trying to do is make wikipedia a better encyclopedia and I have been doing that since November 2007. The page is still {{underconstruction}}. There are no copyvio I said in my first edit that it has been moved over from the section of List of Pixar awards and nominations to here. How else should I do this? Articles are splitt everyday and are done in the same way (as far as I know). Per Wikipedia:Splitting I should have added {{splitfrom}} but I didn't delete the original section yet. The list is still underconstruction and I therefore didn't delete the contents of the feature films in the List of Pixar awards and nominations. I proposed moving List of Pixar awards and nominations to List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films) because the shorts section is long enough for a standalone list. I have improved List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) a lot and it can be featured soon. Just calm down and wait till the page is ready and then delete the features section of the original page. I can also delete the section now and this whole problem would be resolved. But I wanted to wait for someone to post his opinion on moving from List of Pixar awards and nominations to "List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films)" and than I can delete the section and put the diffs in {{splitfrom}}. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:SPLIT requires the original article to be linked; you omitted that. The split should have been discussed beforehand; such a big change needs consensus, so {{splitfrom}} and a spllit notice on the talk page would not have been a bad idea. You can still initiate a a split discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I split the shorts section (This time the right way). If there is later consensus that the list should be merged back I would be happy to help in the merging. Now I'm BOLD and fix wiki the way I see fit. If the community doesn't like that I split it I would support their decission and have no problem against it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I also did as requested per Wikipedia:Splitting and added {{splitfrom}} to the main article's page. I learned from my mistakes and will in the future add the required templates and edit summaries when splitting articles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Resolved ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: The methodology is the correct way to split an article. History cann be restored/duplicated by an import which is something any admin can do. Article was created last week and normally (unless there is a pressing reason) we give articles a week or a month to develop. I do not see a serious attempt to resolve the issue without jumping to AFD. I am unsure what this nomination is trying to achieve. -- Cat chi? 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This article is fine under [WP:N]. It's a very useful and organized article. It also does a good job of citing its sources. Smallman12q (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, and then consider whether the split is justified on the appropriate talk p. If it was done wrong, do it over right. It is not appropriate to delete articles because of technical errors that are fixable. DGG (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I also did {{splitfrom}} so it's done right and linked the split article in the original articles history. Which ensures that GFDL is applied. I also think that admins can import histories to other articles which ensures the right attribution. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep and trout slap all concerned. The parent list is getting large so splitting off featured films or some other content is understandable but it's better to discuss what makes the most sense and possibly draft what the new article would look like to avoid trauma and drama. Sort it out, we want the content. -- Banjeboi 03:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I also am the biggest contributor to the original page: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep..it seems the editors have collaborated and resolved the deletion controversy. Well done.--Buster7 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. The problem with this article, as I see it, is that it is long and only going to get much longer. Pixar has been coming out with a feature film every year recently, and each of their features tends to win or be nominated for a lot of awards. If the awards were listed only in the article about the particular film, there wouldn't be a problem, but since Pixar could conceivably continue to release movies forever, this article's length could expand indefinitely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep A perfectly justifiable fork that improves readability of both articles. Any GFDL history issues can be addressed retrospectively. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Delete /Merge. Since the large bulk of Pixar's awards listed in List of Pixar awards and nominations are for feature films, this fork is totally counterproductive. Any information missing from the main article should be incorporated there (note that that article requires some improvement--the list "by award" is incomplete). Bongomatic 06:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- This isn't supposed to be a fork. The List of Pixar awards and nominations was too long. I therefore wanted to split the list into List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) and List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films) and keep List of Pixar awards and nominations for the last section which is by award. The section feature films was deleted before with the edit summary:"split content to List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films)". Now it's back again. If the AFD results in keep I will delete the feature section and add a short summary with a main article link. I hope this AFD results in keep, because I worked a lot on the List_of_Pixar_awards_and_nominations_(feature_films) and this work shouldn't go for nothing. A delete is actually counterproductive and not the right way to do this. I added many references which were missing in the split list and added short summaries for each film. There is also an intro that wasn't there in the original list. Deleting this list is actually, in my opinion, illegal because it is referenced in contrast to the other page. It also isn't a fork because it concerns only the feature films in contrast to the other list which is general about Pixar. When a page becomes too long it should be split and a short summary with a main link should be there (I will do the summary and link if this Afd results in keep). That's the rule of Wikipedia which I followed. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The effort is prodigious, and the article looks good. However, it's hard (for me, anyway) to imagine anyone wanting to look at the information split by short / feature. Why not by award type? Why not by year? Won versus nominated? To me, this sort of information is much better suited to a database that allows one to slice the information in different ways (something WP is ill-suited to). Bongomatic 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Win/Nominated; Year descending/ascending; are all sorting problems which isn't the concern of the Afd. What I suggested with the splitting was to reduce the size of the then long List of Pixar awards and nominations. Shorts and features are completely different as you know. Merging them together wouldn't be right as usually they aren't comparable and don't have the same awards. You can compare Ratatouille with Cars on the awards nominated and won but not Burn-e and Toy Story. One list about the shorts, the other about the features. I don't get why there is such a big dilemma about this (generaly speaking).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The effort is prodigious, and the article looks good. However, it's hard (for me, anyway) to imagine anyone wanting to look at the information split by short / feature. Why not by award type? Why not by year? Won versus nominated? To me, this sort of information is much better suited to a database that allows one to slice the information in different ways (something WP is ill-suited to). Bongomatic 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep notwithstanding the process, per DGG. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep jeez. I would poop a brick if all of this content got DELETED! At the least, bare minimum, this should be USERFIED. If the organization of this article/its companion articles sucks, they should be reorganized. If this should be moved, move it. Discuss this on the talk pages and make it workable! But, lord, don't delete. Do you really want the brick thing to happen? Really? SMSpivey (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
The Lazys[edit]
- The Lazys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails to establish notability and entirely sourced from self made band pages and a blog Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per WP:BAND, due to the joint national tour of Australia. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note that the criteria state: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." — there is zero coverage from a reliable source. The article is based on references from primary sources (e.g. myspace/mp3.au etc)/. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Fixed. Spinach Monster (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The site you referenced is merely a directory of local bands, listing some 3000 artists/groups in the local area. It doesn't distinguish why the Lazys are notable and worthy of inclusion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Fixed. Spinach Monster (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note that the criteria state: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." — there is zero coverage from a reliable source. The article is based on references from primary sources (e.g. myspace/mp3.au etc)/. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per WP:BAND, due to the joint national tour of Australia. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'll go for a Keep too. They've achieved something, unlike a lot of the bands that try to get pages on here to get known without the hard work. Could do with outside references, though. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability. Current references are limited to MySpace and a passing mention in FasterLouder. Fails WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, non-notable WP:BAND. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - no indication of multisourced notability. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Indosiar. MBisanz talk 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
List of programs broadcast by Indosiar[edit]
- List of programs broadcast by Indosiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I think this is the last of the Indonesian TV spam, this is indiscrimate info and non-notable, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia) Benefix (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE, listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom SatuSuro 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge and redirect to Indosiar, as that article is short enough to include a list of programs. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. DHowell (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merging listcruft/spam doesn't get rid of it, in fact it makes it worse by polluting the article it is merged to. Clearly concensus has changed since the mass AFD, as we saw in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia) which was a clear delete and not merge. Benefix (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete or merge. I was under the impression that list articles are supposed to enumerate notable items, which is not the case with this. The notable subset of items would seem short enough to include in the Indosiar article. Bongomatic 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom _Annas_ (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Balder Olrik[edit]
- Balder Olrik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:CREATIVE. JaGatalk 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete nn per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. The claim that "The Incident" inspired The Blair Witch Project is completely unverifiable "the+incident"+"blair+witch+project"+"balder+olrik"&btnG=Search The claim he was the youngest to be accepted at the Royal Danish Academy Of Art relies on WP mirrors too (either that or it is an exact copyvio of material written by the subject themselves. "Balder+Olrik"+"Royal+Danish+Academy+Of+Art"+"youngest"&btnG=Search- Mgm|(talk) 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete hard as test or a vandalism edit, noting that valid entries on books and films occasionally look like this when posted. Tikiwont (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Ashley nero[edit]
- Ashley nero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete Wikipedia is not the place for your unpublished novel Mayalld (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - no source, no context. Plot summary? News item? Short story? Whatever it is, it's not an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- SPEEDY DELETE, its nothing but a badly restated version of plot of the film Die Hard, with a few names changed. Adding speedy tag to this nonsense. Why bother with AfD for trash like this? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per above. notability not asserted. No means of verification. No proper sources. -- Alexf(talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Per WP:COPYVIO MBisanz talk 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Asoka Bandarage[edit]
- Asoka Bandarage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find anything that allows her to surpass WP:PROF#Criteria or WP:CREATIVE. JaGatalk 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep a quick look-see indicates her books have seen significant reviews and her opinions are cited in news articles, and she's been asked to write in the Harvard International Review due to her expertise in her subject. [21]. Hobit (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete pure copyvio of [22]; when an article on a professor doesn't give the link to the official CV, it's usually worth look for it. But she has five reputable books, and is probably notable, so perhaps someone will want to re-create the article properly. DGG (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Princess Protection Program[edit]
- Princess Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Repeatedly recreated unreferenced article for non-notable future film. Speedy (repost) tag was removed without comment.SummerPhD (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
DeleteKeep The article is lacking reliable sourcesand is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFFbut with the info shown below seems to be a valid film.Paste Let’s have a chat. 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Comment It seems I messed up my nomination. My reason for the nom should have read: "Repeatedly recreated unreferenced article for non-notable future film. Speedy (repost) tag was removed without comment." - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Speedy deleteDelete: I don't see any justification for removing the speedy delete tag. It is a repost. There is something extremely funky about this thing. It doesn't quite seem to be a hoax, but when I look in all the places that I would expect to find announcements of a Disney Channel Original Movie, I'm not finding this one.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Found one decent source for the plot and existence of the movie at http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/display/display_item.aspx?item=ph/htm/112568_433.htm .—Kww(talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No we don't. There are several other criteria that indicate notability of a movie. One of them (Significant involvement of a notable individual applies. The top three cast members are notable in their own right and that's just by a cursory glance.) - Mgm|(talk) 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Actually, I think we do. I struck out speedy delete, but I didn't write in keep, because I'm conflicted. This film barely seems to exist, despite starring some of the most recognizable Disney creations. Everything in Wikipedia:Notability (films) is stated to apply only if backed by books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism, and specifically excluding the kind of source I found, which fall under media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. Where is a truly independent and reliable source to push this thing past WP:N? Someone needs to find at at least one.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sorry about your conflicts, but I can sympathyze. WP:NF gets a lot of grief. What the section requires is that their be a reasonable presumption that sources exists... not that you actually have to present them. Now certainly its a quibble... and one that gets kicked around quite a bit... but considering that principle filming HAS finished and it has been announced that it WILL air on June 19 2009, it is a safe presumption that in the following few days, weeks, and months that Disney will be hyping the hell out of their new tween idols. I do not have to have the articles in my hand to KNOW its gonna happen... and that's the happy part about presumption. However, and all that aside, the article has indeed been expanded and sourced.. at least to sites catering to Disney fluff. You can put your money that there will indeed be more... lots more... as Disney gets the hypr train rolling. And currently I am checking article about these tweeners. Safe presumption. Safe bet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- My final analysis is that this thing is not currently notable. There's no reliable press about it at all. The closest to an independent reliable source that anyone found was in the New York Times, but that was simply a program listing, and that fails WP:NF as a source of notability.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Princess Protection Program is in fact a real Disney Channel Original Movie. The article itself could use some cleanup, but if it's sources you are looking for, try these:
- 1.The IMDB Page for Princess Protection Program
- 2.The Kid's TV Movies on About.com Page for Princess Protection Program
- 3.The Disney Channel Media Net page for the movie
If these aren't enough, I can come up with more. That's not a problem because the movie EXISTS!Cssiitcic (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment We have other pages on upcoming movies, why delete this one?Cssiitcic (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment If articles for other upcoming Disney movies were kept (such as Dadnapped) then this one should be kept, too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen8463 (talk • contribs) 12:25, January 28, 2009(UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep and tag for cleanup and expansion. While the current article is poorly sourced (no offense to the author), a cursory search seems to indicate that there is enough out there to easuily meet the guideline of WP:NFF. This means that deletion should be taken off the table. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- And yes... if the article is still here in 5 hours when I get off of work, I'll fix it myself. I think it cam be a worthy inclusion to Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- And there is Google News that would seem to indicate that things have gotten beter toward meeting WP:NFF since the first AfD's, not worse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Watch those Google News results ... not a one from a reliable source. That's what I was commenting on above ... 90 days before release, with two of their major stars in it, and I would expect their PR machine to be in full motion. It's not. I fully expected when I saw this pop up on my watchlist again that I would find decent sourcing for it, and there doesn't seem to be much available on it. Something's funky.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per Michael. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep — see first two gNews hits at [23]. Looks like it finally has enough verifiable speculation to not be crystalballery. MuZemike 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Well, I bumped edits with a few kind contributors, but the article has been nicely expanded and prpperly sourced with everyone's help. It's not the flashiest, but with filming having been competed and Disney airing it on June 19, you can just bet its gonna get all kinds of happy hype for their new tween idols. Its a another Disney Keeper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I went in and removed a lot of that ... blog-sourced info, and what looked to be a pirated copy of the trailer.—Kww(talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No problem. It has several of Disney's hottest pre-teen stars. When their publicity people begin the push, you'll be seeing this on billboards accross the country. Pity, as it is all a bit contrived and saccherine... but it will have coverage to burn. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. There is sufficient information to verify the existence of this movie. Given its cast, it is virtually certain to obtain uncontested notability soon after release (and the arguments that it already has such status—while weak—seem persuasive to many here. Given the high likelihood of recreation, seems pointless to delete it now. If by some chance it is never widely reviewed or fails to get any additional coverage, bring it back to AfD. Bongomatic 06:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Savage Love#Saddlebacking. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Saddlebacking[edit]
- Saddlebacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable neologism. Merge to Dan Savage or Savage Love. BJTalk 14:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Dan Savage has precedent for defining and setting new sexual terms, see Pegging (sexual practice) & Santorum (sexual neologism), and his regular advice column has been deemed notable enough to have its own entry as well. It is probable that relatively quickly the term Saddlebacking will itself have gained enough notability and independent references to validate an entry. --RedHillian | Talk 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Both Pegging & Santorum have articles, and that's the two neologisms he's coined so far. --RedHillian | Talk 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I agree. Santorum and Pegging are neologims coined by Dan Savage that have taken a context beyond him and do now require their own page. There is no reason to believe Saddlebacking will not do the same. When someone questions, "What is Saddlebacking?" the answer is not "Dan Savage." --70.91.82.131 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Both Pegging & Santorum have articles, and that's the two neologisms he's coined so far. --RedHillian | Talk 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Expand an article and stop browsing reddit, admin. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I vote to merge it into the Dan Savage article with a new section in that article which mentions neologisms as a tool for social awareness, and redirect both "saddlebacking" and "santorum" to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.38.107 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 January 2009
- Delete or merge to the article on Savage. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every term Savage coins. Referenced only to Savage. As for predictions that the term "will be come well known," WP:CRYSTAL is thataway. Edison (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Based on a false argument: it has been referenced in The Economist. Your opinion is worth more if you do some basic research first. Spotfixer (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Either Delete or Improve. You can't reference the notability of the other Savage neologs to bolster this one; they have decently long entries and a lot of non-Savage references already. Maybe Saddleback merits it now, but if so, it would need an article on the order of the other two terms. Otherwise, we're just violating WP:CRYSTAL, as Edison noted. Jcderr (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as-is if the term picks up traction, otherwise redirect and merge to Dan Savage. A redirecting to B can mean that B conceptually contains A, not just that A == B. GracenotesT § 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Agree with Gracenotes. This term was just coined and a little time will do it good. I'm going to try and expand the article a little bit anyway. Smackheid (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Smerge to Dan Savage. It's fairly likely, given Savage's track record, that the term will become independantly notable - but it isn't, yet. Until it does, a brief mention in Savage's article (after the section on "santorum") would probably be best. After there's something to say about it, and it's been picked up by the media, it can be spun out into a standalone article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep this as-is or expand to include more detail on the social context that gave rise to the neologism, which was actually chosen by a vote of Savage's readers due to a broader social concern (the unintended consequences of abstinence-based sex education) and a particular religious institution's stance on that issue (i.e., the Rev. Rick Warren's Saddleback Church). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.131.36 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep This is no less notable than Santorum (sexual neologism). As evidence that it's notable, it's been mentioned in The Economist. Spotfixer (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No less notable? That article has 30 citations. BJTalk 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's as notable, but not as old, so it's going to take more time to get more citations. That's precisely why we are not going to delete it now. Spotfixer (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So it's notable, but the citations don't exist yet... M'kay. BJTalk 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's notable, but there are only three citations so far. For an article that's one sentence long, I think that's a fair number. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- 2/3 of the citations are primary sources. I'm not doubting the article is verifiable but that's not the same thing as notable. BJTalk 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Your summary is outdated, as more references have been coming in. As for the idea that it's not notable, this has been refuted by The Economist. If a reliable source judges something to be notable, we are in no position to prefer our personal opinion over its professional conclusion. Finally, if you really doubt its notability, google "Saddlebacking anal" and watch the flood roll by. Spotfixer (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- 2/3 of the citations are primary sources. I'm not doubting the article is verifiable but that's not the same thing as notable. BJTalk 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's notable, but there are only three citations so far. For an article that's one sentence long, I think that's a fair number. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So it's notable, but the citations don't exist yet... M'kay. BJTalk 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's as notable, but not as old, so it's going to take more time to get more citations. That's precisely why we are not going to delete it now. Spotfixer (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No less notable? That article has 30 citations. BJTalk 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep Aardhart (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
While we're discussing whether to keep the article, two people are trying to orphan it by removing mentions from the two articles that definitely MUST reference it. Spotfixer (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I just reverted this while checking the links. BJTalk 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You did the right thing. The term is "saddlebacking", not "saddleback", so the latter should not redirect to the former. We may want to add a disambig to the top, though. Spotfixer (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ah, I see what you are referring to. I don't think those removals have much to do with the AfD, even if the article was merged I could see a case for keeping the text. I can also see a case for removing the text if the article is kept. BJTalk 04:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Well, once this article officially survives AfD, we can safely shorten the text in Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. Spotfixer (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ah, I see what you are referring to. I don't think those removals have much to do with the AfD, even if the article was merged I could see a case for keeping the text. I can also see a case for removing the text if the article is kept. BJTalk 04:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You did the right thing. The term is "saddlebacking", not "saddleback", so the latter should not redirect to the former. We may want to add a disambig to the top, though. Spotfixer (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - a term coined ONE WHOLE WEEK AGO is not appropriate subject matter. This is silly. The so-called external reference in the Economist doesn't even know what the word means because Savage hadn't decided on the definition yet. There's no way this should be an article. --B (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strongly worded, but where's the support? The fact that it was notable even before it had a fixed meaning is support for it being notable now that it's defined. For that matter, you didn't do your research: Savage exerted editorial control, but the meaning was chosen by an informal vote by his readers. This, once again, supports the notability. Spotfixer (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete or merge - Dan Savage, as good a writer as he is, is not sufficient in and of himself to justify adding this as an article to Wikipedia. Delete it, or merge it back to the Dan Savage article until such a time as the term gains widespread usage, and such usage is reported in and discussed by multiple, extensive, reliable sources. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong consideration of keep if the Economist has an article. The Economist is the world's most prestigious newsmagazine, even more than Time and Newsweek. We should re-write the article to the Economist slant, not the religious slant.Ipromise (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Not every slur that Mr. Savage invents is notable. - Schrandit (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete The single independent reference doesn't even know the definition of the term. If it becomes ubiquitous after several months, it might merit a page.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, elaborate that Savage conducted a contest for the purpose of embarrassing Warren, and add textual explanation of links to Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. JamesMLane t c 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Merge and redirect. To Santorum (sexual neologism)Keep with time this may be as notable as the Santorum neologism and that article is a good example of what this one would need to be. If the notability reaches the same threashold then add notability content and sourcing. It may just be too new for now. Here are the RS's I could find:- Saddlebacking Defined: Vote Now!: Readers decide on crucial sex term by Dan Savage
- Betrayed by Obama: Some of the new president’s most ardent supporters already feel let down Jan 22nd 2009.
- Saddlebacking!. -- Banjeboi 11:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I changed my !vote due to the excellent rewriting and sourcing. The article was all of two sentences last time i had checked and is now a reasonable article. Remove the additional, rejected, definitions and explain better Savage's past success and our readers will understand more why we have this. -- Banjeboi 17:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Delete Non-notable political attack neologism. Offensive (would be deleted if it were a Template etc.). WP is not a repository for slurs. A neologism chosen "for the purpose of embarassing" someone would not be a rational entry in any encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A neologism chosen for the purpose of embarrassing someone is no more or less appropriate for an encyclopedia than a neologism chosen for the purpose of extolling someone. A deletion argument revolving around the idea that the subject matter of an article is offensive isn't that useful. Notability, though, is a useful consideration. GracenotesT § 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. When it's gained as much traction as "Santorum" then it can have its own article. Mike R (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge or Delete until strong evidence of notability can be found. Powers T 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep If enough wish, I would like to see its soulmate sites listed in external links. (
http://truelovewaits.com/ http://silverringthing.com/ www.purityrings.com www.abstinenceproducts.com technicalvirgin.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakshak (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Savage's reputation for creating neologisms and Internet terms is enough to warrant an article. Gary Seven (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete or Merge This article can easily be recreated if the term becomes notable. See also: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:INN. -Neitherday (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
A google search reveals usage is rapidly picking up. Keep it, as is with appropriate additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnr2 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete for best or Merge for second-best. About as notable as the drivel we get from college students who invent drinking games. Smells to me of either self-promotion or promotion by an underling. Is the practice this purports to describe really prevalent, and does it need a word to describe it? Is this fellow a Shakespeare to be creating lasting new wordings, or his he just good at PR? Peridon (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, I heard about it at least 10 years ago. It is also thought by some people to be important information to pass on(site active since at least 2002), though others tend to disagree[24]. Butt seriously, the medical profession says it sees too many anal problems and STDs in these kids and they need to be more careful[25][26][27][28]. As far as the existance of a need for a word to describe it, that's not for us to debate... we only report. NJGW (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- comment already getting votes for "keep" from single-contribution accounts. Collect (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak delete - I personally think it likely that it'll become notable, and we can re-create it then. In the meantime, we should delete it. Pseudomonas(talk) 00:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge and redirect to Virginity pledge for now. Let me explain my thought process. So, perhaps we have decided that the term is, as of right now, not supported by enough independent, third party sources for its own article. However, there are plenty enough sources to qualify it for a mention, with due weight, in this article. Fundamentally, the term will be dealing with this subject when it does become notable. More so than it will deal with Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. They relate to its origins while the construct of a virginity pledge is what it deals with functionally. Mention of this has been removed from Rick Warren, and may be fully stricken from Saddleback Church as well, because the term doesn't deal directly with the person/org. Well, virginity pledges are what it deals with directly. Eventually, it will become its own article, but for now, a notable event shouldn't be whitewashed away from every article. SMSpivey (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Oh yea, merge it with Dan Savage and Savage Love as well. Duh! SMSpivey (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'd just like to point out that Spotfixer is wrong. The proper name of the article is Saddleback (sexual neoligism), so of course it must be added to the disambiguation page when it becomes notable, which it will. Keep lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.150.54 (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Actually, I don't think we need the addition of the text in parentheses here only because we don't need to disambiguate it from a person's name. If it were called warrening, however... but it's not. Spotfixer (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge information on the practise to Virginity pledge or Abstinence-only sex education#Criticism and information on the term to Dan Savage or Savage Love. The practise has been documented enough for to be included in the correct context but I do not think this particular neologism has received the kind of coverage that warrants an article on the term or to be the title of a separate article on the practise. Guest9999 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The term is a specific reference to Rick Warren's church. It has little to do with the virginity pledge, and only slightly more to do with abstinence-only sex education. It is fundamentally about religious views that lead to an emphasis on technical virginity. Because it needs to be well-cited and linked to from at least two other primary articles, it cannot be successfully merged in with anything else. Spotfixer (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'd like to add that the hardest thing about getting more reliable sources isn't a deadly silence, but a flood of references. As Digg shows, the term is already popular, and it's in many, many blogs. Of course, with a few exceptions for the ones written by already notable people, we can't use blogs. We already have a solid primary source, from the article in The Stranger, but that's syndicated and is now popping up all over the place in newspapers that are reliable sources. The term is, in other words, both notable and new, which is a hard combination to document. This is precisely why we need to give it a safe home here, where it can grow references over time: we know for a fact that any mention of it in Rick Warren or Saddleback Church gets viciously attacked by those who want to censor Wikipedia, until the articles are Protected. Spotfixer (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Picking up an earlier thread, the mention on Pharyngula is notable because it's not a typical blog; it's the top-ranking blog written by a scientist, who is himself notable enough for a non-stub article. For that matter, the blog is also notable. Unlike some random person's soapboxing on LiveJournal, this is a reliable source and evidence of notability. Spotfixer (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge and Redirect into Savage_Love#Saddlebacking. A single incomplete reference in the Economist is insufficient for the term to get its own page. The editors who believe the term will become notable enough to get its own page, as santorum did, are probably right, but notability must be determined retrospectively rather than prospectively. Wait a year and someone will surely try creating the article again, and by then the term's use may have burgeoned.--Atemperman (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Neither pegging nor santorum required a year, and neither does saddlebacking. Spotfixer (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Fine, wait six months then, or however long it takes for saddlebacking to achieve the currency that santorum did. Santorum (disambiguation) was created to point to the sexual term on 21 November 2003[29], half a year after Savage announced the neologism in his column[30]. Consensus on Wikipedia to have a separate page for the term took over three years[31]. Saddlebacking has only been out there for three days--we can be patient.Atemperman (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Unfortunately, you're only proving my point. Those who are offended by these words clearly fight hard to censor them, and while they tend to lose in the long term, they succeed by artificially dragging out the approval process. They're filibustering what they cannot defeat. Spotfixer (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm not quite sure who you are referring to but I'm not offended by the term in the slightest. Wikipedia is not a news source, an (urban) dictionary nor the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It was defined less than a week ago, has only been used by few remotely notable sources and hasn't had any impact or generated any responses. BJTalk 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Like santorum, but unlike pegging, saddlebacking is named in honor of a person, albeit indirectly in the latter case. Those who support these people and their beliefs -- chiefly political and religious conservatives -- have shown a strong resistance to allowing the terms to be mentioned, regardless of verifiability, notability, or any other reasonable basis. It would be dishonest to pretend that there is any shortage of correlation between supporting the two Ricks and opposing the terms that they believe are slurs against them. This is the filibustering I spoke of; a pointless delaying tactic.
- The fact is, saddlebacking was notable even before its definition was fixed. No crystal ball is needed; Google suffices to demonstrate that the term has caught on. Moreover, the controversy over it is notable even if the term wasn't. So, in the end, there is no real question of what will happen.
- Deleting this article won't make saddlebacking go away. It will live on in a section of Dan Savage or Savage Love, and will be referenced on Rick Warren and Saddleback Church, even though it might take an RfC to get past the blatant POV-mongering and stonewalling. However, so long as the term doesn't have a page of its own, it will be harder to accumulate references and flesh out the surrounding issues, so it will harm Wikipedia. Spotfixer (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm not quite sure who you are referring to but I'm not offended by the term in the slightest. Wikipedia is not a news source, an (urban) dictionary nor the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It was defined less than a week ago, has only been used by few remotely notable sources and hasn't had any impact or generated any responses. BJTalk 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Unfortunately, you're only proving my point. Those who are offended by these words clearly fight hard to censor them, and while they tend to lose in the long term, they succeed by artificially dragging out the approval process. They're filibustering what they cannot defeat. Spotfixer (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Fine, wait six months then, or however long it takes for saddlebacking to achieve the currency that santorum did. Santorum (disambiguation) was created to point to the sexual term on 21 November 2003[29], half a year after Savage announced the neologism in his column[30]. Consensus on Wikipedia to have a separate page for the term took over three years[31]. Saddlebacking has only been out there for three days--we can be patient.Atemperman (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Neither pegging nor santorum required a year, and neither does saddlebacking. Spotfixer (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Many of the earlier responses here were to the original article stub. As a stub, lacking both text and references, it reinforced the idea that saddlebacking was still too new. I would suggest that anyone who thought this might want to take a look at its present state. Currently, it is a short, but heavily-referenced and informative page. Some may wish to reconsider their "vote" in light of this. Spotfixer (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Classic example of WP:NEO, "wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate." --J.Mundo (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- By that logic, we should delete pegging and santorum (sexual slang), so that logic must be wrong. Where does it go wrong? That's easy: WP:NEO is to prevent non-notable people from coining non-notable terms. Saddlebacking was notable even before it had a definition! And that's not my opinion, it's The Economist's. I'm sorry, but it's a better judge of reliable sources than you are. Spotfixer (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge & Redir to Savage Love per above; independent article is obvious CRYSTAL problem, but it's a viable search term and has garnered at least basic "it exists" mention. Townlake (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Crystal balls are only needed for the future, not the past. This term is already notable. Spotfixer (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- It is not notable. From WP:N:
- it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability..
- and
- 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.
- and
- 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail.
- The term "Saddlebacking" has only received very brief mentions buried within a handful of articles. This is the case with the Economist article. Only one sentence in the entire article mentions the term. The subject of the paragraph the sentence it is found in is the larger controversy of having Rick Warren at the inauguration. It is the only paragraph that mentions the Rick Warren controversy. The subject of the article is left-wing disillusionment with Obama on a number of political issues. The Economist article is not about "saddlebacking", does not give "saddlebacking" significant coverage, and does little, if anything, to establish long-term notability of the usage. -Neitherday (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- It is not notable. From WP:N:
- Crystal balls are only needed for the future, not the past. This term is already notable. Spotfixer (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Why not wait? If this term takes and becomes used, then keep the page. If it disappears into complete obscurity, delete it. Either way, we won't know for a few months, so it seems appropriate to defer the decision until this information is available. 82.34.94.95 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- This is not an unreasonable position but in the mean time several wikipedia guidelines (WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia:INN, Wikipedia:NEO and Wikipedia:N have all been brought up) call for its deletion and then a reintroduction if it does meet the criteria for inclusion in the future. - Schrandit (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:Neo and Wikipedia:N does not apply here, there are multiple reliable sources directly about this neologism. Wikipedia:INN is an essay which also doesn't seem to have a bearing here and WP:CRYSTAL also seems misplaced as no one has added content in the article, that I'm aware, that makes any claims not already supported by sourcing. -- Banjeboi 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The first four sources in the article are two Savage columns where he mentions the term, a link to Urban Dictionary, and a blog entry. One of the Savage columns includes this encouragement of his readers to go forth and spam: "I've set up a website—www.saddlebacking.com—to popularize the new definition. (Get to work, Google bombers!) Now let's get this term into common usage as quickly as possible." (Coincidentally, guess what reference #4 looks like? It's nothing but a link to the saddlebacking site.) Let's be realistic: this article is just a premature advancement of the effort to push this neologism into common use. Townlake (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Clarification: I am of course fully aware many editors are currently making good-faith efforts to improve the article, and I don't mean to disparage that. I should have chosen my words above more carefully. I'll keep an eye on these efforts throughout the remainder of this AFD, and I do applaud the continuing improvement of the article. Townlake (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:Neo and Wikipedia:N does not apply here, there are multiple reliable sources directly about this neologism. Wikipedia:INN is an essay which also doesn't seem to have a bearing here and WP:CRYSTAL also seems misplaced as no one has added content in the article, that I'm aware, that makes any claims not already supported by sourcing. -- Banjeboi 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge or redirect until such a time as it develops a santorum like life of it's own. Artw (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. addition of sources, plethora of "keep" and "keep or merge" therefore Keep (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Borjomi wildfire[edit]
- Borjomi wildfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Frankly speaking, Wikipedia is not a news wire. The article has been totally unreferenced since August 2008 - it previously had 3 sources, 2 of which don't exist, and the remaining source does not verify a single thing within the article as it stands now. Being WP:BOLD, I used the single source that was available on the article and placed the information in Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park. This got me a "don't destroy the article" comment, in addition the reversing editor has the WP:BURDEN of sourcing this info. This is in essence a WP:FORK of an article of a piece of WP:NOT#NEWS which can be covered more than suitably within the article for Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park, it's not notable enough for its own article. Russavia Dialogue 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. One of the largest wildfires in Georgia's history destroyed 1/2 of one of the largest Eastern European national parks. The event has been extensively reported by the international media and the sources are indeed abundant.
- Russia blamed for forest fires. BBC
- Georgian forest burns: Russia blamed. Reuters
- Fires Threaten Georgia's Natural Resources Conservation International
- Georgians Blame Russia for Fires in Beloved Preserve. Washington Post
- Burnt Georgian forest shows costs of Russia war. ABC News
- Georgian bushfires still burning. Herald Sun
- Turkey sends two aircrafts for extinguishing fire in Borjomi forests APA.az
- Letter to Russian Minister of Natural Resources 19 August 2008. PAN Parks
- The fire has also been mentioned in Moscow Times, [32], Guardian, Times, President of Georgia's address to the UN
- The satellite images of the fire has been released by the United Nations here. --KoberTalk 14:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge into Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park. The fire was a noteworthy event which should be covered; it simply does not deserve to be covered in a separate article. The fire was a part of the park's history, and the article about the park is where it belongs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:20, January 28, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I did not quite get your point. If the fire was, as you said, a noteworthy event which should be covered, then it obviously deserves its own article. Otherwise, we will have to merge all "Fire" entries into the articles about their respective locations.--KoberTalk 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge Wikipedia is not a news archive, per WP:NOT#NEWS. Also, these two articles are confusing. The one on the park says "The total area of the park is 5, 3 thousand square kilometers"(sic) so I can't tell how much of it the fire affected. The reference cited from Conservation International, dated August 27 says "fires inside the national park were relatively small and have been contained" and that "the damage in and around the park was limited to about 10 hectares" but that 300 hectare (741 acres) had been damaged outside the park. This is not a lot of land, compared to other wildfires which have been in the news, such as List of wildfires. I cannot see how this wildfire would make it onto the list of notable wildfires. The smallest fires there are still well over 1000 acres and are there only because of large loss of life. Even the larger 950 hectare (2300 acre) claim by the government of Georgia would not make the list of notable wildfires, unless there were special factors such as loss of life. The fire's only claim to fame comes from accusations that it was deliberately set via Russian helicopters, or that somehow this forest is more important than other forests/parks in the world. Edison (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This article is about an important, notable and well sourced event. This is a good sub-article for the "Park" or the "War" articles. Note that nominating article for deletion is not the way to debate merging. Therefore all "merge" votes should be counted essentially as "keep".Biophys (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I disagree with the interpretation that a "Merge" argument somehow really means, "No, don't merge it, leave it as is." If that odd view is correct, then my !vote would have to be "Delete" rather than "Merge." This was a really minor wildfire, orders of magnitude smaller than most on the list of important wildfires. Many AFDs end with the subject article being merged, often by nothing more than a redirect, if the important content is already in the target article. Edison (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep or merge. "Wikipedia is not a newswire" is supposed to be a phrase that stops unencyclopedic material from being entered into WP. One off non-notable events like a random burglary or minor contests for example. A massive wildfire in a national park has a lasting effect on nature in that area and it should clearly be covered. I'm not entirely sure where. Having it in the article about the park avoids inconsistencies between the two articles and puts both in context but having a separate article allows for proper categorization and it seems both articles could be reasonably well-sized. Either way, I can't see a valid reason for deletion. Disasters like wildfires, hurricanes and eartquakes are not minor news events, they have lasting effects and are thus notable. - Mgm|(talk) 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge into Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park. Otherwise this article will remain a permastub. Information about the fires would fit into the article about the park quite nicely as a subsection in the section about environmental concerns. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Agree with evryword of User:Biophys. A largest wildfires in Georgia's history destroyed by the actions of Russia. Very important article. Geagea (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment and request There appears to be original research in the article, refer to Talk:Borjomi_wildfire, of course it appears to be totally POV OR. Additionally, to get the scale of this ecocide, the article lead states: "completely destroying a large part of the Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park". Later in the article, according to Georgia, "An area of 250 hectares was totally destroyed". According to the official website of the national park, [33], the park is 76,000 hectares in size. Now to do the math. (250 ÷ 76,000) × 100 = 0.33. This means that a total of 0.38% of the forest was lost thru this "wildfire". Rather than completely destroying a large part, it would appear to me that the fire completely destroyed an "extremely small" part of the forest. I would request for someone not connected to Eastern European topics to go thru this article as it stands now, to ensure that everything is verifiable and isn't using peacock and weasal terms such as I have pointed out, because I am afraid I am unable to editing in an NPOV fashion by some. --Russavia Dialogue 11:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. I have replaced the weasel-worded "completely destroying a large part" with "destroying 250 hectares (620 acres)". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Firebombing this beautiful valley was a watershed event in the war, and a major media event -- for one side, a sign of brutality by the other; for other, supposedly a sign of deception by the first. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. There are more than enough sources to show that the subject is notable, and, due to the disagreements about the causes of the fire, this is notable outside the context of the national park itself. Merging this to Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park would appear to be reflect one point of view, as would merging it to 2008 South Ossetia war, which would relect another. Of course this should be edited for NPOV - I have made a small start. The best chance for getting a neutral presentation of the facts is to keep this as a separate article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge into Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park as per Ëzhiki. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, if sourced I don't see why this article about an important event during this war should be deleted. We have other articles about bombings and fires. Närking (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep The serious damage to a national park is notable, and the manner in which it occured only increases this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It means that any notable disaster should be presented at wikipedia not only few days after it has occured. As for merging with national park or war pages, I think it is not appropriate: nobody object against Kursha-2 or something else. Disaster itself is notable. Also, as on August 2008 links weren't broken. Also, note, that the proposer after placing the redirect to national park hasn't added any information about the fire to the national park page just after merging, so I have resored the content.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If not a copyvio, then the consensus that there is a lack of commentary. MBisanz talk 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Midsomer Murders filming locations[edit]
- Midsomer Murders filming locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A rather pointless list that lacks substantial detail to be useful. Poorly referenced. The JPStalk to me 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. I've added http://www.midsomermurders.net/ to the external links section of the main article. It's pointless to reproduce a list that is already covered elsewhere without signficant commentary. - Mgm|(talk) 13:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
WP:COPYVIO. Blank the article now, delete after due process.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Speedy delete (G12) as blatant copyright infringement. MuZemike 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's reproducing the information. There's not enough creativity in such a list to make it copyrightable. - Mgm|(talk) 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I agree that's an arguable case which is why I didn't blank the article or go for G12 myself. But I suggest we don't try to have that discussion here in AfD. The appropriate place to discuss that is here: [34].--S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- After further reflection about what's appropriate, I've blanked the article and listed it here: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_January_29#29_January_2009 --S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Discussion on the page I linked would indicate that Mgm is correct and this is not a copyright violation. I've unblanked the article accordingly, and I've learned something! -- My recommendation is still delete, for the same reasons that Mgm cites.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - if this is deletable then all the similar lists, including lists of episodes of tv series are also deletable.--Avala (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Other lists have much more content, are encyclopedic and discriminate. An episode list will tell us that a specific episode was the fourth episode in series 2, broadcast on a specific date. It might give us a summary. This, on the other hand, tells us that something in the show was shot somewhere at these places. Maidenhead, etc, are big places. Midsomer Murders has a lot of episodes. Useless. The JPStalk to me 09:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. There is no consensus about the propriety or target of a merge below. Discussion should continue on the appropriate Talk pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Nuclear briefcase[edit]
- Nuclear briefcase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fixing incomplete AfD. Original nomination below: Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Nominating for deletion as Nuclear briefcase is redundant and inferior to Nuclear Football and Cheget, I propose the article be deleted as it has no information independent of the aforementioned articles, and have "Nuclear briefcase" redirect to Nuclear Football --Pstanton (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge and redirect the references to Cheget. If a redirect to that article is not desirable, care should be taken to give credit to the original suppliers of the refs (and the article should redirect to Nuclear Football instead. What has this got to do with football? I'd be inclined to move the whole thing the other way around...- Mgm|(talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I believe "Nuclear Football" is the proper name (notice the capital 'F') of the briefcase carried around with the President of the United States - not because it has anything to do with football, just because that's the way it is. That should be verifiable in the refs of that article. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge to Cheget as per nom and mgm, and turn page into disambig. --Russavia Dialogue 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I have added pertinent info into Cheget. I would suggest simply now making it a disambig page. --Russavia Dialogue 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Lets give the AfD time to run it's course and User:Biophys (article author who objected to redirect in edit summaries) time to state his case. Waiting a few days won't hurt us and as far as I'm concerned this is the first day of this AfD since the page wasn't tagged until today. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- KeepThe U.S. "Nuclear football" article has several references, although it is full of speculation and original research. The problems can be corrected via editing and properly citing sources, and removing what is unsourced. This article seems fine as an overall coverage of the topic of the briefcase/satchel used to keep communication devices and menus of nuclear strike options near those world leaders who have nuclear strike capabilities. It mentions the U.S. and Russia, but I expect that Israel, UK, China, India, and Pakistan also have a military aide somewhere near their leaders or military commanders as well to allow military responses, including nuclear, with the immediacy required in the nuclear age, as well as authenticating orders for the use of the weapons. There are commonalities in nuclear command and control which make it useful to have an article rather than just a disambiguation page. Edison (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge and redirect The phrase turns up about 2,000 ghits (although, ironically, the first is to our own nuclear football article), suggesting that, rightly or wrongly, the term is at least notable. But, since we already have an article under the more correct term, merge this one with that. Anaxial (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep and then probably merge. Nominating article for deletion is not the way to debate merging.Biophys (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "rv - please suggest merging for debate or use AfD" (quote, Biophys). I interpret User:Pstantons comment as suggesting that there is no salvagable content or no new content in the source article. In any case use of AfD to determine whether a fork is meaningful or not is certainly not a new thing. It's an effective way of pulling alot of previously unaware attention to an article and certainly more effecticient than WP:RFC or CAT:MERGE att attracting comments. Whether it's right or wrong I leave to religion. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Reply. What religion? "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD", tells official policy. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers instead.Biophys (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Looking through the sources available from Google Books and Google News it seems that this term is used about equally to refer either to the American and Russian briefcase, with a few exceptions, for example: this discusses both the American and Russian; this seems to be about nuclear briefcases in general; this mentions the Israeli one; and this the British. In this situation we can best serve our readers by making this an article about the concept in general and linking to the particular cases (in two senses of the word) that have their own articles. Redirecting to either the American or Russian article wouldn't make sense as this term is not specific to one or the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. There is clear consensus below, both before and after the relisting, that this is an inappropriate POV-fork. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments[edit]
Administrator note Reopened debate per request by User:Abd at my talk page. — Aitias // discussion 13:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet another POV fork from Pcarbonn's attempts to boost cold fusion. Most of the rest were cleaned up some time ago, obviously this one got missed. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion for the gory details. This gives undue weight to one aspect of a subject that is covered more neutrally by the day at cold fusion. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Clearly a content fork. No material worth merging into cold fusion article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete POV fork. Verbal chat 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Fails WP:NPOV, redundant and biased version of cold fusion--Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete POV fork. Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete POV fork. kilbad (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep or Merge This is not a POV fork and Pcarbonn, while he created the page, was not the principal contributor. There has been a continual problem with Cold fusion that reliably sourced detail has been excluded from the article because of alleged undue weight. Creating more specific articles brought back in summary style is the classic and suggested solution. The editors of Cold fusion were not notified of the AfD. I'll fix that. --Abd (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Changed to add Merge option which allows editorial consensus at Cold fusion to decide as appropriate for the needs of that article. Status quo would be Merge if claims here that the topic is fully covered in the article are true, but this leaves the material available in History for possible future use. --Abd (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Entirely a POV fork, and the material can easily be incorporated into cold fusion. This was created by an Arbcom-banned editor while the main article was locked due to edit warring, and further edited by a COI editor describing his own work. There are few reliable sources that cover the topic; and no secondary ones that I'm aware of except for a brief mention in a biased book by a CF advocate. If the article is going to be more than a couple of paragraphs long, it's always going to consist of a lot of primary papers on both sides of the debate combined with a healthy degree of OR and synthesis. There's absolutely no reason why the points can't be covered in cold fusion. You could make the same (probably stronger) arguments in favor of nuclear detections in cold fusion experiments or experimental error in cold fusion experiments. As for Abd's comment, There has been a continual problem with Cold fusion that reliably sourced detail has been excluded from the article because of alleged undue weight., this is best handled in the CF article, at the RS noticeboard, or via dispute resolution, not by creating a separate article where we hold the sources to far lower standards than we do on the main article. Besides, the verifiable material and related references in this fork are largely covered in Cold_fusion#Non-nuclear_explanations_for_excess_heat...despite Abd's claims of "exclusion" of this material, no one has attempted to add more information to this section since it was created a month ago, so exclusion is totally unproven. In addition, the topic itself is not notable as something covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. It's barely notable by its coverage by primary sources. The two redlinks above are more notable. Phil153 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Pcarbonn was topic banned, much later, and he wasn't the main contributor to the article. Yes, the COI editor (a critic of cold fusion calorimetry) was a major contributor; nevertheless, this doesn't appear to have been controversial. However, PHil153 is correct: the decision should be made by editorial consensus at Cold fusion. Not by AfD. As an editorial decision, it can be implemented with ordinary, non-administrative process, by merger through redirection, as was done with Condensed matter nuclear science, or, in the other direction, by removal of the redirection, depending on current consensus. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete POVFORK trying to remove criticism from the article by moving it somewhere else. As Phil153 points out, there are no independient secondary sources covering this, only primary ones. The "reliably sourced" material mentioned by Abd is actually weakly sourced material that was being piled up in order to POV push the fringe view from supporters of cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If the Calorimetry article is imbalanced or improper, it should be fixed, and what is significant about the topic should be in the Cold fusion article, in summary style. The topic of asserted errors with calorimetry, and the responses of experimenters and reviewers, should be covered in more detail in the encyclopedia than is appropriate in the cold fusion article. If the calorimetry article is used to "remove criticism" that would, of course, be improper, and should be fixed, not by deleting the detailed article, but by bringing back a summary that presents what's needed for the cold fusion article without excess detail. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- But the problem is that it can't be fixed because, even taking WP:PARITY into account, you are still only left with a few primary sources and absolutely no secondary source at all. How are calibrations of calorimeters so tremendously important to CF if you can't find not one secondary source treating them? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If the Calorimetry article is imbalanced or improper, it should be fixed, and what is significant about the topic should be in the Cold fusion article, in summary style. The topic of asserted errors with calorimetry, and the responses of experimenters and reviewers, should be covered in more detail in the encyclopedia than is appropriate in the cold fusion article. If the calorimetry article is used to "remove criticism" that would, of course, be improper, and should be fixed, not by deleting the detailed article, but by bringing back a summary that presents what's needed for the cold fusion article without excess detail. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep No idea (and I don't much care) how it got here, but the calorimetry is a crucial aspect to the whole CF story. This article deserves to exist separately for the undue weight reason already cited. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. The calorimetry is indeed central to cold fusion, which is why this material belongs, if at all,in the article cold fusion. In its current form this reads poorly, giving grossly excessive weight to the speculative thinking of experimenters on the fringe of the field of calorimetry. I suspect that this article was spun off because the editor who created it knew that such imbalance would not be tolerated within the main article. The issues are discussed in the section "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat" of the Cold fusion article. Until and unless there is significant mainstream support for the field of cold fusion, this material is excessively detailed and likely to be prone to gross imbalances of treatment for the rest of its life on Wikipedia. --TS 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If it's important then it deserves to be here, and if the quality is poor then it needs to be improved. Poor quality is rarely a justification for deletion when it could be fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It can't be fixed, that's the whole point. There aren't enough reliable sources and it's a magnet for OR and synth. Have a read of the article - what exists is speculation by a few groups, claims of refutations, claims of re-refutations and further claims of re-re-refutations. It's a complete mess and can easily be covered by a section in the CF article, where it deserves and has a section. Calorimetry is just one aspect of cold fusion - we can write much longer and more reliably sourced articles about the other redlinks I included above. Do you support forks for those as well? If not, why this one? The bottom line is that the topic just isn't notable enough or covered in enough reliable secondary sources to write a separate article about. Since noone has written about the topic or the disagreement independently, the article is basically synthing he said, she said from primary papers between heavily involved researchers. Not really encyclopedic. Phil153 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - This is clearly an important aspect of the whole Cold Fusion validation/refutation debate and it deserves some amount of focused discussion. The calls of this being a POV fork are ridiculous. Calorimetry is not a POV. If the current version is biased then it should be fixed, but as a topic this is important. --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Can Wikipedia cover Cold Fusion at all?
- Wikipedia has standards that are different to, albeit rarely actually incompatible with, mainstream science. Wikipedia demands verifiability and secondary sourcing, Science values truth and often accepts an idea of "self-evident truth" that is anathema to Wikipedia. With CF, mainstream science has simply abandoned it and no longer cares about studying the problem. There's truth available (accurate calorimetry discredits CF), but little sourcing for this because no one wants to work on publishing more of it. The pro-CF camp are still working away at it though, so the only WP-compatible secondary sources out there are self-selecting to be pro-CF.
- So any article like this is naturally facing an uphill struggle because that's the emergent conclusion of the environment in which it's built. We can't change that much. It doesn't rule this article out, nor does it invalidate the need for this article. It does however make it particularly difficult to achieve a balanced summary from a skewed distribution of sources. I still favour keeping it, and don't let's be discouraged by the difficulty of bringing it to a state that's not a harmful bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete again. We have spent literally months trying to get the fringe POV-pushing scaled back, and now someone appears to be trying to undo all that good work. The topic of calorimetry in these experiments is not notable above and beyond the topic of calorimetry generallly, and the whole purpose of this article was always to act as an apologia for the failure of most scientists to duplicate the so-called "cold fusion" effect. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete The sources don't really support this, and it is covered better at Cold fusion. Throwawayhack (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete fringey POV fork. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete POV fork. --Noren (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Maybe I missed it, but I think that those claiming POV problems have not mentioned one single example of something in the article that they think needs to be fixed to achieve NPOV. As GoRight says, "Calorimetry is not a POV." The nomination statement says that this article gives undue weight to one aspect of a subject; but covering specific aspects of subjects is just what we're supposed to do per WP:SUMMARY
This article looks to me to be reasonably NPOV or probably fixable by editing a few specific sentences if anyone does point out any POV problems.
I would be very surprised if there weren't a significant amount of literature on the topic of calorimetry in cold fusion, since it's an important aspect of what has been a widely-publicized, controversial and intriguing topic. Here are secondary sources I'm finding from simple web searches; quotes are Google snippets:- [35] An assessment of claims of 'excess heat' in 'cold fusion' calorimetry Undead Science by Bart Simon, Rutgers University Press.
- "UK Experiments using three different calorimeter designs ..." Nature: [36] Published by Nature Publishing Group Item notes: v.342 1989 Nov-Dec p. 375
- " types of calorimeter, should all be making the same mistakes all the time. ..." The Economist [37] Published by The Economist Newspaper Ltd., 1989 Item notes: v.312 1989
- "excess heat Harwell put in a calorimeter which was controlled expressly to be ..." The Search for Free Energy: a scientific tale of jealousy, genius and electricity By Keith Tutt Edition: illustrated Published by Simon & Schuster, 2001 ISBN 0684866609, 9780684866604 p. 134)
- " the configuration and placement of the calorimeter heating element and failure ... Other efforts to establish the existence of cold fusion have centered ..." Greenhouse Mitigation [38]Greenhouse Mitigation: Presented at the 1989 Joint Power Generation Conference, Dallas, Texas, October 22-26, 1989 By Alex Edward Samuel Green, Joint Power Generation Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Fuels and Combustion Technologies Division. Fuels Processing and Alternative Fuels Subcommittee Contributor Alex Edward Samuel Green Published by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1989 Digitized Nov 26, 2007 ISBN 0791803791, 9780791803790
- This snippet suggests some notability of calorimetry within the science, as I would expect: "The Calorimeter Working Group of this workshop was formed in April..." [39]Physics Briefs: Physikalische Berichte By Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (1963- ), American Institute of Physics, Fachinformationszentrum Energie, Physik, Mathematik Published by Physik Verlag., 1991 Item notes: v.13 no.50827-59123
- "while others have used a Seebeck or related calorimeter..." [40] Heat Transfer in Advanced Energy Systems: Presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dallas, Texas, November 25-30, 1990 By American Society of Mechanical Engineers Winter Meeting, R. F. Boehm, Gary C. Vliet, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Heat Transfer Division Contributor Gary C. Vliet Edition: illustrated Published by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1990
- " Williams and his team used three different types of calorimeter,..." New Scientist [41] p. 18 Published by New Science Publications., 1989 Item notes: v.124 1989 Oct-Dec
- A skeptic website
- That's without even trying Google Scholar. This topic seems to have a lot more sources available than Mucoid plaque, which was recently kept at AfD.
In its current state, the article seems to be largely duplicating the topic of a section of the cold fusion article, and if that were all it were ever going to contain, it could perhaps be merged into that article if there's room to expand the section there (since I think it does have some interesting detail not present in the other article); but better would be to expand this article. I would like to see more information: what are the particular characteristics of the different calorimeters? What is a typical estimate of experimental error in the heat measurements, for each type of calorimeter, and how does it compare to the amount of excess heat reported? What are the sources of experimental error (for example, is some heat lost through the thermometer itself)? What are the calorimeters made of and what do they look like? What steps are taken to reduce experimental error? Let's keep and expand this article, and write some more articles on other specific aspects of the "cold fusion" phenomenon (or alleged phenomenon or "condensed matter nuclear science" or whatever such experiments are called these days). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]- The POV problems can be summarised as WP:WEIGHT. Various interpretations are attached to the calorimetry of a series of experiments, many of which have not proven replicable. There is already coverage in cold fusion where the measurements are covered in context, and this can be extended if needed. This article will almost inevitably misrepresent the significance of these isolated experiments to the field of calorimetry. --TS 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The links you cite aren't about the topic of the article, any more than they are about excess heat in cold fusion experiments. Much of what you've mentioned belongs in a general article on calorimetry or calorimeter accuracy, should Wikipedia choose to delve that deeply into a technical topic. The stuff that relates to cold fusion is perfectly well kept in the cold fusion article. Do you also support the following articles? nuclear detections in cold fusion experiments, experimental error in cold fusion experiments, reproducibility in cold fusion experiments, transmutation in cold fusion experiments, theoretical issues in cold fusion experiments, excess heat in cold fusion experiments? I ask because I'm not understanding your rationale for this particular article, when the other forks can be longer, better sourced, just as "interesting" and certainly as notable (with the exception of maybe transmutation). This is what JzG is talking about when he calls this a POV fork designed to give undue weight to one particular aspect of cold fusion where primary research and opinion rules and little verifiable has been written. Phil153 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, entirely redundant with cold fusion. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Water Beach Volleyball[edit]
- Water Beach Volleyball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This barely notable variation of volleyball really doesn't deserve its own page. I had redirected the page to Volleyball variations and added some pertinent information there, but the original author (AlexandGuy (talk · contribs), possibly the "Alex " listed as the leader in the sport's only competition) insists on keeping a separate page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. No evidence of notability, indeed not even evidence of its reality. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Not delete Maybe move to volleyball variations, But with a brief account of History,Laws of the game,Strategy and Domestic competitions,First match,elections and the federation. Also under the name Water beach volleyball (AlexandGuy (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- Comment Since the article is completely unsourced, any retention of the history, laws, etc, would be unverifiable. The rules of the game and the strategy do not vary from standard or aquatic volleyball sufficiently to deserve their own article. And there is no verifiable proof (Google searches fail utterly) to support the existence of any federation or league for this sport. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Comment As the sport is new, Why would there be any search results?The Federation was formed on January 1st 2009. OR Maybe move to volleyball variations, But with a brief account of History,Laws of the game,Strategy and Domestic competitions,First match,elections and the federation. Also under the name Water beach volleyballAlexandGuy (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Breakin' out the old-school deletion reasons here: this one is obvious vanity, and unsourced to boot. "There is currently 1 Competition being played at this moment in time. It is called the T/C League, and the Current leader is Alex" is telling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC+1)
- says Alex for those of you who can ACTUALLY read, aren't blind and understand plain English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandGuy (talk • contribs)
- Just have to say that the fact is there are other articles on wikipedia that don't deserve to be on here either. At the moment I cannot think of any as I am not such a massive nerd that I would go looking for any articles that do not deserve to be on here either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandGuy (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Per nom. Majorclanger (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
DCEETA[edit]
- DCEETA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm nominating this for its second AfD - the first saw the article deleted, and was upheld at deletion review. However, the article has since been recreated, and is different enough that I was reluctant to CSD G4 it. An attempt has been made to produce a sourced article, but by stringing together a series of loosely-connected assertions. When the sources and associated text are examined, it becomes clear that the article is almost wholly a product of WP:OR (and especially WP:SYNTH); I see no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for disseminating the truth - I'd like to recommend that this be deleted once more, and salted. EyeSerenetalk 12:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment This effort to maintain the content in userspace should probably go the same way when the AfD is closed. ALR (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- actually, that was a (draft) of the article, and the content is maintained elsewhere in cyberspace. For example, look at the copy of the Area 58 article here: [42] of course they stripped out the sources, but you can see the improvement in the DCEETA article. you may salt the earth of wikipedia, but the web will route around you Dogue (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: I agree completely with the nom, the recent attempts have proven why it shouldn't exist. Should also be protected from recreation. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete I've spent quite a lot of effort trying to encourage the originator to bring the article to a state where it can justify its existence. At present I don't believe that a single SGS is notable, the other material in the article is predominantly original research, trivia and padding. The excessive overquoting of tangential sources seeks to obfuscate the lack of substance to the article. ALR (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete and salt Agree with the nom. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Axe it I thought about afding this myself, but didn't want to be that guy, so I was waiting to see if the creator would do something with the article, and that hasn't happened. TomStar810 (Talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- abstain very well, i can see the fix is in. the fact remains that the article is supported by five independant, verifiable, published sources: the New York Times, inside defense, the The US Intelligence Community, News of cosmonautics, and Deep Black. this installation is just as notable as Menwith Hill, Pine Gap, or Buckley AFB. (repeating myself since the statements remain unrefuted). "I see no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources." - did you really examine the sources before mischaracterizing them, unlike ALR? (and repeating) suppressing this article is a losing battle gentlemen, do the ends justify the means? the day of reckoning will come for us all, i hope you have better arguments prepared, than your excuses given here. Dogue (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- TomStar, you would agree with ALR now, that it's not a hoax, so the reasoning behind the first deletion is false? i do wish the military cabal would follow the WP:DP. Dogue (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Dogue, you really should look at this: There is no cabal! -MBK004 23:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Area 58 read like a hoax article, and through research you have managed to turn a formally suspiciously hoax like article into a cut and past tabloid ransom note. All I am saying is that you absolutely have to clean the article up. Since you don't appear to want to do that, we are once again having an afd discussion because the article as it is now is still a far cry from being Wikipedia worthy. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- so now it's merely 'hoax like' that is the new fast delete. i take it, you have also revised your suggestion of going to peer review? i did improve the article from Area 58 to DCEETA, was it not to your satisfaction? what ransom? the ransom of public scrutiny? do you reserve the right to delete articles that do not meet your criteria? (repeating) I remain willing to revise with good faith editors, but deleting the verifiable New York Times is not a part of that. call it unauthoritative, but it printed what it printed 24 years ago; it outed this installation; it's in every reference library in the world, it is a fine reference for an article here. ALR suggestion mediation [44], here's what the mediator said:
This article is extremely controversial due to its relation to Area 51.Hereford 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Closing Statement: Douge's Article is very cited, but it is extremely poorly written. My Suggestions are: Get ride of location section (covered by the template in top right corner); Make the picture in the geography section smaller or get ride of it.; rewrite the rest to fit WP:MOS.--Hereford 00:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- ALR proceeded to delete all the pictures, and the other sections not listed above. Dogue (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Dogue, you really should look at this: There is no cabal! -MBK004 23:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- TomStar, you would agree with ALR now, that it's not a hoax, so the reasoning behind the first deletion is false? i do wish the military cabal would follow the WP:DP. Dogue (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Looked at the sources, they don't support verifiability and much of it seems to me to be synthesis. So that it doesn't become a breeding ground for conspiracy theories yet again, delete it, salt it, burn it to the ground for good measure. Skinny87 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Major military installations and the like should be kept, and there are enough sources to prove both the existence and the function. DGG (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We aren't debating the merits of this being a military installation, what we are debating is the fact that the article creator hasn't cleaned the article up like he was supposed to three or so months ago. If he'd done that, you and I and everyone else here wouldn't be having this conversation, but since absolutely no improvement whatsoever has occurred, and the article in its current form reads more like a tabloid-issued ransom note we are sadly left with exactly one option to compel improvement: list at afd. If you want to take on the challenging of cleaning up the article and demonstrating that it can in fact coexist here then by all means do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Two points, I'm unclear on what the reasoning is behind keeping military installations just because they're military installations, or what might be defined as major, particularly as this is a lodger unit within a military establishment that already has an article. It should be quite straightforward to note the existence of the site, and it's ownership, in a single paragraph of that article.
- If you think this is savable then you're welcome to try, I think there are perhaps a couple of paragraphs of substantive content that appropriately represent the sources (as it stands they're significantly misrepresented or used to support specious reasoning). In trying to get to that stage I've been the subject of repeated attacks on my integrity, opined upon by others on the talk page, and a general refusal to actually engage with the various concerns that I've raised.
- ALR (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Sources aren't sufficient to either meet WP:N or establish the claimed purpose of this facility per WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- why do you say that? I see the quotes from them, which say clearly this is a major installation of critical importance? What exactly do you want them to say more? DGG (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- To add to what Nick's said, there is no non-trivial coverage of this facility in the sources given to back up the article content and establish notability. The author has stitched together a passing mention here, another there, and some rather vague maybe's and allegedly's, and is trying to turn it into an article; the textbook definitions of OR and synthesis. If I'd seen one source that actually discussed the facility in any depth, this would not be at AfD. I do sympathise with the author's difficulties, as one of the quotes states: "defense officials do not discuss operations at the complex". Given the (apparently deliberate) lack of information, I think an article on this subject is not possible at the present time. EyeSerenetalk 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- To be fair to dogue, I've pushed quite hard on the use of qualifiers on the sources given that none of them can be authoritative on the nature or use of the site. Bamford and Richelson are both reasonably well informed, but are firmly external to the NRO so we have no assurance of how accurate they are. Similarly a russian language journal cannot be considered authoritative about the operations of an organisation that normally operates at TS codeword NOFORN.
- ALR (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- why do you say that? I see the quotes from them, which say clearly this is a major installation of critical importance? What exactly do you want them to say more? DGG (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Whatever amount of auxiliary information is deemed padding or OR, the core of the article, that this is a real and notable US government installation, has substantial support from several reliable sources, as may be clearer from looking at earlier versions with more extensive quotes. John Z (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The problem is the whole damn article is a quote - piece here, a paragraph there. I've seen first graders who have organized papers better than this, and in one of the consistently top three rated cities for lowest illiteracy in the United States that's saying a lot. I pose the same challenge to you that I do to DGG: if you think its notable then clean up the article and show the rest of us here that it can in fact look like something more than a tabloid-issued ransom note. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I see a lot of venting on my part, but I don't see any name calling coming from me. Perhaps a difference of definition as to what name calling is prevents me from seeing this if it does in fact exist here on the page. In any event though I will head of your suggestion and remember to remain civil the next time I reply here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- you make a good point that you tend to confine the trash talk to the quality of the article, or the source material, but this is not a reason for deletion: WP:DEL#REASON there are many stub articles, did you fast delete it without reading the sources? you seem to have an idée fixe, about the suitability of this material, why? Dogue (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Actually, I never axed the article per se, I merely nom'd the Area 58 article for deletion. I buy into the fact that the installation is notable, but the way in which the installation is presented is not in accordance with established policies or procedures. I would be willing to reconsider my stand if this article read less like a tabloid ransom note and more like one of our other military base articles, with less cutting and pasting directly from the source material and more in depth research and development from other sources. BTW, at an absolute minimum, the article will need to be renamed to stay here. Just something to consider. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- you make a good point that you tend to confine the trash talk to the quality of the article, or the source material, but this is not a reason for deletion: WP:DEL#REASON there are many stub articles, did you fast delete it without reading the sources? you seem to have an idée fixe, about the suitability of this material, why? Dogue (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Policy objections, sources fail WP:RS, facts fail WP:V, article is very POV failing WP:NPOV and conspiracy theories falls foul of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Not to mention the article relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN. We have those policies for a reason and the fact it keeps returning from the dead, please lets kill it once and for all. Justin talk 09:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Thomas Hardye School. MBisanz talk 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Thomas Hardye CCF[edit]
- Thomas Hardye CCF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An essay like article on the Thomas Hardye school CCF where the CCF in question is adequately covered in the main school article. It is unreferenced and uncatagorised. Paste Let’s have a chat. 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per, well, pick a policy. EyeSerenetalk 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to The Thomas Hardye School. It is already mentioned there and there is no additional sourced content to merge. TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I did exactly that and was called an 'idiot' by the author for doing it, the author then promptly undid the redirect as he was entitled to do, hence this AfD. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I saw that and the AfD is fine. If the AfD is closed as redirect then, if necessary, it can be protected. TerriersFan (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I did exactly that and was called an 'idiot' by the author for doing it, the author then promptly undid the redirect as he was entitled to do, hence this AfD. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - no need for discussion really Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Terry Boylan[edit]
- Terry Boylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Thought to be elected as MP to South Australian House of Assembly, further counting reveals failure to be elected Timeshift (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Not really a need for an AfD - I had been planning to speedy it as soon as the results are officially declared by the South Australian electoral commissioner tomorrow, and I don't think it would be terribly controversial to do so. The reason for waiting - his opponent is still not formally elected until the results are declared. (Read as delete
conditional upon the declaration being read.has now been read) Orderinchaos 11:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete for reasons given by others. Speedy would be OK too. Note the nominator is the article creator and only meaningful editor. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Certainly not a speedy deletion as CSD A7 is not applicable. A claim to significance is clearly made and multiple independent sources are provided to support it. A deletion close to this discussion is probably appropriate if and when the result is declared and a successful rescue campaign is not undertaken. AfD gives that process a chance; certainly several other unsuccessful candidate articles have been saved in the past. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment The formal request for recount has been denied, and the Liberals have said they will not take it to the Court of Disputed Returns, and have formally conceded. Timeshift (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Failed political candidate, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep when a candidate for a national election comes this close, there ought to be enough sources. There are, in fact, 3 of them in the article, even now. The rule on politicians does not say that the mere fact of losing an election supersedes the GNG for people. DGG (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Noting it was not a national election - it was for a seat in a state parliament. Orderinchaos 06:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - WP:POLITICIAN, for an article to be kept on an unelected political candidate, it requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". There is nothing noteable on Terry Boylan, aside from his candidacy. Timeshift (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - or to put it another way, he's a case of WP:ONEEVENT, with that event already covered at Frome by-election, 2009. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to Frome by-election, 2009, as he's only known for that one event. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[]
- Delete per WP:POLITICIAN; there are endless precedents for this. There's no gong for coming close or almost getting there. Frickeg (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
The 2Z-N correlations[edit]
- The 2Z-N correlations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unencyclopedic as a freestanding article. Article as it is right now has absolutely zero context. The issue is related to Ronen's number which was Afd'd per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen's number.
The underlying concept has been published, but perhaps a WP:COI issue despite publication.
Even if the concept was notable, this article makes no sense right now. Shadowjams (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom; no context to establish the importance of the subject. If such a concept is (verifiably) accepted by the wider scientific community, it belongs in a suitable parent article. EyeSerenetalk 13:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- delete a nonsense article as it stands. Abtract (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Useless. If someone can add some coherent substance to it, they better do it pretty darn quick, as there is nothing now. Wwheaton (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete due to lack of meaningful content. Anaxial (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Random DJs[edit]
- Random DJs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a music group that does not meet notability. The article is unsourced, and in searching for sources, only directory type entries can be found. Although not criteria for deletion, the article is also promotional in tone, and likely written by a member of the group, thus having a conflict of interest . Whpq (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom, due to the lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources and the apparent lack of notability of the subject - which, with no sources, can't be established. Doesn't seem to meet the bar for WP:MUSIC. EyeSerenetalk 13:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - no evidence of notability, no verifiability; a pretty clear case of WP:UPANDCOMING at its worst; plus blatant COI, judging by the tone and the messages on my talk page from the s.p.a.. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Feyenoord vs Lech 2008[edit]
- Feyenoord vs Lech 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No context for article, not in prose form. A single game is not notable itself. Nothing in the article indicates that this game is itself notable outside of being a game. Wikipedia is not merely a hold for sports stats. Shadowjams (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - while a single game certainly can be notable, there doesn't seem to be anything out-of-the-ordinary or otherwise noteworthy about this particular game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - this is not a notable game. – PeeJay 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This almosts looks like a copyvio from some game database. Still, without any prose there's no indication why this particular game should be included. - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. A single football game of top level (this looks like an international tournament, Champions' league or UEFA cup though the article doesn't say) is the kind of event which attracts a lot of media attention at the time and day after, but which is generally soon forgotten afterwards. Cannot see evidence of this game being all that memorable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I was unclear: certainly some games could be notable, but they're not notable because they're a game. They're notable because they are a big game with bigger consequences, events, viewership, etc. That doesn't have bearing here. Shadowjams (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - although single games can be notable, there is no indication as to why this particular one is. GiantSnowman 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This is apparently someone's pet project about how their favorite team fared against teams from other nations, basically as stat table with flags. No indication about why this game would be more notable than any other. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete An individual game can be notable - and we have plenty of precedent for this - but there's no assertion of particular notability for this one. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Only the Final of the UEFA Cup would be notable (especially this year, since it's changing its name to the Europa League). This wasn't the Final. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It's a single game, and the article does nothing to suggest that it should be kept. DeMoN2009 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Lech vs Nancy 2008[edit]
- Lech vs Nancy 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No context for article, not in prose form. A single game is not notable itself. Nothing in the article indicates that this game is itself notable outside of being a game. Wikipedia is not merely a hold for sports stats. Shadowjams (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - while a single game certainly can be notable, there doesn't seem to be anything out-of-the-ordinary or otherwise noteworthy about this particular game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - this is not a notable match. – PeeJay 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This almosts looks like a copyvio from some game database. Still, without any prose there's no indication why this particular game should be included. - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete for the same reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feyenoord vs Lech 2008. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I was unclear: certainly some games could be notable, but they're not notable because they're a game. They're notable because they are a big game with bigger consequences, events, viewership, etc. That doesn't have bearing here. Shadowjams (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - although single games can be notable, there is no indication as to why this particular one is. GiantSnowman 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete No indication about why this game would be more notable than any other. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete An individual game can be notable - and we have plenty of precedent for this - but there's no assertion of particular notability for this one. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Only the Final of the UEFA Cup would be notable (especially this year, since it's changing its name to the Europa League). This wasn't the Final. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It's a single game, and the article does nothing to suggest that it should be kept. DeMoN2009 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
CSKA Moscow vs Lech 2008[edit]
- CSKA Moscow vs Lech 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No context for article, not in prose form. A single game is not notable itself. Nothing in the article indicates that this game is itself notable outside of being a game. Wikipedia is not merely a hold for sports stats. Shadowjams (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - while a single game certainly can be notable, there doesn't seem to be anything out-of-the-ordinary or otherwise noteworthy about this particular game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - this is not a notable match. – PeeJay 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This almosts looks like a copyvio from some game database. Still, without any prose there's no indication why this particular game should be included. - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete for the same reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feyenoord vs Lech 2008. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - although single games can be notable, there is no indication as to why this particular one is. GiantSnowman 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete No indication about why this game would be more notable than any other. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete An individual game can be notable - and we have plenty of precedent for this - but there's no assertion of particular notability for this one. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Only the Final of the UEFA Cup would be notable (especially this year, since it's changing its name to the Europa League). This wasn't the Final. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It's a single game, and the article does nothing to suggest that it should be kept. DeMoN2009 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Lech vs Deportivo 2008[edit]
- Lech vs Deportivo 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No context for article, not in prose form. A single game is not notable itself. Nothing in the article indicates that this game is itself notable outside of being a game. Wikipedia is not merely a hold for sports stats. Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - while a single game certainly can be notable, there doesn't seem to be anything out-of-the-ordinary or otherwise noteworthy about this particular game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This almosts looks like a copyvio from some game database. Still, without any prose there's no indication why this particular game should be included. - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - this is not a notable match. – PeeJay 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete for the same reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feyenoord vs Lech 2008. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I was unclear: certainly some games could be notable, but they're not notable because they're a game. They're notable because they are a big game with bigger consequences, events, viewership, etc. That doesn't have bearing here. Shadowjams (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - although single games can be notable, there is no indication as to why this particular one is. GiantSnowman 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete No indication about why this game would be more notable than any other. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete An individual game can be notable - and we have plenty of precedent for this - but there's no assertion of particular notability for this one. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Only the Final of the UEFA Cup would be notable (especially this year, since it's changing its name to the Europa League). This wasn't the Final. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It's a single game, and the article does nothing to suggest that it should be kept. DeMoN2009 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Rick Simpson[edit]
- Rick Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is inventor of a single unmarketed product, as such article does not assert notability for the subject. LK (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Arguably speedy it, as offering misleading information about cancer treatments is definitely a form of disruption. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Per nom. This person isn't notable. Lugnuts (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, concievable that this treatment, if verifiable and covered by RS, should receive a mention in Hemp oil or Alternative medicine. The inventor himself however doesn't appear to be notable. In fact, the article is arguably a case (albeit weak) for WP:CSD#A7. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- STRONG KEEP, A note for cancer patients: Royal Rife, Hoxsey Therapy, John Kanzius. 84.104.135.86 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete No independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
The Pawn Shoppe Boys[edit]
- The Pawn Shoppe Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band who fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Reliable, third-party, sources searched for, none found. Article has been tagged since Jan 2008 with no improvement. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. "The Pawn Shoppe Boys currently have no publicly released recordings of their music." Kill... kill... --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete By the page's own admission they aren't notable yet. Alberon (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete No external writeups means that band is not notable yet. LK (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete nn, not redeemable (bad pun). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Southampton University Sri Lankan Society[edit]
- Southampton University Sri Lankan Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is really a speedy deletion candidate as it's a non notable organisation, but a lot of work has gone into the article (probably somewhat misguidedly) so I figured an AFD would be less bitey than just deleting the thing. Unfortunately none of that effort makes the topic any more notable. waggers (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, fails WP:ORG. (If there's a list of student groups at the university, it could be merged.) Stifle (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete I agree fails WP:ORG. Nicely written but the group has no wider notability that would make it worth keeping Kurtk60 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
What Lies Beneath (Tarja album)[edit]
- What Lies Beneath (Tarja album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD - this album has yet to come out and what information is available appears to be entirely sourced to a blog entry (which, incidentally, is almost the entire content of this article). Per WP:CRYSTAL, I don't believe it is appropriate to have an article on this album at this time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Blog entry is from the musician's own blog, and as such it is a valid source about herself. However, per WP:Crystal, as yet it's too early to list the album. Page should be recreated only when album is externally reviewed. LK (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, unless coverage in independent sources can be demonstrated. It's hard to justify an encyclopedia article when only vague information from the artist's own blog is available to reference; no prejudice against recreating the article once the album has been released and reviewed. ~ mazca t|c 19:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Why once the album has been released and reviewed? There are lots and lots of articles about upcoming albums on Wikipedia, many of which even the title is not known yet of. Why is this one treated differently, and so much more strictly? This is hardly fair. Is there an official policy or guideline on how to treat such articles, even? I can't find anything. Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep The album has been mentioned by numerous third parties. The real issue I think is that people want English language stuff; they often miss foreign news articles. Nonethelss, we have: @music, Soundsblog, Território da Música, Metal Underground (in English!), Blabbermouth.net (a notable subject in its own right, and also in English), Braveworlds.com (English) and some pre-title information in English from Metal From Finland and again from Blabbermouth. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
*Comment We often have articles for upcoming media releases, but I agree that the article is very poorly sourced as it stands. I'm not sure whether to support its deletion, or propose leaving it as it is since the album's release isn't very far off. 74.242.119.77 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This is mostly fancruft / promotion. The same user is contributing information about the release on WikiNews 74.242.119.77 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- One, we don't capitalise the N. It's Wikinews. Two, Yeah, that's how I found both that there were sources (researching for the article) and that WP had an article. I was surprised, as a title isn't much to go on, but a string of sources came up. Three, I'm not 'the same user' apart from the same user as commented in this AfD. I have never edited the article we are discussing, and did not know of its existence until I began looking into doing somethin for WN. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Avro Vulcan. MBisanz talk 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
The Avro Vulcan Adventure[edit]
- The Avro Vulcan Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There's no evidence in the article or from a Google search of 'The Avro Vulcan Adventure + review' (see [45]) that this book meets the relevant notability standard WP:BK. The Google search only returns a few links on the book, and all of them appear to be routine pages on bookseller websites. The article's breathless tone (eg, "based on facts and with unique photographs") suggests that this may have been created as an advertisement for the book. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. I bought this book and created the article in good faith and not "an advertisement for the book". The photographs are unique and there are also facts and information in this book that is not in other Avro Vulcan books. Also Nick-D should have placed an AfD nomination of The Avro Vulcan Adventure on my talk page. This they did not do, so they don't seem to be following Wiki rules. I also have bought and read The Nuremberg Raid (book), which already has an article, and I thought I had approached the subject of the The Avro Vulcan Adventure well and correct for a Wikipedia article.--SteveKSmith (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I followed Nick-D link [46], and have found at Review at Waterstones someone else you has found the same as me.--SteveKSmith (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sorry for not notifying you on your talk page, though while it is good practice and something I should have done, it isn't a requirement (see: WP:AFDHOWTO). I did see that and a handful of other similar links to online bookstores, but non-professional customer reviews on booksellers' websites such as the Waterstones website, Amazon.com, etc, aren't "multiple, non-trivial published works" as needed to meet WP:BK and this guideline explicitly states that the existence of a listing on online bookstores isn't by itself an indication of notability given the vast number of books they often list. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I followed Nick-D link [46], and have found at Review at Waterstones someone else you has found the same as me.--SteveKSmith (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I got 42 hits for this search on google "Avro Vulcan Adventure" review, so the google search mentioned above must have been done wrong. LK (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Those look like the same search results I got - I don't think that any of those links are the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:BK as they're online bookshops and discussion forums. If you can find some professional reviews and the like in there I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Although we all obviously believe the article was created in good faith, the existence google hits for customer reviews does not warrant it inclusion in the encyclopaedia, otherwise we'd have loads of articles about books. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. I don't have any opinion to give about the disposition of this article, but "otherwise we'd have loads of articles about books" is a pretty weak argument for deletion. Don't we want to have loads of articles about books? Loads of them are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No, basically. Books should be used as references, we should only have articles about notable ones (i.e War & Peace). This book is merely a collection of data about very notable aeroplane. Also it hasn't escaped my attention that you came to this AFD, announced you weren't !voting and then just commented on my !vote, all the while ignoring the more relevant part of it (the existence google hits for customer reviews does not warrant it inclusion in the encyclopaedia). Ryan4314 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- What on earth do you mean by that? AfD is a discussion about whether an article meets policies and guidelines for inclusion, not a vote, so it's perfectly valid for me not to give a vote but to point out when an argument made is not based on policy or guidelines. I agree totally that we should only have articles about notable books, per WP:BK, but my point is that there are "loads" of notable books, so we should have "loads" of articles. This is probably not one of them, but that doesn't validate that part of your argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Putting a "!" before the word "vote" is a socially accepted way of saying "vote" on wiki (see here for more details).
- What on earth do you mean by that? AfD is a discussion about whether an article meets policies and guidelines for inclusion, not a vote, so it's perfectly valid for me not to give a vote but to point out when an argument made is not based on policy or guidelines. I agree totally that we should only have articles about notable books, per WP:BK, but my point is that there are "loads" of notable books, so we should have "loads" of articles. This is probably not one of them, but that doesn't validate that part of your argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No, basically. Books should be used as references, we should only have articles about notable ones (i.e War & Peace). This book is merely a collection of data about very notable aeroplane. Also it hasn't escaped my attention that you came to this AFD, announced you weren't !voting and then just commented on my !vote, all the while ignoring the more relevant part of it (the existence google hits for customer reviews does not warrant it inclusion in the encyclopaedia). Ryan4314 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. No one is suggesting notable books shouldn't have articles, if you have misunderstood my original post then I can only state clearly that I think notable books articles should stay and non-notable books articles should go, simple. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
KeepI'm afraid I must disagree with Nick-D here. Normally I swing into such debates with a delete (rightly deserved I might add), but here I must place "Keep", if not aStrong Keep? This book is very, very interesting, and I did not know that wonderful aircraft, the Avro Vulcan, was used as an Air Ambulance. I have not read that anywhere. Putting that to one side, the book on other merits is worthy of inclusion I would have thought, I don't feel that google (I put up my hand and admit I use it a fair bit), must be relied on for everything or else a fair amount of Wiki material will go. The author is an established author, I have his Action Stations books, well thumbed from constant reference, and I'm amazed that no one has bothered to include this series on the Wikipedia, as it was quite a task involving several authors. I admit that I don't have the Avro Vulcan book, though I do love this aircraft. I agree with Ryan4314 about loads of articles about books not being on the Wikipedia, but I believe this book should be on. Also SteveKSmith must not take things too personally as Nick-D is merely putting forward the article for debate and debates are healthy. It does not mean it will be deleted and under the circumstances I don't think it will, or at least it would be nice if it wasn't.--BSTemple (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- While I agree this sounds like a very interesting read (I shall probably pick up a copy myself), this article is about the book, not it's contents. By this I mean; interesting information such as "the Vulcan was used as an Air Ambulance" should be added to the Vulcan article with this book being used as a source. It makes more sense this way, only the relevant data is kept and is easier to find. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes I concede that is a very good solution by Ryan4314, on view of the evidence and sound logic. I see SteveKSmith has put the Ambulance on the Vulcan article, but I fear he is too enthusiastic and still has to grasp what the Wikipedia is, yes give reference to your source, but in the correct way. I will put the section back in Vulcan article, but shall edit it, I also feel in the edit there should be no Wiki link to the Article of the book.--BSTemple (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Aside from the over-enthusiasm of the entry the Medevac events referenced by the book and put in the Vulcan article were deleted as trivia. I agree with that deletion - it is trivia and not significant enough to be included in the Vulcan article. In reality just about every aircraft type ever flown as been used for medevac, even the Cessna 150 - is is not worth mentioning. I don't think this is much of a solution. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: There is no indication that asserts the notability of this book and every indication that this article is essentially nothing more than marketing. To be more clear - this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy in that there are no reliable third party references cited. Without those the article fails the notability test and must be deleted. - Ahunt (talk)
- Delete: Whether or not this book is good or not is irrelevant. Because this book fails WP:N, it should not remain an article. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 14:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak Delete and Merge By our own guidelines the page should be deleted as it is currently not notable. However, the information is good, and I'm inclined to say let it stay ignore all rules. If the page is deleted, I suggest moving the information to another page on a more notable topic. Perhaps a page on the entire series? or a page on the author? LK (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge to Avro Vulcan where the book may be useful as a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge I agree with Colonel Warden and LK, and as such have merged what information I can into the relevant articles. This should make everyone happy and is the best solution I can see. I'm sure SteveKSmith will see that too. I have also kept a copy of the article and shall see what else is possible to edit to more relevant articles. Anyway, if in the future it should meet Wikipedia's notability policy, it can always then be put up again. I would just say that I like the book cover, a little different to the norm.--BSTemple (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment While the above two entries are labeled "merge" I believe that they are really proposing that the book itself be used as a reference in the other article rather than a merger of articles. It really isn't possible to merge an article about a book with an article about an aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Can I please remind people that we only add books as sources to an article if they've been used for the article. Wikipedia is not a repository of lists of reference material. This does not mean composing an edit taking trivia from this book simply to shoe horn it in. Justin talk 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I had in mind a merge of the material into the author's page, or a page about the book series that this book is from (is it from a book series?). I agree that it would be inappropriate to merge the page into the page on the Vulcan, except perhaps as a short footnote. LK (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Article of its own right fails notability, whilst it may have some merit as interesting trivia, the odd occasion it was impressed to transport people in an emergency is not evidence of a casevac role. The rest of the information is already in the Vulcan article. Would people please read WP:TRIVIA and cease shoe horning edits into the Vulcan article that have no place there. Over the last couple of days I've seen several editors shoe horning edits into the article that aren't written as per WP:MOS and are solely designed to add this book as a ref. Again this is againts WP:MOS. Please stop. Justin talk 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Allan Sammons[edit]
- Allan Sammons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. JaGatalk 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Fails notability, no reliable sources found. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Ahuva Gray[edit]
- Ahuva Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was a tough one, for there are quite a few hits for her on Google. But they all boil down to promoting either her lectures or a book that has not sold a lot of copies. So it fails WP:BIO#Creative professionals. JaGatalk 06:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete I concur. The article does not make any claim to notability. Antidespotic (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Her books are very popular amongst Jews, I know several Jewish libraries with her books --Java7837 (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Furthermore she is mentioned on aish.com, jewishmag.com, torah.org, jewishjournal.com and other well known Jewish websites
- http://www.jewishmag.com/64mag/ahuva/ahuva.htm
- http://www.mysisterthejew.com/pages/bio.htm
- http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/Gifts_of_a_Convert.asp
- http://www.jewishjournal.com/community_briefs/article/from_baptist_to_beshert_20010406/
- http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/From_Mississippi_to_Mount_Sinai.asp
- http://www.tufts.edu/as/stu-org/hillel/eventscalendar.htm
- http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5760/korach60/print.doc
- http://www.torah.org/features/firstperson/baptist.html?print=1
--Java7837 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. I'm not too sure about how far the links above meet our requirements for reliable sourcing, but these articles in The Jerusalem Post would appear to. [47][48]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. She's certainly notable. Try googling her by given name, Delores, or the alternate spelling of her adopted first name, Ahuvah. Check out worldcat, for a list of non-Jewish libraries that carry her books, including the Library of Congress, Harvard, Princeton, etc. Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Consensus is not clear here, hence the close. Even those advocating keep admit mostly that the notability is weak but yet exists. While this means that the article will not be deleted at the moment, it also means that there was no consensus to keep it, just none at all. Merging this and other similar articles into a new article seems to be a possible solution on which people !voting both keep and delete seem to be able to live with. Regards SoWhy 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Carol number[edit]
- Carol number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Deprodded. Sources do not indicate notability (mostly just briefly mention it), talk page discussion of "What's the point of this?" has been stalled for years. Reason that this formula is important or useful has never been shown. - Richfife (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'll leave this one to the mathematicians and recommend no action is taken until experts have looked at this and commented on this debate page. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep - appearances in OEIS, MathWorld and Prime Pages establish notability when taken together. Point is that Carol numbers are a hunting ground for large prime hunters. No need to show that they are "important or useful" - if these were key inclusion criteria, then half of Wikipedia would disappear ! Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- OEIS is huge and cannot be used to establish notability. Prime Pages does not even discuss Carol numbers, the references are to two specific prime numbers that happen to be Carol numbers, but that's not mentioned there, at most hinted at in the "Description:" formula. MathWorld has seriously downgraded the discussion of these numbers; they used to have their own entries, but this error has now been corrected. See Talk:Carol number. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Prime Pages contributors use the term "Carol prime" or similar here, here, here and here. I agree that any one of the three sources (OEIS, MW, Prime Pages) may not be enough to establish notability on its own, but my point is that notability is established by all three sources taken together. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- OEIS is huge and cannot be used to establish notability. Prime Pages does not even discuss Carol numbers, the references are to two specific prime numbers that happen to be Carol numbers, but that's not mentioned there, at most hinted at in the "Description:" formula. MathWorld has seriously downgraded the discussion of these numbers; they used to have their own entries, but this error has now been corrected. See Talk:Carol number. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Strong keep - see this and this. If you google "Carol number", you should get a lot more results. Or I might as well list: [49], [50],[51]and [52]. Definite speedy keep. And the article is still expanding; give it some more time and it should be up to standard. Many articles in WP don't explain importance or notability but that does not imply that the concept is not notable or important!--PST 12:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- (ec x 2) The two Mathworld links are equivalent to the redirects that remain in Wikipedia when an article is merged into another for lack of notability. Why this was done is explained on Talk:Carol number. As to the other four sources you list: [53] is a copy of the old MathWorld entry, from before it was deleted for lack of notability. [54] is user generated content from Planet Math and cannot be used to establish notability any more than French Wikipedia articles on a topic. [55] is from Nation Master, a well known Wikipedia mirror. [56] is really absurd: A machine-generated translation of fr:Nombre Carol. (An amazing business model.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Just not enough independent sources. Outside of refs above and wikipedia mirrors I'm having a hard time find references to the sequence. Google Scholar does not give any significant hits. So do these numbers have a wider significance? --Salix (talk): 12:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. Two things. First of all, there appear to be no relevant Scholar hits, nor Google books hits for "Carol number". Secondly, if this article is deleted, then Kynea number should be deleted as well. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Weak keep per Gandalf61's reasoning. Prime Pages plus MathWorld signifies notability, and the OEIS is another source. A journal paper would be nice, but it's not needed as such.CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Merge to Near-square prime per Gandalf61's new suggestion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak delete as non-notable neologism with too little in non-trivial reliable sources. These numbers were named on a mail list in 2002 by Cletus Emmanuel [57], an apparently unpublished amateur mathematician who gave the false impression that the names were existing. Two years later [58] he revealed that he named them after a personal acquaintance with no known relation to the numbers or mathematics. The MathWorld editor Eric Weisstein was on the mail list [59] and created a small MathWorld article, but after learning the real history of the numbers he redirected the name to a broader article which has one paragraph about such numbers without naming them. Weisstein also submitted the numbers to OEIS which has around 154000 integer sequences and accepts almost any submission from the public, for example lots of sequences with numbers belonging to unnamed non-notable polynomials with small coefficients. Some other members of the mail list (maybe also believing it was a seriously named and studied form) searched for primes of this form and found some among the 5000 largest known primes. This automatically qualifies the primes for the Prime Pages regardless of form, but the Prime Pages editor does not name them and for example has no entry at http://primes.utm.edu/top20/index.php or http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/index.php?match=c. Emmanuel has been talking about making a paper for years but as far as I know, he or the numbers have never been published or mentioned in a journal. They appear to remain little known outside the readers of the mail list. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - minor correction - the MathWorld page does name the numbers - it says they were "arbitrarily dubbed Carol primes by their original investigator in reference to a personal acquaintance" (and it has a similar comment for Kynea primes). I am curious why we should expect academic references for Carol numbers and Kynea numbers when we do not demand them for other similar topics such as Cuban primes and sexy primes - are we suddenly moving the notability bar up a notch here ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. To reiterate, it appears that Cletus Emmanuel (a non-notable math fan) created this term in honor of a personal friend and began using it as agressively as possible in the hopes that it would stick. Almost any formula you can dream up will generate primes from time to time. Again, why is this one special beyond the fact that the creator has written a lot about it? It's very easy for some with a lot of spare time to submit over and over to non peer-reviewed publications until it seems like they're a crowd. This is a classic example of Astroturfing. - Richfife (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment The terminology is not unique to its originator - the sources show that the terms "Carol prime" and "Kynea prime" are in general use by members of the prime hunting community, including Caldwell, Phil Carmody and Steven Harvey. Since prime hunters are searching for large primes with this form (probably because they suit certain methods of proving primality) then they need to give them some label - the "arbitrary" origin of the names is irrelevant. And there is no requirement to prove that anything on Wikipedia is "special", only that it is notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Which sources? Going down the links in order: 1) Is a self written bio page 2) Is a confession by Emmanuel 3) Doesn't contain the word "Carol" at all 4) is a free webhosted page of uncertain ancestory 5 and 6) Non peer reviewed, user submitted content. It's not clear that the page is edited at all. EL 1) Not mentioned until deep into the page and then very half heartedly. EL 2 and 3) Word "Carol" does not appear at all. I'm going to remove the three links that don't mention the subject at all, so the indices may move. - Richfife (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment The links that you have removed concern large proved primes of the form described in the article. Those pages still speak to the notability of the article's subject, even if they do not use the term "Carol prime". I don't think it is reasonable to remove relevant links from an article after you have nominated it for AfD on the grounds that its subject is not notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- (Reverted) Re: "probably because they suit certain methods of proving primality". Do you have any evidence of this? There seem to be a lot of "people smarter than us seem to like this" vibes floating around. That is actually a valid reason to keep. If it is true. But if the smart people have good reasons to use the series, they need to speak up about it. WP:VERIFIABILITY. - Richfife (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Let me explain. If k is a Carol number the k+1 has factors 2n+1 and 2n-1-1. If k+1 is easily factorised then k is well suited to primality tests based on Lucas sequences - see here for details. These "smart people" who search for large primes don't just pick their targets at random, you know. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- (Reverted) Re: "probably because they suit certain methods of proving primality". Do you have any evidence of this? There seem to be a lot of "people smarter than us seem to like this" vibes floating around. That is actually a valid reason to keep. If it is true. But if the smart people have good reasons to use the series, they need to speak up about it. WP:VERIFIABILITY. - Richfife (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment The links that you have removed concern large proved primes of the form described in the article. Those pages still speak to the notability of the article's subject, even if they do not use the term "Carol prime". I don't think it is reasonable to remove relevant links from an article after you have nominated it for AfD on the grounds that its subject is not notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Which sources? Going down the links in order: 1) Is a self written bio page 2) Is a confession by Emmanuel 3) Doesn't contain the word "Carol" at all 4) is a free webhosted page of uncertain ancestory 5 and 6) Non peer reviewed, user submitted content. It's not clear that the page is edited at all. EL 1) Not mentioned until deep into the page and then very half heartedly. EL 2 and 3) Word "Carol" does not appear at all. I'm going to remove the three links that don't mention the subject at all, so the indices may move. - Richfife (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment The terminology is not unique to its originator - the sources show that the terms "Carol prime" and "Kynea prime" are in general use by members of the prime hunting community, including Caldwell, Phil Carmody and Steven Harvey. Since prime hunters are searching for large primes with this form (probably because they suit certain methods of proving primality) then they need to give them some label - the "arbitrary" origin of the names is irrelevant. And there is no requirement to prove that anything on Wikipedia is "special", only that it is notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. To reiterate, it appears that Cletus Emmanuel (a non-notable math fan) created this term in honor of a personal friend and began using it as agressively as possible in the hopes that it would stick. Almost any formula you can dream up will generate primes from time to time. Again, why is this one special beyond the fact that the creator has written a lot about it? It's very easy for some with a lot of spare time to submit over and over to non peer-reviewed publications until it seems like they're a crowd. This is a classic example of Astroturfing. - Richfife (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - minor correction - the MathWorld page does name the numbers - it says they were "arbitrarily dubbed Carol primes by their original investigator in reference to a personal acquaintance" (and it has a similar comment for Kynea primes). I am curious why we should expect academic references for Carol numbers and Kynea numbers when we do not demand them for other similar topics such as Cuban primes and sexy primes - are we suddenly moving the notability bar up a notch here ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
I struck through my above comment of "Strong keep" as User:Hans Adler convinced me otherwise. I think I will stick to a keep but I agree that we need a publication on this (by the way, we don't seem to have any publications on the above mentioned articles (by User:Gandalf61) so I don't see why it is absolutely necessary to have a publication but at least it will clear up some doubts). --PST 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Delete. An entry in OEIS means nothing. They accept literally anything. I knew someone that was on the editorial board for years, and as long as the sequence made sense (perhaps after intensive inquiry and fixing by him), it would get included. So there are only two sources. MathWorld and Prime Pages. The first means nothing also, particularly given Weinstein's mistaken impression about notability from the mailing list mentioned by Primehunter, someone who, incidentally, knows quite a bit about finding primes. As for Prime Pages, I don't know about the notability of a mention there, but according to what Primehunter said, it only gets mentioned there because some people on the mailing list searched and found some. certainly there is nothing to justify the claim that carol numbers "suit certain methods of proving primality" or are a "hunting ground for large prime hunters" (anymore than any collection of 'not obviously composite' numbers is a hunting ground'). Such claims should be justified by either personal expertise or by reputable sourcing. I see neither. --C S (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Fails WP:N. Non-refereed websites, or math hobbiest websites no more authoritative than Wikipedia itself are not sufficient sourcing. "Other stuff exists" and "I like it" are not convincing arguments for neologism articles about types of numbers. What is needed is significant or substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The fact that someone feels "Carol (name redacted) is my best female friend in the whole wide world." and wants to name something after her is as irrelevant to the purposes of Wikipedia as would be someone paying a "star registry" to name a star after his Aunt Gertrude, and then someone putting as article about the star "Aunt Gertrude" in Wikipedia. The star registry companies are missing a bet: they could just make up some formula like this with some variation which selects some of the prime numbers then sell a beautiful parchment printout of the "Aunt Gertrude numbers," if the formula generates any, and wait for people to create a Wikipedia article about them. Edison (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - as per Gandalf61's arguments. JocK (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. For most obscure math topics such as this I'd be happy to !vote keep if I could find three professionally published papers by independent groups on the subject, but this one doesn't even seem to have a single reliable source. And there's nothing particularly faulty about the math in the article, but there's nothing particularly interesting enough either (as evidenced by the fact that in the six or so years since they were named, nobody else has taken the trouble to write and publish any research about them). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. The MathWorld page doesn't say Carol number. It mentions the name Carol primes but doesn't indicate it's a generally used name. The page only says in a parenthetical remark: "(arbitrarily dubbed Carol primes by their original investigator in reference to a personal acquaintance)". Many prime searchers prefer searches which can get primes on the Prime Pages list of the 5000 largest known primes. In order to prove primality with known methods, a top-5000 prime N must in practice have a form where a large part of the prime factorization of N-1 or N+1 is known. Carol numbers is one such form. It's trivial to create others by multiplying known primes together and adding or subtracting 1. People have searched many forms. There is no reason to think Carol numbers are better suited for prime searching than lots of other forms. 4 of the top-5000 are Carol primes. The largest [60] is currently number 1872 on the list and was found by Emmanuel in May 2007 where it was around number 900. The Prime Pages equivalent of notability is [61]: "An archivable form of prime is one which is the subject of more than one mathematical journal article written by more than one set of authors". No journal articles mention Carol numbers. I subscribe to the mailing list where Emmanuel introduced them in 2002 and mentioned them dozens of times since then. Based on Google searches and my knowledge of list members, I think most people who have ever used the term publicly are from that mailing list, some of them without knowing that Emmanuel invented the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Per Not always having to do the right thing. Let's let one go, once in a while. Charvest (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. As I have already indicated in a comment above, the term does not appear anywhere in the published literature. Moreover, given the fact that OEIS accepts all or nearly all submissions without review, it cannot be used to establish the notability of these primes for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. That leaves only the Mathworld article. Perhaps this article could be used as a source to indicate that there is such a sequence of primes in a similarly titled Wikipedia article (Near square primes anybody?). But mention of the sequence of primes under discussion in an obscure place among a list of OEIS entries reprinted in a Mathworld article also does not pass the bar for notability. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment It's an idea. We could follow MathWorld and merge Carol number and Kynea number into a new Near-square primes article. Or would that also get shot down ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't think there would be much of a problem with that. But to be sure we could start with a section on prime searching in largest known prime or another related article. By the way, merge into List of prime numbers could be another option. In practice it would mean moving the references from here to the list, and perhaps adding a footnote that explains where the name comes from. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merging to List of prime numbers would be against my suggested point 3 at Talk:List of prime numbers#Unsourced names (but it only received one indirectly supporting comment). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We could use an article for near-square primes, and these two forms would fit naturally there. I'm changing my !vote. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't think there would be much of a problem with that. But to be sure we could start with a section on prime searching in largest known prime or another related article. By the way, merge into List of prime numbers could be another option. In practice it would mean moving the references from here to the list, and perhaps adding a footnote that explains where the name comes from. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete – not notable. The MathWorld article is only a redirect page; on the page to which "Carol number" redirects, the term does not even occur. In general MathWorld and OEIS attest only weakly to notability, since they add material quite indiscriminately, freely using neologisms of the inventors of some concept. Before an article named "Near-square primes" is started, we must make sure this is not another MathWorld/Cletus Emmanuel neologism. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Userfy (or weak
keep/delete) with Kynea number. I must admit when I first read the source for the name (2004), I laughed out loud: "Carol G. Kirnon is my best female friend in the whole wide world. She was the first girl to steal my heart when we were in high school. Therefore, since math is my love and she is my love, I named the first set of numbers after her. The second set... is named for the baby girl that had the greatest inpact on my life so far, Kynea R. Griffith" I suspect I am not alone among Wikipedians in that response. However, that reaction shouldn't colour our decision making. This article is better than Kynea number, and the concept, a generalization of the Mersenne prime, has led to new large prime numbers which have been documented in secondary sources, even if they are less than stellar. It may be premature for Wikipedia to have an article on this now, but what there is so far might at least be userfied. Geometry guy 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Correction: Please strike out your comment as it seems based on a misconception. No new prime numbers have been discovered because of the concept of Carol number. Emmanuel found that 4 of the 5000 largest, already known primes were of that form. Hardly the same thing. As PrimeHunter already explained at length above, one can devise many similar such "concepts", and finding only 5 of that form in a known collection of primes is hardly any evidence it is a useful one. --C S (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- I hope you weren't asking me to strike out my entire comment on that basis. I have amended it. Geometry guy 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- No reason to strike it. I'm confident all Carol (and Kynea) primes which are or have been in the top-5000 primes were only searched because Cletus Emmanuel mentioned the form in public (some of the primes were found by himself). All the primes were discovered after 2002 where he first mentioned the form. It was not a case of realizing that already known primes were of this form. The first few Carol primes with less than 18 digits had been previously computed but the top-5000 has required more than 20000 digits since 2002 (more than 100000 today). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Just to be clear: have there been new primes of the Carol (or Kynea) form discovered since 2004? If so, was the discovery of any of these primes prompted in any way by Cletus Emmanuel's Ansaetze? Geometry guy 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Correction: Please strike out your comment as it seems based on a misconception. No new prime numbers have been discovered because of the concept of Carol number. Emmanuel found that 4 of the 5000 largest, already known primes were of that form. Hardly the same thing. As PrimeHunter already explained at length above, one can devise many similar such "concepts", and finding only 5 of that form in a known collection of primes is hardly any evidence it is a useful one. --C S (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes and yes. The 4 Carol primes currently in the top-5000 were discovered in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. Depending on what you call a "form", anybody with a little patience can download a free program, pick one among thousands of simple forms, start the program, sit back, and expect to find a top-5000 prime within a month on a common PC. The computational effort used by GIMPS to find Mersenne primes is around 100000 times larger than what is needed to find the known Carol primes. By the way, Carol primes (2n−1)2−2 = (2n−1−1)×2n+1−1 can be viewed as a special case of an older well-known prime form k×2n−1 with k < 2n, sometimes called Riesel primes after Hans Riesel. They don't have an article such as the more common name Proth prime (k×2n+1), but around half of all current top-5000 primes are Riesel primes. Most people search them with small k values below 232, but it's easy to prove primality for any k < 2n. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Many thanks for your helpful response. As this endeavour has been going since 2004, is there now a good secondary source for this information? Geometry guy 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The article references the primary source [62] where the search is coordinated. Apart from that and mail list postings by the searchers, I don't know of any mention of the organized search beyond links to it. Found primes are submitted to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Near-SquarePrime.html (which itself calls it a "(2n−1)2−2 prime"), oeis:A091515, and the Prime Pages which includes a computer generated page for every current and former top-5000 prime. The 4 current top-5000 Carol primes are here: [63][64][65][66]. "Carol prime" is not among the tolerated comments [67] in the Prime Pages database so it doesn't occur on the pages. Finding a prime below 200000 digits is so simple and common that nobody else usually cares. Most days there are several new of them on http://primes.utm.edu/primes/status.php. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Thanks. I'm unstriking "new" and striking "weak keep": I don't think the sources are good enough yet, even taken together. Otherwise, I stand by my recommendation, which essentially agrees with your "weak delete". I just want to highlight the possibility that someone could userfy, and also emphasise that if this gets deleted, Kynea number should as well. Geometry guy 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The article references the primary source [62] where the search is coordinated. Apart from that and mail list postings by the searchers, I don't know of any mention of the organized search beyond links to it. Found primes are submitted to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Near-SquarePrime.html (which itself calls it a "(2n−1)2−2 prime"), oeis:A091515, and the Prime Pages which includes a computer generated page for every current and former top-5000 prime. The 4 current top-5000 Carol primes are here: [63][64][65][66]. "Carol prime" is not among the tolerated comments [67] in the Prime Pages database so it doesn't occur on the pages. Finding a prime below 200000 digits is so simple and common that nobody else usually cares. Most days there are several new of them on http://primes.utm.edu/primes/status.php. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Thanks to PrimeHunter for his corrections to my earlier remark. I think, however, my remarks as to poor sourcing and lack of evidence of Carol numbers being a "hunting ground" (anymore than many similar formulas) hold. --C S (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Many thanks for your helpful response. As this endeavour has been going since 2004, is there now a good secondary source for this information? Geometry guy 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes and yes. The 4 Carol primes currently in the top-5000 were discovered in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. Depending on what you call a "form", anybody with a little patience can download a free program, pick one among thousands of simple forms, start the program, sit back, and expect to find a top-5000 prime within a month on a common PC. The computational effort used by GIMPS to find Mersenne primes is around 100000 times larger than what is needed to find the known Carol primes. By the way, Carol primes (2n−1)2−2 = (2n−1−1)×2n+1−1 can be viewed as a special case of an older well-known prime form k×2n−1 with k < 2n, sometimes called Riesel primes after Hans Riesel. They don't have an article such as the more common name Proth prime (k×2n+1), but around half of all current top-5000 primes are Riesel primes. Most people search them with small k values below 232, but it's easy to prove primality for any k < 2n. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as referenced well enough, and that we do not have a printed encyclopedia here; space allows. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Religious Zionism. MBisanz talk 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Reconstructionist Zionism[edit]
- Reconstructionist Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article contains no sources. A Google search for the phrase "Reconstructionist Zionism" yields few if any reliable sources. The information contained in this article would better fit in other articles about fringe religious Israelis. GHcool (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: I only created it because the goals are, IMO, extensive of a form of religious nationalism that seeks to further entrench Jewish power in the country (if not "hasten the return" of the Jewish messiah) by rebuilding currently-extinct institutions of Jewish power (an independent Jewish state, for example). Unlike other "reconstructionisms" (even Reconstructionist Judaism or Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism), it is deriving from the religious but is almost entirely political in its outlook. I just don't have any other word to describe or sum up this movement, which is not even representative of Religious Zionism's adherents. --Toussaint (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete and merge with Religious Zionism. The term is problematic, as it is easily confused with the Zionist philosophy of Mordecai Kaplan, founder of Reconstructionist Judaism. Kaplan's Zionism posited the coexistence of the Diaspora and the State of Israel, a view opposed to the Zionist philosophy of Ben-Gurion, that all Jews must make aliyah, and that the diaspora should cease to exist. Kaplan's view is the prevailing form of Zionism today, and is sometimes refered to as "Reconstructionist Zionism". (It's not that I'm so smart - it's just that I, by chance, heard a lecture on this yesterday.) --Ravpapa (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: Actually, you're not talking about a school of Zionism (political ideology) but a sect of Judaism (religion), particularly Reconstructionist Judaism. Ben-Gurion and Herzl were Jewish (and secular) Zionists, while Kaplan is just Jewish. EDIT: and Reconstructionist Zionism is mostly confined to Israel in terms of activity, since it is mostly involving ancient Israelite and Judean religiopolitical institutions rather than Jewish religious institutions. --Toussaint (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete but don't merge, I'm sorry but this term is non-existent/made up as a Google search shows, it might lead the reader to believe this is a real term/ and confuse the reader because of the Reconstructionist movement. This article is WP:OR. Epson291 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete and merge per Ravpapa and a side discussion on Ravpapa's talk page. I've realized that this is a better option and maybe more pertinent to Kaplan. --Toussaint (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete seems like original research to me. No point in merging unless reliable sources are introduced. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 01:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Ariel Kaplan[edit]
- Ariel Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This 14 year old has a few minor roles on the stage and television and in advertising, but I see no evidence that it adds up to notability. Grahame (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- 'Keep The role of Nala in The Lion King is a speaking part for the official national Disney version of the musical. She even played it in two different countries. In my book a speaking part in a national production (not just some random theatre company) makes someone notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Fails to meet WP:Entertainers. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, does not appear to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER guideline at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC).[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
TyDi[edit]
- TyDi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article includes no evidence of notability from reliable sources. Grahame (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This acknowledgement [68] is sufficient to satisfy "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" in accordance with WP:Notability (music). WWGB (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Is this a reliable source? It appears to be a commercial site of some kind.--Grahame (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, there's plenty of sources on this person, including this, this and this. In addition to the InTheMix award above, would leave me to believe he passes WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC).[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
John W. Kercheval, III[edit]
- John W. Kercheval, III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, notability asserted, thus not a speedy candidate, but beyond the claim of notability, there are no sources to support said claim and no explaination as to why said claim might be valid. ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment as both the article and this edit indicates, (ignoring the personal attacks), there are references to "Who's Who in America" and I guess various newspapers but not detailed enough to be particularly verifiable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't consider Who's Who to be particularly reliable for establishing notability either... I've been contacted a few times by them, and my impression is that it is nothing more than a paid vanity advertisement. I did a google search, but couldn't find anything that said this guy single handedly created the financing aspects of the aerospace & defense business. Almost everything I found was blogs, wikiclones, facebook/linkln/myspace. IF reliable sources can be provided, then the article can be defended, but as is, the claim is more bravado than substance. I'll also point out that the article reads more like a CV than an Encyclopedic article.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Dubious claim for notability. No external reliable sources cited. LK (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep if the verified sources can be provided, this is clearly a keep as the individual is notable. that it needs improvement, is not a reason for deletion. if the facts are false or unverifiable, then you have a reason for deletion. --Buridan (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- What verified sources? How is the individual notable beyond a *claim* of notability - a claim of notability would remove a prod, it's not a reason to keep an article at AFD. I like Balloonman find nothing but vanity pages - if you have reliable sources, please add them to the page and I'll be happy to change to a keep. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Agree with Cameron, the *IF* in your statement is a huge conditional statement. *IF* we can provide proof that he is notable, then by default all of the deletes would switch, and I will happily withdraw the nom. (Heck, I even posted that on the IP's talk page. The problem is that I see nothing but vanity pages, this page reads a step up from a vanity page, and Who's Who is a vanity publication. *IF* the author can find a reliable source that says, Kercheval single handedly created the financing aspects of the aerospace & defense business, then of course he would be keepable per BIO/PROF. As is, the article merely makes an unsubstantiated claim (which is dubious to begin with).---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: When I do a search on his name and Aerospace, I get 9 hits (and that's more than if I used John W. Kercheval, III!) Many of those hits are WP or WP mirrors.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- What verified sources? How is the individual notable beyond a *claim* of notability - a claim of notability would remove a prod, it's not a reason to keep an article at AFD. I like Balloonman find nothing but vanity pages - if you have reliable sources, please add them to the page and I'll be happy to change to a keep. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Is it possible that this is a hoax? According to the article he has an appointment at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, but their website does not list him. Given the flaky references (Who's Who!) and overblown claims I am starting to think that this is not real. --Crusio (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No.[69]---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- here is his vitae, unless of course it is a huge hoax: http://www.space-careers.com/agency/cvview_1932.html --Buridan (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No.[69]---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low. News coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- To make matters worse, the Kercheval in the article you linked to above is James F Kercheval, NOT John W Kercheval III.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete I am in agreement with the nominator. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak Delete The appointment as an academic is secondary to his career, being the typical professorship of a prominent business executive after his business career. They do have two of his publications in the publications database, so he has some connection with Georgetown, but i too have been unable to verify it is as professor. It is very hard for use to document the significance of business careers like his. DGG (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Is there even any substantiation that he is a "prominent business executive"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.104.230 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think there is enough stuff on the web for him (in non-reliable sources) that I think it is fairly safe to say that he is real an at least a moderately successful business man. But there is nothing to indicate that he is more successful/influencial than any of the thousands of other corporate execs around the country.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Meet Me in St. Louis (band)[edit]
- Meet Me in St. Louis (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm not sure in the end if one release on an independent label is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. I guess it could depend on how much to value the album's publicity stunt of creating an unofficial public holiday. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for all the reviews on the Variations on Swing article. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - Album is widely available (both on Amazon UK and LastFM) which is a useful screening tool for notability and press coverage. Searching is complicated by the commonality of the name, but searching with other info shows some hits of recognition. Shadowjams (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep meets WP:MUSIC per Esradekan. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Tasce Simon[edit]
- Tasce Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm sure Simon is a lovely person, and the article is referenced well enough, but she's non-notable by our standards. phoebe / (talk to me) 05:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak Delete lacks third-party reliable sources to establish notability, but being a college trustee is a fairly major accomplishment, even if she fills the recent student/alamni seat. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 02:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Hello My Name Is Records[edit]
- Hello My Name Is Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"The label remains in its early stages of development, continuing to progress at a steady pace.". Which means they're not notable yet, and they have the MySpace sourcing to prove it. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Only Google hit is their website. Fails WP:N. Unschool 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - No association with notable musicians or notable albums. Does not satisfy WP:CORP, since An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Article does not include that kind of sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Non-notable, no significant coverage. Dayewalker (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete completely satisfies a lack of notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 05:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Does not meet WP:RS and WP:CORP standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hello, I'm still learning how to properly post on wikipedia and look forward to adding valuable content to the site. On the subject of Hello My Name Is Records, the page was setup as a follow-up to a handful of links where the label is partnered with other notable companies. They are the new owner of Fiddler Records, who launched the careers of several notable artists. In addition, the first release from this label is the solo work from a notable producer of several National Artists. I hope this helps validate the page and the company. Please let me know if any other information is needed, or if anything needs to be edited or deleted to make it comply with Wikipedia policy Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmni (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, even if any of the creator's claims were verifiable. No third-party sources establishing any sort of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per all of the above. In fact, it probably should've been speedy deleted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Guilherme Gavrilov[edit]
- Guilherme Gavrilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a hoax per information from someone I trust elsewhere online. He said "...I can't find any reference to him, "The Shoe," or "Tutenkhamun" in the Google Books snippet view copy of Statyi o Lermontove. King Tut wasn't even well known in the 19th century. The whole story seems far too far-fetched to be true. And I discovered it because it was reposted on everything2 by a user who called himself "Tolstoevsky"--a pseudonym once used by the satirists Ilf and Petrov." ([70]). Poking around showed me the same thing. Unless someone has a copy of that book? The only usable citation in the article goes to Pravda, citing something only vaguely tangential to the article itself. roux 04:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Hoax seems to be a likely explanation, but even if that is not it, it fails WP:N with no Google hits except those which mirror this article. Additionally, I looked at the references. The solitary hyperlink takes us to a Pravda page that makes no mention of him. Unschool 05:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete A search on google for Guilherme Gavrilov The Portuguese Diaries returns only wikipedia and page on everything.com, likely a hoax. LK (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Seems clearly a hoax. Languagehat (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Anthony Ward[edit]
- Anthony Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Falls short on WP:Bio#Creative professionals. JaGatalk 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, no assertion of notability and WP:NOT a résumé hosting site. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete.Danial Case mentioned WP:NOT a resume hosting site. The nominator mentioned it didn't meet WP:BIO. I'm voting delete on this due to some good comments. Give yourselves cookies! =] K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was references provided, removing nomination, reason for deletion nomination no longer applies.. Canterbury Tail talk 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Saor Uladh[edit]
- Saor Uladh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claims to notability (well that's probably stretching it), however the real reason for nominating is the entire article has been tagged as unreferenced for a year now. No references have been provided for what is put forward as an important organisation. Canterbury Tail talk 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, obviously creator not interested in sourcing. Or it's really not that important. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete; The author of the page has probably known about the fact it is unreferenced (and there are two [citation needed]'s in a short article!) for a year, and the fact that he hasn't changed it is quite unusual. Google didn't mention too much either. K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep This is an important historical page I will work on finding some sources a google books search throws up a lot of hits. BigDuncTalk 09:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak Keep Group is notable if article correctly represents its activities. But surely there must be newspaper or other write ups of the group? If none are found, the page should be deleted as unverified WP:OR. LK (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
-
- Comment - Fine, as long as the material can be referenced I have no issues with the article. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Sources are now beginning to take shape and I personally will continue to work on adding more whilst I'm sure BigDunc will continue his sterling work. If the Dail Uladh business continues to cause problems with references then it can be removed. However the reason for nomination (unreferenced) seems to be at least on the way to being satisfied. Keresaspa (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - Sources have been provided, original delete proposal no longer applies. If no one has any objections we can close this one down. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Agree I'll lend a hand with sourcing first chance I get. --Domer48'fenian' 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Significant Emotional Event[edit]
- Significant Emotional Event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The term is attributed in the article to Morris Massey, a creator of training videos. There are no references to establish that the term is used by reputable sources, only a set of external links to several .com sites. Thus there is nothing in the article to establish the notability of the term. Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge to Morris Massey. Marginally notable term, but no need for its own article. -Atmoz (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Although the article could be expanded greatly, the article is significant within the psychology community and provides relevant information. Benjamin Dominic (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If the article is significant with the psychology community, surely it would be possible to find a source that says so. In spite of the new sources, I still don't see any that establishes notability. Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I admit I am constantly puzzled by the apparent lack of cross-over between the psychological and business communities. The articles on hugely best-selling business books such as Who Moved My Cheese? and Peter Principle contain no psychological analysis at all. Similarly, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator don't say anything about their use in business (I originally took both as a nuclear engineer at public utilities). Here we have a psychological trauma consequence as seen from its applicability to business - yet despite its fairly broad viewing (I saw The Massey Triad as an engineer also) there are few Google hits. Should it be merged into psychological trauma or into Morris Massey, or kept separate and wikilinked to both? Simesa (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If the article is significant with the psychology community, surely it would be possible to find a source that says so. In spite of the new sources, I still don't see any that establishes notability. Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 06:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete an attempt to get an additional article for his writings, and nothing more than that. Possibly suitable for Wiktionary DGG (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per DGG. No significant third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Serpent (symbolism). MBisanz talk 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Symbolic snake[edit]
- Symbolic snake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Snakes are very often used symbolically in many cultures. See: Serpent (symbolism). This article singles out one very minor instance but does not provide any references to show its importance. Probably every day there are political cartoons etc. that use a picture of a snake in much the same way. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has a great historical importance, but this aspect of it does not seem to. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to Serpent (symbolism). Per Google Symbolic snake is used to mean more than just the case given in this article. JJL (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I've just left a message for the article's creator and main contributor. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment the account user:Ludvikus (the creator) has been blocked for two years, as a courtesy perhaps after a couple of days you could look at his talk page and see if he has answered you there (the only place he can). --PBS (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- BTW Wow! I was blocked for two days and I thought it was a long time. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Nothing so far. The information in the article is already mentioned (in a little less detail) in Serpent (symbolism) and could also be in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion if it's not already.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- p.s. If I was more talented I would draw a cartoon of the Wikipedia globe encircled by a serpent with a "Smiley face" for its head. The serpent would be labeled "Inclusionists, trivia lovers, pop culture, and Internet memes." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The article's creator shared this: Not at all. However, you should consider this first: http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=%22symbolic+snake%22&btnG=Search+Images --Ludvikus (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludvikus"
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete On the basis of the link given by the article creator, the WP article is not on the subject specified, but about a specific use that probably is not really notable and can be mentioned in other articles. i am not convinced the term is even useful as a crossref. DGG (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to Serpent (symbolism). Current page is about a particular use that is not very notable. LK (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. There is no reason for a separate article like this; a brief mention on the serpent symbolism page is fine but this is non-notable and borders on WP:OR since there isn't a body of published work addressing this use of the symbol. csloat (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note The main reason for the article in the first place seems to be to provide a bit of evidence that the Protocols are a fake, that is that real Jews would never use a snake as a positive symbol. The problem with that is anyone intelligent enough to catch the point probably doesn't need any help since the fakeness is plainly explained in the main article. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Anything useful and properly sourced belongs in the article about the protocols, not on its own page. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete or redirect to serpent (symbolism). Eventually content may be merged where appropriate.¨¨ victor falk 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Far*East Movement[edit]
- Far*East Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article that is about a non-notable band and written like an advertisement. Today I searched Google for any reliable sources that'd make this band meet WP:MUSIC but could not find any. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Far*East Movement is notable and should be kept in Wikipedia for the following reasons:
- Far*East Movement's song called Round Round was featured on the The_Fast_and_the_Furious:_Tokyo_Drift_(soundtrack). The_Fast_and_the_Furious:_Tokyo_Drift was a major $85 million dollar Hollywood production. Far*East Movement's song Round Round is track number 5 on the soundtrack, and an alternative source is Amazon.com: [71]
- Far*East Movement produced the album ABC_(Jin_album) for Jin_(rapper). This album landed Jin a record deal in Hong Kong with the major recording company Universal_Music_Group. [72]
- The ABC album that Far*East Movement produced was recognized in the zh:2008年度叱咤樂壇流行榜頒獎典禮得獎名單#專業推介、叱咤十大 (2008 Ultimate Song Chart Awards in Hong Kong). The names of the members of Far*East Movement (Kevin Nishimura, James Roh, Jae Choung) were announced in the awards show. You can see the video of their names being announced at the awards show in this youtube video: [73]. Far*East Movement members' names are announced at around time 1:10 in the video.
- Far*East Movement's music is featured on MTV's website [74], the MTV Iggy website [75] and MTV News [76]
- I strongly feel that this article should be included in Wikipedia. - J3ff (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: OK, I think I sort of overreacted. Thing is that I thought that the group failed the notability guideline for music because last time I checked this group has never had a charting album or single on the U.S. Billboard charts. More specifically, as of right now, criterion 1 of that notability guideline excludes "publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves", in this case the several interviews the members of this group gave to a few minor websites. The MTV News feature might meet that criterion, though. However, keep in mind that a musician does not attain notability under Wikipedia standards simply for having his or her music hosted on even a major website like MTV as you pointed out.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Notable under Criterion #1 of musicians and ensembles: In addition to the MTV news coverage mentioned above, Far*East Movement has also been mentioned on the Daily 10 on E! [77] and were interviewed on Power 106, a major radio station in the Los Angeles area [78]. Footnote #3 explains that media where artists talk about themselves means "For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist." I do not think these news interviews constitute "endorsement deals". The Power 106 interview might be considered an "endorsement interview". However, the MTV news interview is not structured like an endorsement interview. Neither is the coverage from E! — J3ff (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Regarding Jin's album: I opened up the video and heard Jin only mention their names but not specifically what they did. Maybe I'm missing something because I don't know Cantonese but personally a little bit of Mandarin. Could you please (honestly) translate it for other non-Cantonese Wikipedians? And no, FEM did not produce ABC; I checked the links provided and could not find its name under credits. Thus I still don't believe that FEM meets the notability standard--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Jin is not the one saying the names of the members of Far*East Movement. It is the announcer at the awards show saying the names. This link credits them on the HK UMG website as Far*East Movement: [79]. It says under ABC: "Produced by: Kevin Nishimura, James Roh and Jae Choung aka Far*East Movement" and "Arranged by: Kevin Nishimura, James Roh and Jae Choung aka Far*East Movement". This makes them notable under Criterion #1 of composers and lyricists — J3ff (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: OK, I think I sort of overreacted. Thing is that I thought that the group failed the notability guideline for music because last time I checked this group has never had a charting album or single on the U.S. Billboard charts. More specifically, as of right now, criterion 1 of that notability guideline excludes "publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves", in this case the several interviews the members of this group gave to a few minor websites. The MTV News feature might meet that criterion, though. However, keep in mind that a musician does not attain notability under Wikipedia standards simply for having his or her music hosted on even a major website like MTV as you pointed out.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Notable under Criterion #10 of musicians and ensembles "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc.": Far*East Movement's music has been featured in the soundtrack for the film The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, as mentioned above. Here is a source from Yahoo! [80] — J3ff (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comments about evidence of notability: Well thanks for your research. So far the only evidence for notability found include a 20-second brief by a television network, a song recorded for a popular movie, composition of a few tracks from an obscure Chinese rap album, and a bunch of interviews with the media. I think rewriting the article would be better. Now this is looking like an argument between the nominator and article creator; I'd like to see how other Wikipedians think of this. Maybe relist or withdraw?--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete the act continues to fail WP:MUSIC guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: insufficient notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: insufficient notability. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Acharya Sita Ram Chaturvedi[edit]
- Acharya Sita Ram Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. JaGatalk 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- keep notability by claims made on page, needs verified, but that it needs improved is not a reason for deletion. What this really needs is an expert tag. --Buridan (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but sometimes it needs to be stated. This subject was born in 1907 and worked in a non-English language that doesn't use the Latin alphabet. This means that we can't expect any sources to be online or in English, and even if there are such online English sources they may use a different transliteration of the subject's name. Wouldn't it be better in such a case to give a relevent Wikiproject, such as WP:India, a few weeks to look at this before nominating it for deletion? I note that even though the article has been around for a year or two it hasn't been brought to that project's notice until Salih did so above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep numerous hits on Google books, often in association with Madan Mohan Malviya suggest that the claims in the article are true, and therefore the article needs to be expanded and referenced rather than deleted. However move page to Sitaram Chaturvedi; Acharya is just a title roughly equivalent to Professor/Scholar. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Clear and strong notability has been demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Notability established. Thanks to the update by Abecedare. Salih (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Arguably meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). In addition to the reasons provided above, his receipt of the honorary doctor of letters also indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Our Lady and St Margaret's[edit]
- Our Lady and St Margaret's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete non notable elementary school Mayalld (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Merge/redirect a brief mention to Kinning Park per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]Delete-Article does not cite any sources or list any external links, so there's not any verifiable content here to add to the Kinning Park article.--Orlady (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - sorry but the article cites a reliable source - here. TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ah, yes. I now see that there was a reference, but it was invisible due to the absence of a References section. When I reviewed the article I thought it was one of those cases where an inexperienced user inserts a footnote number that doesn't point to anything. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Rename, clean up, and keep - School appears to be notable for its historic building. Article name should be Our Lady and St Margaret's Primary School. Article needs extensive cleanup, including (but not limited to) additional sources, additional information (e.g., the name of the city), wikification, and copy-editing. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Actually, if kept, shouldn't it be Our Lady and St. Margaret's Primary School? JuJube (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Isn't that what I said? --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note the period after "St". ^_^ JuJube (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ah, that's what I get for using a small font style... I think that standard UK English usage is to omit the period, but let's leave it up to a UK editor to decide that detail. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- None of the sources include the period and in UK English it is more normal to omit it. I have now moved the page and will rework it in the next couple of days. TerriersFan (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- OK, I have rewritten it. TerriersFan (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- None of the sources include the period and in UK English it is more normal to omit it. I have now moved the page and will rework it in the next couple of days. TerriersFan (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ah, that's what I get for using a small font style... I think that standard UK English usage is to omit the period, but let's leave it up to a UK editor to decide that detail. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note the period after "St". ^_^ JuJube (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Isn't that what I said? --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Actually, if kept, shouldn't it be Our Lady and St. Margaret's Primary School? JuJube (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - the school is based in what seems to be an architecturally significant building. This aspect needs developing in the page, though. TerriersFan (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Mergeinto whatever is the appropriate article -- since its RC, probably the article for the diocese. I don't think there is any actual evidence that the building is significant, beyond that its so bad they feel they need to make apologies for it.. DGG (talk)- Keep since the building is listed. That's a well established criterion. DGG (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Building is listed.[81] The listing also gives a reference to a book with a description of the building. JulesH (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Bring It Back Home[edit]
- Bring It Back Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Goodnight Tonight (Guns N' Roses song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Liqour and Whores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Night Crawler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sentimental Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sorry I Ruined the Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Series of articles about Guns N'Roses songs which were never released but have leaked onto Youtube. Doubt has been expressed whether they are genuine, but anyway they fail WP:MUSIC#Songs: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." These songs were never even released, and the articles can only say "Not much is known... except that it was written by the band but was never published onto a record." One similar article was deleted at AfD last September. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: Some songs seem not to be originally by GNR (but other artists, with proper releases etc.) what could make them somewhat notable. Any info is highly appreciated.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge and Redirect to a new section in Guns N' Roses. SMSpivey (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete all: non-notable songs WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
I vote to delete all of these alleged songs by Guns n Roses. These are articles about songs that may not even exist. They cannot be verified. Question: How notable can a song be if it has never been published? Answer: Not at all.Esasus (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We might add Cornshucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- And Ain't Goin' Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment by nom. - I omitted those two because unlike the first lot they each had a little bit of information and I thought I'd nominate them separately later; but no objection to including them here if no-one else objects. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Well, I had a look around today and did not find much info to rescue them. Usually I don't like articles to be deleted (if not no-brainers) - but - ehm - guess they're lost. If someone wants to build a list of unreleased GNR songs or what...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Too Much Too Soon (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - well there's yet another one...
- What about Shadow Of Your Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Question — isn't Night Crawler notable enough? (At least I remember listening to it as a kid, and it was mentioned on an episode of Beavis and Butt-head) I'm not going to look for anything on it, but it seems like might be. MuZemike 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
You must be thinking about the song of the same name by Judas Priest Esasus (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Re: consensus - The series of non-released songs, allegedly by Guns N' Roses, was proposed for deletion by JohnCD. Via the discussion is appears to me that the consensus is to Delete. 3 have voted to delete, and one has nominated other suspect articles to the list. Only [SMSpivey] has suggested that these songs be rescused Merge and Redirect to a new section in Guns N' Roses. I strongly suggest that these songs be immediately deleted as per the consensus:
- Goodnight Tonight (Guns N' Roses song)
- Liqour and Whores
- Night Crawler
- Sentimental Movie
- Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll
- Sorry I Ruined the Show
- Too Much Too Soon (song)
- Cornshucker
- Ain't Goin' Down
- If somebody wishes to create a new article, or new Guns N' Roses' section of "Rumored Guns N' Roses songs", then they would be clear to give it a go. Esasus (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete all per Esasus, including Bring It Back Home. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete all, no question. Not only do they failWP:MUSIC, but they are also intrinsically unverifiable. Maybe a sentence or two would be appropriate on the Guns N' Roses page, but they are clearly not supported as separate articles. LSD (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 merge to g-block. MBisanz talk 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Periodic table (extended)[edit]
- Periodic table (extended) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redundant and unneeded hypothetical periodic table. There are already 15 different versions of the periodic table, and all information about the hypothetical g-block is already found in the G-block article. Other than that, it is a crystal ball because no one knows when/if the g-block extended table will be used. Also, it is unreferenced because the current references don't show at all that a g-block extended.periodic table exists/is needed. Tavix (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep it integrates the G-block into the table. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Delete: The heart of the article is the graphic/table of the extended periodic table. But as the article acknowledges, the actual position of the g-block might be nowhere near where it's drawn on the table (between the s's and f's). So the heart of the article is in fact an unsourced assertion about the electronic configuration of still-theoretical elements. Unless a source can be found, I say delete. --Steve (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep Merge Yes there is a reference, look at page three of the jeries.rihani.com reference where it shows a table with the g-block. Also look at the pdf link below that. If the g-block is going to be deleted for being a crystal ball due to no g-block elements being discovered, we might as well delete stuff on hypothetical things like supersymmetrical particles, the Higgs boson and the Oort cloud and stuff like dark matter & energy that we do have evidence for. We do know of g-orbitals. Having 15 different versions of the periodic table is no reason to delete some because we are not writing on paper.--BrendanRyan (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. The problem is that the links do not really address this form of the periodic table directly. The quote from Dr. Eric Scerri in the jeries.rihani.com link: "There is also the complicating factor of relativistic effects in very heavy atoms due to very rapidly moving inner electrons. Relativistic quantum mechanical calculations have provided some predictions but again we cannot confirm them yet. So the next time you see a detailed configuration of any element beyond about 105 bear in mind that this is somewhat hypothetical." is most apt and says it better than I can. We simply do not know where the orbital filling with go for these elements. Indeed the relativistic effects may be such that the whole concept of orbital filling and electron configuration may make no sense for these very heavy elements. Perhaps it should be partly merged somewhere else. I am not sure where. I do not think it can be kept as it is unless there are better sources that address this form of the table directly. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Makes sense, I changed to merge.--BrendanRyan (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. A scientific journal appears to have accepted at least one article covering this (as Nergaal pointed out), so this seems to be a valid science topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- the topic is perfectly valid, as it is discussed in the G-block article, but it is redundant to have an extended periodic table that includes the G-block in it. Tavix (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A "valid science topic" is not necessarily a notable one. Anyone who's spent time doing science will know that whatever dumb idea you can think of, someone somewhere has published a peer-reviewed article asserting it. Scientists publish 1,000,000 peer-reviewed papers each year. They're not all automatically notable simply by virtue of having been published. --Steve (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge with g-block. Neither article is particularly big, and they cover more or less the same ground. On the other hand, they seem perfectly valid scientific concepts, and I don't see why they shouldn't be included under one title or the other. Anaxial (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I agree. This seems like a step in the right direction. Having an article titled "Periodic table (extended)" makes the thing sound more official and notable than it really is, but having the same table as one item in an article about the g-block would be fine in my opinion. --Steve (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge. First, let me say something about the reference in "Foundations of Chemistry". This journal is refereed but it is not strictly a science journal. It covers a lot of general philosophical, historical and educational ideas about chemistry. Nevertheless in general it is good source for wikipedia. In this specific case, the article does display the block from element 121 and refers to it in one sentence "In contrast with Seaborg predictions, the table in Fig. 4 shows the elements from Z = 121 to Z = 138 form a new period having no homologue among the known elements". That is all. It does not say anything more and does not call it the g-block. The article is not about this specifically but about the application of Group Theory to the Periodic Table. So it is not that notable nor is the g-block, so the best solution is to merge the two together. Which way, I am not sure, but perhaps, since we are discussing this one, merge this to g-block for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge into g-block to serve as an example of how the periodic table might look if the g-block were integrated into it. The basis for a separate article on a hypothetical periodic table was extremely weak when this article was created in 2002 (*cough* several years before the paper cited above) and is still very weak. BTW, once a g-block element is discovered and researchers have a good idea of where the g-block should be placed, then we will extend all the periodic tables. Both then and now - I don't see much need for this article. --mav (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge with g-block seems to be the best way. Without the extended table, there is no explanation for why the g-block contains those elements given in the g-block graphics. I suggest a title like Extension of the periodic table beyond the 7th period, with redirects from the two old titles. Since we also have (non-stub) articles for elements 119 to 126, there should be a periodic table containing their (presumed) positions in period 8. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. This is what the periodic table might look like if any elements were known beyond 118. On the other hand, it might look very different if the Madelung rule breaks down, we just don't know. Nor do we have any real prospect of finding out in the forseeable future. Pure WP:CRYSTAL stuff. Physchim62 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
*Comment. I created a page in BlueEarth wiki-site Extended periodic table that has non-systematic names for all 218 elements, even through I made-up those names from elements 112-218. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
[]
- Did you see the extended periodic table on that page since the link works? BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The fact that you made up names for over a 100 unknown elements makes this an unreliable source. It should not be linked to from this article.
- Striking conversation because it doesn't do anything on whether this article should be kept or not. Take this to the talk page. Tavix (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
A. Ramalingam[edit]
- A. Ramalingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. JaGatalk 01:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Currently appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF criteria, though I'm open to reassessing if non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources can be demonstrated. MastCell Talk 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Non-notable doctor of "Indian medicine". Fails WP:BIO. Abecedare (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: fails WP:BIO requirements, and reads as if it were written by the subject or someone close to him. Basie (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Natalia Koreshkova[edit]
- Natalia Koreshkova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch turning up lots of promotional bits and directory listings, but no sources showing notability. Prod contested by author without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Casinos don't constitute an assertion of notability I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete unless sufficient secondary sources are provided per WP:N. Only 42 google hits is not a good start. An interview in euro weekly is about the only bet. Euro Weekly says it publishes "The Largest English Language Newspapers in Spain". Ty 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete nn, or encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected. Author consented to deletion on article talk page. (Non-admin closure) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Gavyn Sykes[edit]
- Gavyn Sykes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A user (that seems to be unusually invested in the actor that portrays this character...) has created this article on a VERY minor Episode I character. Not only is this article non-notable (no sources are cited except primary or the actors blog), but it is also completely written in-universe and is a blatant rip-off of the wookiepedia article. Request to delete and simply list with List of Star Wars characters. --TorsodogTalk 01:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Purge questionable copyvio content (including images with partial/missing FUR, all of which I think I've tagged) and redirect to List of Star Wars characters#S. --EEMIV (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Page blanking by the author does make it eligible for speedy deletion. On another note though, the supposed copyvio is from Wookieepedia, which appears to be licensed under the GFDL just like Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Maldivian honours system[edit]
- Maldivian honours system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article does not define the notability of the subject. A Google search turns up countless versions of this article. Does not meet WP:RS or WP:V standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep and mark as requiring sources. I find it hard to believe that no sources have described this system in the 40-odd years since its inception. A national honours system is clearly notable, and it is not a requirement (except in some specific cases) of wikipedia policy that an article has to show notability. JulesH (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Article needs to be expanded, but there should absolutely be a page about it here. Alberon (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Whether and where to redirect any of these articles can be handled by the normal editorial processes (talk page discussion). Stifle (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Irish Whip Wrestling International Heavyweight Championship[edit]
- Irish Whip Wrestling International Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Google gives a grand total of 6 hits for this. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Also nominating:
- Irish Whip Wrestling Zero Gravity Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Irish Whip Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (technically, could be speedied G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Whip Wrestling)
-- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 04:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - The promotion has been discussed in several reliable news sources. For example, [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89],[90], and [91]. The championship articles could use some formatting, but that's not grounds for deletion. Please also note that the re-created article is not similar to the first, as the big problem with the original article was that it was written as an advertisement. The current version is not. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That would be an argument to drop Irish Whip Wrestling from this discussion (which I won't do just yet), but what about articles on the individual events? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I believe that the championship belts of a notable promotion are inherently notable. It should also be noted that the championships are mentioned in several of these articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That would be an argument to drop Irish Whip Wrestling from this discussion (which I won't do just yet), but what about articles on the individual events? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The sources don't seem that notable to me. Even if they did, they only really help the promotion. The titles themselves are not notable to have their own articles. Not sure about the promotiom, but Delete or Redirect the titles. TJ Spyke 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The title changes are discussed in the sources, which would also support their notability. I am also unable to think of a precedent for the titles of a notable promotion not being considered notable. I'm also confused as to why the sources wouldn't be notable. The Carlow Nationalist is a major paper, and its family of papers seems quite notable, even if it isn't North American. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep the Irish Whip Wrestling page, redirect the others. JJL (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect - to main article because this title is not notable in its own right to have its own article, does not meet WP:N.--TRUCO 19:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
AZ Dodgeball[edit]
- AZ Dodgeball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sports organization falls short of WP:CORP. It is debatable as to whether dodgeball leagues are notable enough for Wikipedia, as well. Article has been orphaned for over a year. B.Wind (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Coverage is limited to local sources. Doesn't meet notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 06:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete--purely local and not encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
The Logan Family[edit]
- Logan Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Just a list of names from a soap opera. Information already exists in B&B and in individual fictional characters articles. This article contains no real world information, no sources, no references, no media coverage. Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as a speedy-merge target for such articles as Hope Logan, Stephen Logan, Beth Logan etc. – sgeureka t•c 15:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep This is the sort of article we ought to have, as a suitable place to merge articles into that can not justifiably stand on their own. An organization by family is often the clearest way to deal with these, not a single alphabetic sequence. Removing these combination articles is an intermediate step in eliminating discussion of characters:first reduce them to a paragraph in the main article, then a bare list in the main article, then remove even that because it doesn't say anything any more. Not saying that is necessarily the intention here, but its the usual result. DGG (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per DGG. SMSpivey (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So you admit that the "Logan family" article won't discuss about this fictional family as a fictional element with real world importance but will be "just a list of names from a soap opera" that will serve as the place to merge character articles. And that makes you wonder: Who is member of this family? "Ridge Forrester" because he was married to some episodes with a Logan? "Nick Marone" for the same reason until the writers decide that he has to divorce to give new excitement to the show? As far as I see in the list "the fifth generation" doesn't even have "Logan" as surname. To conclude, to divide characters based in parts of the plot is not a good idea. IMO, list of characters have to keep in the alphabetized way. I locate here the same problem as I saw in some CfD's for categories for fictional people. Not the same rules imply for real and fictional people. Things change in B&B according to a plot and there is not "future", "past" and "presend". Things have to be stated independently of time and with real world perspective. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- strong keep per DGG, Sgeureka, strong disagree with merging characters though. Ikip (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per sg and get rid of (i.e. merge) the fancrufty articles on all the individual characters to this page. I agree with DGG that this represents a happy middle ground between providing content of fictional topics and fancruft overload. Eusebeus (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Please, as per WP:ITSCRUFT (applies to AfDs) and WP:NOCRUFT (in general) please don't call other editors contributions cruft. Ikip (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong DeleteThere has been no attempt to establish notability in this article and the information in it can be found elsewhere. DGG said this is "This is the sort of article we ought to have, as a suitable place to merge articles into that can not justifiably stand on their own" but the fact is there are two other articles that serve that very purpose, Current characters of The Bold and the Beautiful and List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters. Those articles as well as the articles of each of the individual characters listed in this article, make the Logan family redundant and unnecessary.Rocksey (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note to closing administrator This is a conversation about deleting Logan Family, not merging unrelated articles. If editors want to merge these articles, please follow standard merge procedure. Ikip (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to either Current characters of The Bold and the Beautiful (if they are current) or The Bold and the Beautiful. Some of this could be merged into the redirect target; however, this subject matter is already adequately covered in the Current characters article, and all Logan Family adds is unsourced WP:PLOT of no demonstrated notability, in a level of detail excessive for an encyclopedia. So a delete would be fine. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Per DGG. -- Banjeboi 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep c'mon, with (a) the sheer length and popularity of the soap...and it will have detailed commentary...somewhere in the glossy mags section of the newsagent or bookstore. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ikip tried to give recently some proof that "Spectra fashions" has been covered by third party sources. The result was some references to the plot in a book for B&B. I think the result will be the same here. I have no evidence that Logan family was every discussed independently from B&B. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- Magioladitis I don't know if they show this program where you are but in Anglophone countries it is very popular. From experience with other soap operas there are a profusion of commentaries and features in numerous women's magazines etc. Yes there will be a stack of secondary sources, but no I won't go find them as it would bore the bejeezus out of me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Zahir Lalani[edit]
- Zahir Lalani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable biography Mayumashu (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Subject does not appear to meet criteria in WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Insufficient notability for inclusion per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G3, vandalism. Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Casper's Wonderful Island[edit]
- Casper's Wonderful Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears this may be a hoax. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:V All google results are are sourced from Wikipedia or other non-reliable sources. Imdb.com and other sources don't turn up anything. Peacock (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete as this appears to be a hoax. Nothing with this title was found on the IMDB. ArcAngel (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Likely hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete — not verifiable at the least. MuZemike 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:HOAX. twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete per ArcAngel. Something about this is fishy..... I feel it's a hoax. K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Horatio Caine. Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Kyle Harmon[edit]
- Kyle Harmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Recurring character in CSI: Miami. Not a regular character and has only made nine appearances. This page is basically just a run-down of appearances on the show. Not notable and no third party sources. Redfarmer (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete not a notable character. JuJube (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to Horatio Caine. Since he's the kid's biological father (in the show), I'll treat this like we treat articles on real people. Redirect until the kid himself becomes independently notable or at least referenced. Redirecting means the material will be in the history for anyone to reference if they feel like it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect per Mgm. ArcAngel (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect per Mgm. twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Drobo. MBisanz talk 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Data Robotics[edit]
- Data Robotics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy, new company with limited notability. Corresponding product has an article though so bringing to AfD. Stephen 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Data Robotics has invented a new technology which is covered in two other Wikipedia articles, both the RAID article and the Drobo article. The company is linked in those articles but the company article was missing so I've added it so those links are no longer broken. The new technology is a fundamental shift from RAID which has been established for over 20 years which is why it's covered in both the RAID and Drobo articles. Daveschaffer (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- — Daveschaffer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Stephen 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hmmm. I cleaned up the article, cut the fluff, and added two sources that suggest to me that the company could warrant inclusion BUT! I get the feeling that the answer here really is to merge, since I could find only one reference (a BBC report) about the company itself. Daveschaffer might make a good PR person, but his comments only address the technology, not the company, which at this point is really identical with the product. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep After Drmies cleanup there's enough there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - nothing notable here. andy (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Looks like an informative and descriptive article. I own four of their products and am glad to see this is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tservo24 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep I've been developing a story on Drobo and Data Robotics -- I'm surprised that there isn't a page on wikipedia --- two sources have told me Data Robotics are now in the top 10 vendors of network storage devices that cost less than $1,000
- — Doncorleonedesanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
E107 (software)[edit]
- E107 (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources. Only trivial google search results. 16x9 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep. Won 3rd place in Packt Publishing's Best PHP Open Source Content Management System award for 2007[92]. JulesH (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep - The award JulesH found establishes some notability as far as I'm concerned. There are also some gnews hits [93]. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - where do I comment about the notability of the award? and third place really? 16x9 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 06:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - fails notability on software - as far as I can determine the "award" is given by the same company that publishes books about the subject.. seems to be a sham. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —16x9 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was REDIRECT to Sally Spectra. The last AFD should have resolved this. Redirect, and salvage anything of value from the history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Spectra Fashions[edit]
- Spectra Fashions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. Only unreferenced plot. Maybe some parts are original research or made-up. The result of the first Afd, two months ago, was ""merge to Sally Spectra" but nobody did. This is normal because there is nothing really to merge in the Sally Spectra article. Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to Sally Spectra if there's nothing worth merging. --Dynaflow babble 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
This article can be deleted. It has been rewritten and reorganized into the new Jackie M Designs article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derexican (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Jackie M fashions is even worse because this name is valid since November 2007 and Spectra Fashions was for many years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
This name is valid?...what are you talking about? The Jackie M Designs article corresponds to the timeline of the show and is updated to reflect the events that happened on the show that led to the transition from Spectra Fashions to Jackie M Designs....doesn't matter how old the Spectra Fashions article is...it's outdated and not relevant to the show..it has its own subtitle on the Jackie M page....Derexican (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect Preserves the history in case someone wants to merge or finds the sources to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No matter how outdated it is, some parts of the world are still behind on the US seasons or showing reruns. This still remains a valid search criterion. Either the new article should be renamed, and the redirect kept, or the whole thing should redirect somewhere else. Deletion is not an option because of it being a plausible search term. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Renaming to a name that is more unknown? 123 hits for Jackie M Designs! -- Magioladitis (talk)
- Delete per nom as merge is unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep RE: "No real world information, references, media coverage...Maybe some parts are original research or made-up" WP:INTROTODELETE "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." this is not the place to improve the article. no notability outside the show Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." no efforts to find sources were mentioned in nomination. 38 google news entries,[94] written in the book The Bold and the Beautiful[95]Ikip (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable combination article if there is one. The newspapers do seem to talk about it. I note that the examples that Ikip found can and should be used equally well to justify articles on every character they discuss. If we're going to rely on a count of third party sources for notability, Google's expanding newspaper coverage is going to increasingly make almost everything notable. DGG (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
The Dreams[edit]
- The Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The band exists on YouTube and MySpace but I can't find much more about them. Claims in the article about having 3 number one hits in a row can't be verified. Not by me, anyway. I don't think they meet WP:BAND at all. SIS 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. I can't find any evidence of the charting either, although I note the claim on their myspace site is for number 1 video, and I can't find an archive of the official video chart. What this band is notable for, though, is having been a finalist in Melodi Grand Prix, the Danish televised contest for choosing their entry into the Eurovision Song Contest. [96][97] As a notable national level competition, this seems a clear indicator of notability to me. JulesH (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep while the article does need a damn good wikifying, they do pass WP:MUSIC#C9 for the Eurovision Song Contest entry. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Gary Spatz[edit]
- Gary Spatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to meet WP:N Livna-Maor (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep He is primarily a drama coach, and the claimed notability is that he was the coach for a large number of famous actors, 56 of whom have Wikipedia articles. (I assume there is 3rd party documentation for all of them, tho it needs to be added to the article) Considering the very high notability of some of them & the consequent extensive documentation of their careers, probably the sources on at least some of them would contain a discussion of the significance of his work with them. If it is possible for a sports coach to be notable as a coach, then it is possible for an acting coach to be notable as a coach. DGG (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete As much as I respect DGG, I have to disagree here. Notability is not inherited from clients, it comes from independent, reliable sources. The 11 gnews hits turned up several press releases, a couple of passing mentions, and several wrong Gary Spatz's. The first 6 pages of non-wiki ghits didn't turn up a whiff of notability. Lots of press releases, lots of directory listings, a few complaints, but no notability. If someone can find independent, reliable sources that show notability and add them to the article, I'll gladly take another look, but as of now, I don't think it exists.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Fabrictramp pretty much hits the nail on the head. Nothing can be found for this guy to meet WP:N. Wikipedia isn't a directory of living people, but notable people. That's what prevents it from being manipulated for personal gain, such as in the case of this possible autobiography. Themfromspace (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- comment a misunderstanding of not inherited. for a drama coach, the notability depends specifically on the clients, and one attains notability in this field by doing noatble work for notable clients. That;'s what the profession is about. DGG (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- reply But until we have a guideline on Wikipedia that says doing notable work for notable clients is good enough, we need to have reliable, independent sources showing notability. I still haven't found those sources -- have you?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Notable in the field != WP:N. I'm notable among pets living in my house because I feed them. LOLthulu 06:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep While videos usually aren't world-stopping references, this seems to prove that he truly does have notability in the field. That's the only thing I could find for now, but it seems to be promising. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per Fabrictramp. This is a really close one, but the lack of independent coverage says WP:BIO fail to me. --JaGatalk 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Interesting, because I took a class from Gary about 20 years ago. I believe he is an acting coach, but there is no mention in reliable, third-party publications regarding his legitimacy. He has no IMDb profile. No mention of his classes or coaching in third-party publications. In fact, the there are more than a few reviews criticizing the school he's run for possible improper business practices [98][99][100]. His clients may be notable, but his links to them are dubious (unless third-party evidence is provided), and he seems to fail WP:BIO.ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I'm not personally impartial about the deletion of this page. I did want to ask, though, why the four or five video results from a single google video search on this guy fail to add reliablity. Granted, many of the videos I found seem to have been posted by this guy's company, but the videos themselves seem to be legitimate citations. In addition, I stumbled into this discussion while at the library. And while we couldn't find the articles online, the librarian found the Rocky Mountain News Oct 28, '94, which has an article entitled "So your child wants to be a star?". It discusses Spatz's work on Roseanne and The Mickey Mouse club. She also found Grand Magazine Nov/Dec '07. Its article "Calling all kids: lights, camera, action!" discusses Spatz's biography, talks about his school, as well as listing an extensive resumé. Now, you can argue that Grand Magazine isn't the New York Times, but it also seems pompous to discount it. Perhaps, rather than deletion, this article needs have unverifiable information removed, leaving only the information from those videos, Rocky Mountain News, Grand Magazine, and whatever anyone else can rustle up. User:poetnabotl 11:33, 1 February 2009
- Delete I've found a maze of YouTube, MySpace and other stuff, plus very similarly worded references to him being 'respected'. I've found quite a few people warning of scams and business practices. It seems hard to get to the Gary Spatz revealed in this article. I'd be much happier with some solid outside references rather than four to Gary Spatz sites, and without someone with 'marketing' in his/her name doing a large revision. Call me cynical, just don't call me early... Peridon (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show#Supporting features. MBisanz talk 02:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Aesop And Son[edit]
- Aesop And Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is currently an AFD going on for Bullwinkle's Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) listed for being a "segment of a show does not meets the criteria for inclusion." Upon investigating The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show I noticed that this has an identical problem. I suggest Merge into the show's article Valley2city 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[]
- AfD is not for merge discussions. Consider taking this to article's talk page or target article's talk page. In fact, considering that the article has only one contributor, boldly redirect it yourself, explain the redirect to the creator and move on. LeaveSleaves 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Thank you LeaveSleaves, and on that note I change to Delete. There is very little content and the entire thing would have to be rewritten anyway to be viable. It just has a similar situation with Bullwinkle's Corner (same author) and therefore I felt it belonged in AFD. I decided against joining the AFDs because they are slightly different. I want to note that I suggested to the creator of the page, BuddyBoy600, that he should edit the main page of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show because his expertise seems to be on the show. Valley2city 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
*The idea of deleting this seems to be uncontroversial and because it is such a new and short two sentence article therefore I am changing this to a Prod. Could an Admin please close this Afd which I have proposed? Thanks Valley2city 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- (edit conflict) Okay, but have you considered redirecting right away or is there some protest from the creator to this? Because noticing comments on the other AfD, I think when it comes to this one, most might !vote the same way here. As you pointed out there, Aesop and Son already redirects to show article, why not this? Doing that would certainly save your time and would solve the situation easily. LeaveSleaves 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to The_Adventures_of_Rocky_and_Bullwinkle_and_Friends_(TV_Series)#Supporting_features. Gsearch isn't turning up individual notability for this (all mentions I found are in discussions of TAoRaBaF); all material in this article is already in the section. Redirects are cheap, so don't delete.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: non-notable show segment. JamesBurns (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show#Supporting features. No individual notability can be found. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show#Supporting features. This was a minor segment of the series. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep in this case. Rocky and Bullwinkle is an odd duck of a show, in that it had both its own recurring plot and a gallery of shorts, some featuring the title characters, some not. To my mind the actual Rocky and Bullwinkle material should be contained in the show article. But in this case, the situation seems to me analagous to Merry Melodies or Looney Tunes where recurring characters are not treated as subsections of the overall series. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Article has been referenced and sourced to demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca t|c 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Beach Street Records[edit]
- Beach Street Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to fail WP:CORP. Only two notable acts signed, no significant coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: no significant independent 3rd party coverage WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm finding plenty of coverage, which has allowed me to expand the article. So far I have added five references, and there is more. There's enough for the general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep Appears to be a notable record label and would be a better merge candidate than a target for deletion. Kudos to Paul Erik for improving the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Paul's edits give it enough sources for it to satisfy the notability and verifiability guidelines. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Adam Kuban[edit]
- Adam Kuban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not notable, mostly an aggregation of blog links Jonathan Williams (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't have a strong opinion on this subject one way or the other, but I think he's marginally notable. He does have four or five relatively popular websites to his name, FWIW. Perhaps adding articles about the more popular of those sites, e.g. Slice while deleting this page would make more sense. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment- There's significant coverage for him through news results. To mention a few :([101], [102]); ([103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]). The first set mentions his websites in particular, the second set includes articles that (in some cases extensively) quote him. In all cases, he is considered a prominent critic through his websites, particularly on pizza and hamburgers. There isn't much biographical coverage, except from Gothamist through a source already in the article, [110]. Now considering that this person falls under WP:CREATIVE, I think he somehow passes criterion #1. I'd reserve my vote for the moment and would like to see what others think of this coverage. LeaveSleaves 15:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 07:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep The combination of his websites getting substantial write ups in papers like the New York Times and his getting mentions indicates this should be kept. Whether to include the websites in this article or him in them, is a discussion for the article's talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep But in all this time, shouldn't someone have actually added the refs? For that matter, shouldn't the nominator have looked for them, even the author did not.? DGG (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Mesa Mall[edit]
- Mesa Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability. Livna-Maor (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It's a shopping mall, so what. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTE. SpinningSpark 02:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- May I suggest that when you feel the need to say "so what", you read WP:WHOCARES. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - awfully close to the generally accepted benchmark of 1Mill. sq.ft. WP:NOTDIR I dont believe is applicable as all 110 retailers are not listed, only the Majors. WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:SPAM have been dealt with via editing, and so was the copyvio. I believe WP:N can be found for this one. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep this is sufficiently close to the usual standard. Not that we officially go by precedent, but we might a swell use it when there's nothing better to go on. And if all the 100 had been listed, there would have been a better remedy than deletion of the article, which is to remove the list of them, as we have consistently done to so many of these articles. DGG (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete We may not officially go by precedent, but if we're going to ignore that for the moment, it makes sense to adhere to our own standards. The mall is not >1 million sq ft, and doesn't seem notable for any other reason. Every mall is uniquely situated, doesn't mean it meets WP:N. LOLthulu 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to CCGS Henry Larsen. MBisanz talk 02:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Ice Breaker (documentary)[edit]
- Ice Breaker (documentary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge and redirect to CCGS Henry Larsen. The article slightly more information than the article on the ship. (release date of documentary and time the cruise took) - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect A search shows no reviews about this documentary, and all the content has already been added to the CCGS article. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Gerald Kean[edit]
- Gerald Kean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reason Rpersse (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC) This article should be deleted. It appears to be 'celebrity' triva. The individual concerned is a solicitor which a not a profession that normal qualifies for notability by itself. He appears to have appeared in some reality television shows and the links to these provides the majority of the sources. These do not support notability. The 'Doctor' title is not supported by any reference. The reference to the purchase of the private jet is not backed up by its source and may be recycled and unverified information. The individual's wife is refered to as 'a blonde'. Biographical details seem to be mainly based on social life and television trivia. It lists birthday gifts and parties. The sources link to the RTE (Irish Television website) and are in the form of 'blurbs' for forthcoming programmes. They have no apparent verification of facts. It appears to be unencylopedic and similar to gossip columns in tabloid newspapers[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. The Sunday Business Post (cited in the article) and The Sunday Times, whose profile of the subject is the very first Google result, are both independent reliable non-tabloid sources providing substantial coverage of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[] - Keep per Phil Bridger. Two lengthy articles devoted exclusively to him in notable newspapers makes this an easy call. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Times and Business Post profiles mean he easily meets WP:N. Other concerns raised by nominator are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. Maralia (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.