Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 20
< January 19 | January 21 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed. malformed nomination: correct discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight the Pipe (2nd nomination) Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Fight the Pipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nn organisation also fails wp:corp Oo7565 (talk) 18:40, 20 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 was done - article redirected (NAC) Mayalld (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sufficient time (over 5 months) has elapsed to complete a merge as required by the first AfD, and no progress has been made. Complete deletion is recommended as better than leaving this article in existence indefinitely. Rogerb67 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete G6 The merge to the discography appears to have been done, so this can be speedy deleted as a non-controversial final step of the original AFD. Mayalld (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- '
Keep' orMerge - a merge !vote is/was not considered binding, nor is it a reason to delete if the merge was not done (in spite of the fancy new templates). Simple deleting would lose the verifiable information. Deletion is meant as a last resort - editors who don't like this list should do the merge, not push for deletion. This is a simple case of improvement, no? The exact opposite of a WP:delete candidate. The speedy tag claiming that the merge is complete, therefore deleting is non-controversial simply seems to be wrong in this case.Yobmod (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It looks like the merge has already been done, so this can simply be redirected as a viable search term. The concurrent AfD and speedy tag is very confusing, as they give opposite reason to delete (AfD = merge not done, Speedy = merge complete!).Yobmod (talk) 08:37, 21 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. I'm closing this early under WP:SNOW and WP:BLP; I note its author has not sought to defend it, despite having edited since the AfD notice was placed. Rodhullandemu 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Mathew Cresswell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not verifiable Britain's Got Talent entrant. Either typo or hoax. - 7-bubёn >t 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - hoax. He would have been only 14 at the time; he's not mentioned in Britain's Got Talent (series 1), and theres's nothing in Google. At best, unverifiable. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as probable hoax. Graymornings(talk) 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Either not-notable or hoax. Either way, delete. Plastikspork (talk) 01:02, 22 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. Schuym1 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Cheese (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- delete not verifiable. Laudak (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Weakkeep - even though it reads like an ad and little more, plenty of ghits and even an apparently objective article in an online publication. J L G 4 1 0 4 04:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Google hits do not show notability same with one reliable source. Schuym1 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- 'Nother source. and another. I have no stake in this software's survival, sale, or notability. But it clearly does have traction and, I would argue, notability. After more research, I'm even removing "weak" from my recommendation. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Those sources are unreliable blogs. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:SELFPUB. Schuym1 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't feel you're applying WP:SELFPUB appropriately. Gnews shows at least a half-dozen hits. Blogs aren't off the table, in my view-- people do read them. Anyway, I stand by my recommendation. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There is no proof that the author of both blogs have significant coverage in reliable sources. Hits do not show notability. The software is not even mentioned in Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think you're arguing for the sake of it. Did you check any of the other sources? Why are you so intent upon proving lack of notability here, when clearly there are numerous examples beyond the two you dismiss outright. You are not giving an argument-- you are quoting the same phrases over and over. And when you search you need to try other search terms (like, e.g., Cheese linux), not just the one in the article title. You'll have to work a little harder to persuade me. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I did look at the sources in the Google News search. What do you mean by numerous examples? You only posted three sources. It also isn't mentioned in this Google News Search. There is mainly download sites in this search. Schuym1 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think you're arguing for the sake of it. Did you check any of the other sources? Why are you so intent upon proving lack of notability here, when clearly there are numerous examples beyond the two you dismiss outright. You are not giving an argument-- you are quoting the same phrases over and over. And when you search you need to try other search terms (like, e.g., Cheese linux), not just the one in the article title. You'll have to work a little harder to persuade me. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There is no proof that the author of both blogs have significant coverage in reliable sources. Hits do not show notability. The software is not even mentioned in Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't feel you're applying WP:SELFPUB appropriately. Gnews shows at least a half-dozen hits. Blogs aren't off the table, in my view-- people do read them. Anyway, I stand by my recommendation. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:SELFPUB. Schuym1 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Those sources are unreliable blogs. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- 'Nother source. and another. I have no stake in this software's survival, sale, or notability. But it clearly does have traction and, I would argue, notability. After more research, I'm even removing "weak" from my recommendation. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Google hits do not show notability same with one reliable source. Schuym1 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Fair enough. I'm trying to follow WP:N, too. We're both interpreting (notability is not objective), in any case. Now, as for "numerous examples", try this J L G 4 1 0 4 16:15, 24 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 media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete as G-12 copyvio by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure–Capricorn42 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Importance of Vegetarianism in Sikhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Copy violation from: http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/institutions/langar/
Additionally, there are several other problems like POVfork etc. Roadahead ★ 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete since it's a clear copyvio, it shouldn't have been taken to AfD. JuJube (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- My bad, Speedy delete db-12 is the right tag. I mistakenly clicked xfd and that filed this report. --Roadahead ★ 01:24, 21 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Justin Slosky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Here's an odd case for y'all. The article's subject apparently saw this and remarked on the talk page that they didn't believe themselves to be notable. The references don't do much to convince one that he is notable, so here we are. (I'm considering this a procedural nom) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep as notable whether he thinks so or not. Google news has stuff on him and the well-sourced article and awards speak for themselves. Is he contesting any of the facts? Or demanding it be removed? If not... welcome aboard Justin. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Delete I couldn't care less whether or not he wants it, but I do not consider the awards in the article major ones, and I see no other accomplishments that might be considered notability.DGG (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. I'm a great admirer of Michael's effort's to rescue articles, but I don't think it's going to work this time. Let's take a look at those Google News results, using the information in the snippets listed by the results:
- [1] A news wire report saying that he's going to appear on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire college edition.
- [2] his name listed on his high school honor (I still cringe when I have to leave out the "u", but I have to follow WP:ENGVAR) roll printed in a local newspaper (catchment area population c. 175,000).
- [3] A 614-word article in the same newspaper not about the subject but containing a quote from him.
- [4] A passing mention in a university newspaper that he helped to organise a student film festival.
- [5] A wire report about someone doing a talk at a university in which the subject is quoted.
- [6] A wire report about student housing which focuses on his roommate but mentions the subject in passing.
- So what do we know about the subject? His age (to within a year), where he was educated, that he helped organize a student film festival, that he appeared on a trivial TV show and that he shared a room at college with two other people. Is that enough to base an encyclopedia article on? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Struck my "keep". This fellow has a long carrer ahead of him and the article will be welcomed back when he wins an award someone considers notable enough or gets expanded coverage for his actions outside his college community. I know when to use the spurs and when the bit. No prob. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- weak keep. Borderline notability. Laudak (talk) 00:48, 24 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 01:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- D. B. Cooper in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
appears to be a cover for trivia. incorporate relevant details into the D. B. Cooper article. See Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Aurush kazemini (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- DELETE Agreed, looks like random trivia better rolled into D.B. Cooper article -- or simply dropped altogether. The "in popular culture" sections in articles are generally just fanservice cruft anyway. SmashTheState (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Needs to be edited not deleted. His legacy has been notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment sure, thats why it can be discussed in the D.B. Cooper article. Aurush kazemini (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't have any problem with a merge discussion on the article's talk page after it's kept. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete -or- Merge: Belongs in a trivia section in the article for D.B. Cooper. D.B. Cooper is notable, his mentions in popular culture reinforce that notability, but do not themselves inherit his notability unless they themselves are provably notable. Since that starts getting into a serious cyclical nightmare with chicken-in-egg connotations, situations like this seem best served by placing the popular cultural references in some sort of trivia section in the parent article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Trivia sections are discouraged, because it is better for material on the reception and use of such figures when extensive to have its own article. Popular culture is real; the occurrence of notable figures in it in significant ways is encyclopedic information, and an article of this sort is the place to put the material. As long as the mention is in a significant way in a notable work, the inclusion of the content is suitable. there is no need for each individual fact in an article to be individually notable--it just has to be relevant. Their occurrence an all be verified. If it is argued that any one instance isn't correct or important enough, that';s a matter for editing.DGG (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment trivia is real too, so is popular culture trivia. if it's not worth mentioning in the main article, it's probably not worth mentioning in a trivia article. Aurush kazeminitalk 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep or merge DB Cooper has relevance in popular culture. 76.66.198.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[]
- Comment ...and that relevance can be mentioned in the D.B. cooper article Aurush kazeminitalk 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete or Merge. Definite trivia section, there's no reason it can't be integrated with main article. Bolwerk (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as original research assembled by Wikipedia editors. WillOakland (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. It's trivia which makes it unencyclopedic.Strummingbabe (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak Keep There are some cases where a real person lives on in legend, such as Jesse James, Jimmy Hoffa or Adolf Hitler, and the two aspects should be kept separate. This doesn't belong in the D.B. Cooper article, and merging the legends with the facts is something I would oppose. The article is slightly better than the usual i.p.c. page, so only a weak keep, but the legend is notable enough for its own page. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't doubt D. B. Cooper's cultural significance, which has been discussed in published sources. But this list makes scarce effort to work from such sources, and instead like so many IPC lists it's just a mishmash of "things I saw the other day." We don't need this list, we need a reliably sourced discussion of the cultural phenomenon in the main article, which is what I've just written. WillOakland (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge anything salvagable to D.B. Cooper since most of the notability is in essence the popular culture. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete The subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines as having recieved "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Unless there has been adequate documentation of D.B. Cooper's appearances in popular culture by independant sources that analyze the appearances, then the subject isn't notable enough for its own article. As the article stands, it is nothing but a collection of triviacruft and has no focus. Just because an article is a spinout doesn't mean its exempt from Wikipedia's guidelines. The most prominent points can be merged back into the main article, but keep in mind even that is discouraged under WP:TRIVIA. Themfromspace (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - it is not clear how these items could be integrated into the existing D.B. Cooper article per Wikipedia:Trivia sections. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep due to coverage in published books and as the nomination actually calls for a merge (“incorporate relevant details into the D. B. Cooper article”). This discussion is listed under articles for deletion; merge discussions should take place on the article’s talk page. Otherwise “reasons” for deletion are essentially WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, i.e. not policy or guideline based, but personal, subjective “I don’t like it” opinion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There are some good examples of D.B. Cooper in popular culture in that search string, but I can't find anything written about D.B. Cooper in popular culture. Remember, to satisfy the notability guidelines, the subject of the article must be written about in third-party publications in a reasonable amount of detail (ie: not a passing trivial mention). Unless you can find sources analying D.B. Cooper's appearance in popular culture rather than just talking about D.B. Cooper or listing examples of D.B. Cooper in popular culture, than the article fails WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The article meets WP:N because the sources in the search string provide non-trivial third party references to him in popular culture that justify at worst a merge and redirect. See for example here. Deletion is an extreme last resort and there's nothing to suggest that we can't improve this article or merge and redirect. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That source doesn't discuss D.B. Cooper in popular culture at all. It only talks about him as a person. It would satisfy the notability guidelines for the article on D.B. Cooper, but not for D.B. Cooper in popular culture This article needs sources documenting the relationship between different appearances of D.B. Cooper in popular culture, not just examples of him being in popular culture. That's the difference between WP:V and WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Not true. The sources says, "Popular songs and books were written about him, and a feature film The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper..." and so on, i.e. it discusses his prevalence in a variety of popular culture mediums. Thus, the subject is both verifiable and notable, which is partially why thousands of people read the article every month. There's no reason not to at worst redirect to D.B._Cooper#Cultural_phenomenon with the edit history intact to check for mergeable content, but clearly it is a subject of note that far more members of our community think worthwhile than a handful of deletes in a snapshot in time five day discussion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Again, that's verification that the topic exists, not evidence of its notability. Notability requires sources that "address the subject directly in detail". A passing mention that books were written about him isn't enough to meet WP:N. If there was an academic study done on D.B. Cooper's appearances on popular culture, that would easily meet WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Being covered in multiple paragraphs in published books equals notability. That is hardly a passing reference and that's just one example. Looking through the search strings we find many more examples and again, they are at worst sufficient for a merge and redirect. And yes, his impact in popular culture has been covered at length in scholarly works. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Again, that's verification that the topic exists, not evidence of its notability. Notability requires sources that "address the subject directly in detail". A passing mention that books were written about him isn't enough to meet WP:N. If there was an academic study done on D.B. Cooper's appearances on popular culture, that would easily meet WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Not true. The sources says, "Popular songs and books were written about him, and a feature film The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper..." and so on, i.e. it discusses his prevalence in a variety of popular culture mediums. Thus, the subject is both verifiable and notable, which is partially why thousands of people read the article every month. There's no reason not to at worst redirect to D.B._Cooper#Cultural_phenomenon with the edit history intact to check for mergeable content, but clearly it is a subject of note that far more members of our community think worthwhile than a handful of deletes in a snapshot in time five day discussion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That source doesn't discuss D.B. Cooper in popular culture at all. It only talks about him as a person. It would satisfy the notability guidelines for the article on D.B. Cooper, but not for D.B. Cooper in popular culture This article needs sources documenting the relationship between different appearances of D.B. Cooper in popular culture, not just examples of him being in popular culture. That's the difference between WP:V and WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The article meets WP:N because the sources in the search string provide non-trivial third party references to him in popular culture that justify at worst a merge and redirect. See for example here. Deletion is an extreme last resort and there's nothing to suggest that we can't improve this article or merge and redirect. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Commentto User:A Nobody It does not call for a merge, it says there should be a delete and if there is any relevant information, it should be placed in the D. B. Cooper article ---- D. B. Cooper in popular culture is inherently against wikipedia policy laid down WP:TRIVIA; that said, a merge is better than a keep Aurush kazeminitalk 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That's not possible. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete.--chaser (away) - talk 06:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Placing information from one article into another article is exactly what a "merge" is; and WP:TRIVIA is not Wikipedia policy, nor does it call for deletion. If you agree that a merge is acceptable, then please withdraw your nomination, because actual Wikipedia policy is that alternatives to deletion (such as merging) are preferred to deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It doesn't appear to be necessary regardless...the introductory paragraph is the notable part, and it's already covered in d.b. cooper; for the rest, the only useful pieces of material are the primary and secondary sources; the disjointed list of trivia is still WP:TRIVIA; merge if you want, but delete still makes more sense, and D. B. Cooper in popular culture is hardly an encyclopedic topic by itself Aurush kazeminitalk 06:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You have perhaps missed the point made and citations given by A Nobody above, one of which is: And yes, his impact in popular culture has been covered at length in scholarly works. TJRC (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It doesn't appear to be necessary regardless...the introductory paragraph is the notable part, and it's already covered in d.b. cooper; for the rest, the only useful pieces of material are the primary and secondary sources; the disjointed list of trivia is still WP:TRIVIA; merge if you want, but delete still makes more sense, and D. B. Cooper in popular culture is hardly an encyclopedic topic by itself Aurush kazeminitalk 06:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep. The sources shown above show that the topic is notable. Anything else is an editing issue and should be resolved on the article's talk page. DHowell (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- no one is disputing that D. B. Cooper is very, very notable; D. B. Cooper in popular culture is still a cover for trivia Aurush kazeminitalk 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The topic of D.B. Cooper's influence on popular culture has been noted and significantly discussed in independent reliable sources. Yes D.B. Cooper is very, very notable; "D.B. Cooper in popular culture" is just notable. Calling it "trivia", on the other hand, is just another way of saying "just unencyclopedic" or "I don't like it". DHowell (talk)
- Strong Keep. The D.B. Cooper hijacking gripped the imagination of many writers and musicians, and this is reflected in the works set out in this article. The suggestion to delete is flawed in many respects:
- It conflates popular culture with trivia. They're not the same. The guideline WP:TRIVIA and essays WP:IPC and WP:Handling trivia are helpful here.
- Even if it were trivia, the appropriate response to trivia lists is not to delete, but to better integrate. "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections..." (WP:TRIVIA). "Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created." (WP:Handling trivia).
- At best, this is a call to prune the article to significant works as opposed to passing references; and perhaps to rewrite it in a more prose style. (Personally, I don't share the aversion that Wikipedia has for presenting information in list form. I think it's often very helpful, and paragraphs of prose are much harder to skim than lists; but I recognize that this is a minority view, or at least one that's not frequently expressed.) TJRC (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That there is a documented Cooper phenomenon does not fix the basic problem of this article, which is that it is a list of "things I saw the other day" and therefore original research. If it is kept, I will immediately remove everything that isn't cited to secondary sources (which means there will be a movie, a song, and maybe something else). Even at the main article now, people are taking the new section as an invitation to add "something I saw" crap. WillOakland (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Removing everything that is not cited, as you threaten, would be the epitome of a WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point violation. Most of the listed works are not in any sense WP:OR; they're self-supporting. If you insist on citations, add them; don't threaten.
- As far as the D.B. Cooper article goes, the {{main}} template had been removed when this article was created. I re-added that and that should help slow that down. In any event, low-quality edits to D.B. Cooper are not an argument to delete D. B. Cooper in popular culture..
- I'm not saying every mention of every work listed in the article should be kept. The "passing references" should be dropped. But you've been arguing for deletion, not improvement of the article. You'll find a lot less resistance to a proposal to edit and improve the quality than you will to a proposal to delete it based on what is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TJRC (talk) 01:58, 25 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 01:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Johnny White's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"a bar in New Orleans known for the fact that it remained open despite Hurricane Katrina". A perfect case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT, not to say it is just a promo. - 7-bubёn >t 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep subject has had significant coverage in reliable third part sources. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] It's a well known and famous bar notable for never closing, and that's even before you mention the bit about remaining open throughout hurricane katriana. It's been featured in a number of newspaper articles linked, and other travel guides of new orleans.--Pattont/c 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- <shrug> - 24/7 not big deal. Travel guides and stuff are insufficient for notability. Every pizza hut outlet in Apopka is described in Apopka News Weekly. - 7-bubёn >t 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, but have they been featured in the San Francisco Chronicle? This is clearly not just a local interest article. JulesH (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- <shrug> - 24/7 not big deal. Travel guides and stuff are insufficient for notability. Every pizza hut outlet in Apopka is described in Apopka News Weekly. - 7-bubёn >t 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete No substantial coverage of subject detected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. There's plenty of coverage. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply as it is about people, not organisations. WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, and while I respect its goals, it does not override WP:N, whose conditions this article meets. I see no reason we cannot have an article on this establishment which is clearly a well-known and important bar in a city known worldwide for its bars. JulesH (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. I haven't looked at the sources for this, so don't have a recommendation for this particular article, but I would invite participants to consider whether they would keep an article on, for example, an establishment in Iran that got press coverage there for staying open during an earthquake. Let's make sure that we keep a neutral perspective here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I've looked at the sources offered. They mention that this place is a bar and that it exists. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete notability not demonstrated. Laudak (talk) 00:49, 24 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Super Obama World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable marketing spam.--The lorax (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per The lorax's suggestion. Aurush kazemini (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Silly, but garnered articles from BBC News Online and The Economist among others. the wub "?!" 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per the wub. It is notable, despite the fact that it may be slightly POV. But it can be improved, and the subject matter is definitely encyclopedic.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep: Passes WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep seems to have enough in the way of references. Does not seem spammy, but descriptive.DGG (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as per all previous "keep" comments. Jeff Silvers (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, clearly notable based on sources. Everyking (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Well sourced in the article. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 21 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 02:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Danger Close (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This has been orphaned for a long time, and is probably more suited for the article on artillery. Notability questionable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Aurush kazemini (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge to artillery. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge, but because it's orphaned. I have no problem with these terms being explained if they were obviously created to aid an another article, but this hasn't. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This is nothing but a dictionary definition and can't be expanded. I don't think that it's that likely a search term, so deletion might be better than a merge. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- According to the traffic stats, it gets a few hits every day and remember it's totally orphaned so those people aren't being wikilinked to it. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - dicdef transwiki to wiktionary; no significant subject. Laudak (talk) 00:51, 24 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Disorder (ES band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete nn band, fails WP:MUSIC Mayalld (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Crimson33: I believe that the user Mayalld checked the article when it didn't have any references yet. Please double check and remove the article from the deletion lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimson33 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I have reviewed the references, and have not seen one that shows notability. Most are not even reliable sources Mayalld (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, while not the easiest name to search for, I looked at all the usual metal band sites and could find insufficient independent 3rd party notability to pass WP:MUSIC. I agree with Mayalld, while those ref's in the article prove the band exists, none establish notability. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Don't delete, I am aware that Wikipedia's policies need to be followed, but you need to consider that we are talking about a band from a third world country, and that regardless of what you may believe, It is a part of that country's heritage, and therefore, it's notability cannot be determined by just googling it. Crimson33
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; only one album (on a non-notable label), no significant third party coverage. Geocities sites are just laughable as sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:40, 22 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Halcyon Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete nn band, fails WP:MUSIC Mayalld (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: myspace band, not notable WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 08:36, 21 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. Slow speedy, spam StarM 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ageless Fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is really an advertisement for a product that has no established notability. The article references a number of scientific sources, but none of them have any direct relationship to this product, so the way they are used constitutes original synthesis. An earlier version was speedied as an advert. All of the editing done by the creator of this article appears to be promotional in nature. Looie496 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- delete promo of a new (2008) fragrance. - 7-bubёn >t 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete (G11) as you-know-what from Hormel. It's like one of those two-page-long advertisements masqueraded as articles you find in magazines (or even those Amish furniture things you find in the major newspapers). There is also a relevant thread regarding the POV/spam/whatever-pushing of the editors involved at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#User:Browncom. MuZemike 02:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Del g11. In addition, the pseudoscience in there's mindboggling. it's craptacular adcopy nonsense. Aroma molecule vibrating in the infrared are smelled differently by the brain, which sits outside the head. kerfuck? ThuranX (talk) 05:45, 21 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Latrell Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Assistant assistant coach at a college program. May be notable some day, but not yet; doesn't even qualify for inclusion in the Virginia Cavaliers football article. WP:DIRECTORY. THF (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete WP:CFBCOACH essay considers assistant coaches generally to be not notable. If other information comes up (such as meeting WP:BIO or whatever) I'd be willing to reconsider and change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Per Paul.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:22, 22 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 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Maryam Sidiqua High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Incoherent article with no encyclopedic information. Zero google hits outside of Wikipedia. CSD rejected because "it's a school." THF (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note, I didn't reject the speedy deletion because it's a school, but because it was put up for deletion because of lack of context. WP:A1 reads "No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." Context is different from content, treated in A3, below." The subject here is easily identified. It is a school. Therfor it fails A1. Still, based on the apparent lack of notability of this school, and because its content seems unverifiable I say delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Nonverifiable, no references, apparently nothing on google. - 7-bubёn >t 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep All high schools are best considered notable. It's tiresome to have to go into the reason yet again, but it has almost always been the case when sufficiently investigated that sufficient material is found. Given the difficulty in sourcing for this area, it's all the more important to keep this to avoid cultural bias. the advantage of removing a few percent on non-notable schools is way overbalanced by the need to debate every individual case. DGG (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment If all one has to do to escape deletion is title an article "High School", how do you propose we avoid hoaxes? THF (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- sorry, I meant, kept when the basic facts are confirmed, from a suitable source, such as their website--which has not yet been done here. DGG (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Why did you vote to keep the article then? Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- sorry, I meant, kept when the basic facts are confirmed, from a suitable source, such as their website--which has not yet been done here. DGG (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Agreed, Delete. If some notability is established in the future, the article can be recreated. Aurush kazeminitalk 05:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurush kazemini (talk • contribs) []
- Delete Like communities, which are held to be rather inherently notable, high schools aren't necessarily notable if they're nonexistent; I know Google isn't everything, but the fact that I got four sources (none of them referring to such a place as this) when searching for this name demonstrates that it's likely a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Per nom. WP:V isn't met, and neither is WP:N/WP:ORG. The article can always be recreated if someone can find sources which establishes that the school actually exists and that it meets WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete unless some proof can be found that this actually exists. The lack of google hits is not a good sign, nor is the fact that the author's one edit is the creation of the article. I can't figure out where in Pakistan this school is supposed to be. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete nonverifiable. Laudak (talk) 00:52, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Great wall florid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete non notable car model Mayalld (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Rename to Great Wall Florid and keep. A car manufactured by the largest privately owned car maker in China is of course notable. Needs sources though. the wub "?!" 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Renamed. - 7-bubёn >t 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Car models which are on market are notable without any doubt. - 7-bubёn >t 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep appear to be some sources, although the vast majority are in Russian (?). Valid stub that can and should be expanded. StarM 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, they're Russian; a pity we'd have to pay fifteen rubles to read websites that we can't understand! Ah well; I misread the first result as "Fiat may sue Great Wall Creator"...I'm sure Qin Shi Huang never expected to be taken to court by Italians :-) At any rate, we know from that English-language source that the company itself at least is real. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Far East cars are important to the West
- a source: http://www.gwm.com.cn/eng/html/models/florid.asp
- as many Western automobile manufactures fade. ie.: American auto makers are faltering and the Brits have no more: India's Tata owns Jag and Land Rover and Nanjing Automobile of China owns MG.) Swoolverton (talk) 13:13, 23 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Jason Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable tennis player. Could not find reliable sources on him. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, this page almost looks like it was written as a vanity page or joke. Aurush kazeminitalk 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurush kazemini (talk • contribs) []
- Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, should be speedily deleted. WWGB (talk) 06:52, 22 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Pokemon Magenta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonnotable game - 7-bubёn >t 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete fangame, the end. JuJube (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong delete and borderline G11 for spam. Definitely cannot find any notability for this fangame. MuZemike 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete No notability asserted that I can see and nothing I can find. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 22 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 CSD A7 - 7-bubёn >t 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Mr. busch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article is about a drinking game that was apparently made up one day. No reliable sources provided, none found. TN‑X-Man 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, A7 in fact. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete: there is no claim of encyclopedic notability here and the article is completely unreferenced. It is more of a "how-to" than an article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:32, 20 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 snowbal delete: verifiably hoax. - 7-bubёn >t 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Phantom Deathwish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a hoax. The band's web-site does not mention it (I looked under "Home," "News," "News extra," and "Discography"). Google finds only this article. Author XClo688 (talk · contribs) has no other edits, except two attempts to insert this into the DragonForce article. Fails WP:V and WP:NALBUMS. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete - clearly doesn't exist; Google turns out no mention to DragonForce whatsoever, save this article. Richard BB 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:11, 20 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 snowball keep: wrong forum. The correct solution is by Guest9999. - 7-bubёn >t 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Bear with me on this. Here's the executive summary: This is, essentially, a requested move of no (disambiguation) to no. We're here simply because this article already went through AFD once. Otherwise I'd have taken this to Proposed Deletion.
Why move? Because it makes the situation parallel to the situation with yes, which is an equal-weight disambiguation article that links to yes and no for discussion of the words "yes" and "no". no should do likewise. no (disambiguation) should be moved to the primary title.
It's the existence of the yes and no article, which (nota bene!) didn't exist at the time of the prior AFD discussion, that prompts this. All of the concerns raised in the previous discussion have actually been satisfied and will remain satisfied without this article. Even this concern, raised at Talk:No, has been satisfied. The encyclopaedic article that Brz7 and the participants in the first AFD discussion were envisaging, covering the yes-no word systems that various languages use, including "no" as part of that, has been written. It has simply been written under another title.
Ironically, it was built from the very same situation with yes as is still the case here but which has been fixed for yes. It developed from Yes/old version (AfD discussion), which was this page's counterpart for yes, moved elsewhere after yes became the disambiguation. See what it looked like and compare that with how this article currently stands. This article is in much the same state now as that one was, and that one (which was turned around during its AFD discussion) has now become a combined article for both.
We don't need to do this twice. Only one combined article is needed. We now have yes and no, dealing with both words as part of an overall encyclopaedic discussion of the various yes-no word systems in different languages. We simply need disambiguations at yes and no pointing to them.
And we don't need to retain anything from here. Discussion of the grammatical classification of "no" is already in yes and no, sourced to more than one source (in contrast with this article) and covering the subject in greater depth and noting more than just the single point of view (again in contrast with this article). It includes discussion of the grammatical classification of other words expressing disagreement, such as the words in Polish and Russian, for example. It also points out that "No." can be a word sentence, which this article only vaguely implies. All of the linguistic content on this page is already covered at yes and no, and covered better. As for the other content: As pointed out by Peter Isotalo here, again on Talk:No, the other contents of this page don't really belong under this title anyway and already have their own articles.
And we don't need to develop an independent article just because "no" isn't quite like "yes". yes and no already covers that ground, both for English (see its discussion of how "no" differs from "yes" in yes and no#English grammatical classification) and for other languages (see yes and no#Three-form systems). There's no need for a parallel article.
And we don't need to merge anything, or redirect anything, either. When no (disambiguation) is moved here, it merely needs editing so that it links to yes and no at the top like the disambiguation in yes already does.
To reiterate the executive summary, then: This is, essentially, a requested move of no (disambiguation) to no. This article is entirely superfluous and surplus to requirements. We can do the requested move and lose not a thing.
Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Is there a reason why this is happening as an AFD discussion, and not as part of the normal "requested move" discussion at the relevent talk page? Since we don't want to delete anything really, why not just hold the discussion at the talk page and do the move? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We're here, as I said, because this article already came through AFD once — with a lot of editors, including you, opining to keep, no less. So technically it's a controversial move, as well as a controversial deletion that cannot be taken through Proposed Deletion. (I did consider both avenues, and considered this the best route to the least controversy, because it heads off the inevitable "Take it to AFD if you think that!" responses from anyone who notices the prior AFD discussion.) Albeit that I think that there's a good argument now for deletion ☺, and I hope that it won't actually be controversial, it's still technically and potentially controversial. And I do want an administrator to hit a delete button. I want it hit either explicitly, or implicitly as part of the move. Uncle G (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Well, let me give my opinion then. As long as the information is not lost, I could care less where it is. If Yes and No are combined in a single article, and the encyclopedic information from the No article already exists there, then I see no reason why we shouldn't redirect the No article to the Yes and No article; or at worst leave a disambiguation page at No directing people looking for information on the No that we are redirecting to the correct place. Any particular arbitrary organization of this information (as seperate articles on "Yes" and on "No" OR as a single "Yes and No" article) is fine, so long as the information is readily accessable. Either configuration works fine, and I have no problem with either. As far as I am concerned, if you have a good reason to do this, be my guest. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Keep This isn't a move, it's a delete discussion. The wikipedia would be less complete without this article. If anything the article should be expanded with synonymous terms in accordance with the WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. There's also a fair dollop of Wikipedia:Gaming the system, apparently the 'yes' article which survived two or more AFDs got removed a different way and it looks like you're trying to do the same with no also.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Keep AfD isn't for requesting moves. Its for deletion discussions. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- AfD isn't really the place for this but since there's already a discussion... I'd say move No to No (word) (or similar) then redirect to Yes and no (where all encyclopaedic information on the topic is already included), merging any content as appropriate. Then redirect No to No (disambiguation). Guest9999 (talk) 22:40, 20 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. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW and WP:BLP; it's astonishing that a fifteen-year old who was written an operating system cannot be shown to be notable, and therefore, I agree that it appears to be a hoax. The article may be recreated if reliable sources are forthcoming. Rodhullandemu 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Daniel Letts-Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy removed. Unsourced BLP. Unlikely that claims are true about this 15 year old. Refs could solve that problem. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
this person supplied my school with this operating system. I will try to find the article in the local paper by tommorow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banker123 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) — Banker123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
- Delete - article fails verifiability. A google web search turns up 3 results of which 2 are Facebook and the third is an online petition. I could find no evidence for the existence "Defeen" as a rival to Microsoft Word. In fact, I could find no evidence of Defeen at all. And at 9,000 units, as claimed in the article, it isn't at all significant in terms of market share.-- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete He's 15. If he was a wealthy businessman inventing things, there'd be more ghits. Apart from which, Microsoft Word is not an operating system. My original tag was for being nonsense. I stand by that, with Bio as a backup. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Reply - The article is not nonsense as described by G1. The article not gibberish or incherent. G1 specifically excludes "implausible theories, or hoaxes". As for A7 (bio), it specifically states that it "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source" which again this article does clearly assert significance. I've seen clamouring for speedy deletion that turned into keeps. But this is only possible with wider editor review, and that is why the speedy deletion criteria are deliberately strict and narrow. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete - This article should have been speedily deleted as originally proposed three times. However, it appears that the author has used a WP:Sockpuppets (User:Banker123) to remove the speedy deletion tag. The nominator should have allowed this to be deleted in a speedy process as the important criteria for moving from Speedy Deletion to AFD is a "credible claim" of notability. If there is absolutely no evidence in any search engine to confirm the claims made in an article (referring to the person or product), it is probably not credible. While I also tend to err on the side of AFD, given the use of sockpuppets to remove the speedy tag I am surprised this article made it to AFD. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Snowball Delete', relax; no irreparable harm done: I tagged it with "{{hoax}}". - 7-bubёn >t 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 21 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 per WP:CSD#G2 and/or WP:CSD#G3. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Babushka macaronies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pure nonsense. ←Spidern→ 19:49, 20 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 Speedily Deleted G12 NAC--Umbralcorax (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Lubov azria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Spam. Nothing worth keeping here. ←Spidern→ 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete non-notable, looks like some sort of joke or self-promotion piece. --Pstanton (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lubov-Azria/49542121092 and as a sidenote, this is article must have the highest percentage of peacock terms I have ever come across in articles on Wikipedia. If kept, it needs a complete rewrite. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 20 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 (A7) by Woody. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Valley Crew Massive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No encyclopedic content whatsoever. Non notable. Possible hoax. ←Spidern→ 19:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - completely unverifiable, whatever it's supposed to be. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy DELETE - clearly a hoax. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 20 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 media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete G12 Non-admin close Umbralcorax (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WinWholesale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Promotion piece. No encyclopedic content. ←Spidern→ 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. A somewhat dodgy user name too. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www-1.winwholesale.com/ and in the alternative regular delete as spam. Also, an admin should look into the username User:WinWholesale as possibly in violation of user name policy. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 20 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Transport Giant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is on a non-notable computer game. The article makes no claims of its subject's notability whatsoever and has no external sources except for the game's own, official site. As an indication of the article's depth of coverage, the aggregated category links are actually several characters meatier than the entire, two-sentence "main body" of the article. --Dynaflow babble 19:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - The game is crap. I may still have my copy kicking around somewhere. But it is notable for having garnered reviews including from dead tree newspapers like Birmingham Evening Mail. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - quick search of Metacritic and Game Rankings produces enough sources to attest to notability. It might be poorly constructed at the moment, but it has the potential for a quick and snappy article. -- Sabre (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per Sabre's findings. There's enough there to establish sufficient notability; they just need to be added. MuZemike 20:46, 21 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 Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Gabi Novak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable person/ singer Oo7565 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Delete. Unable to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Of the few articles available that I tried to read through translation, none talk in any way about the singer herself. LeaveSleaves 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Keep. This book published by the Cambridge University Press says that she won European contests. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Could you please elaborate on which contests were won? LeaveSleaves 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No, because this source doesn't say, but it's pretty clear from the context that the subject is regarded as a significant figure in Yugoslav pop music of the 1970s, and so is a strong indication that other sources exist. Do you expect sources for subjects from this place and time to be readily available in English at the click of a mouse? If you don't accept that as notability then here's a list of her album releases, clearly passing WP:MUSIC criterion 5, bearing in mind that independent labels didn't exist under communism. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You should always present a more clearer argument like that. LeaveSleaves 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No, because this source doesn't say, but it's pretty clear from the context that the subject is regarded as a significant figure in Yugoslav pop music of the 1970s, and so is a strong indication that other sources exist. Do you expect sources for subjects from this place and time to be readily available in English at the click of a mouse? If you don't accept that as notability then here's a list of her album releases, clearly passing WP:MUSIC criterion 5, bearing in mind that independent labels didn't exist under communism. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per Phil Bridger. LeaveSleaves 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. I've expanded the article so that it supports notability per WP:MUSIC criterion #8. GregorB (talk) 23:02, 22 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Kak hotel ya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks info and notability, The author believes that the video is recorded in Praiano? = no refs, not in neutral tone, not wiki. Dima Bilan is a notable singer but this song is not notable. The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: No assertion of notability. Looie496 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, fails notability guidelines for songs. —Snigbrook 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Maybe notable after all beacause it seems on his article Dima Bilan that the song has been on the 2nd place on the russian track list? The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If a reliable source can be found to verify this, I agree, it is likely to be notable (I can't find much coverage, although it may be because of systemic bias). —Snigbrook 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Maybe a redirect will be good? The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If a reliable source can be found to verify this, I agree, it is likely to be notable (I can't find much coverage, although it may be because of systemic bias). —Snigbrook 14:43, 21 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Neo-shanty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Complete Original Research. Yes, there are a couple of bands who according to WP write 'neo-shanties' but that content was added by the guy who created this article. Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Dear Ironholds, The term "neo-shanties" is in popular usage among the Polish sea-shanty audiences, yet you are right to observe that no academic publications exist to which a reference could be made. Since, however, in all probability you do speak Polish and are able to trace the fates of the "neoshanty" debate back to its beginnings in early 2000s, you will also be likely to admit that the phenomenon exists and fares rather well. Even though no traditional encyclopedic media have made a mention of it, you will find numerous references to "neoshanty" in the Szantymaniak Magazine as well as in the most popular portals for maritime music lovers in Poland, such as Szantymaniak.PL, or Szanty24. The question remains whether removing my article, thus rendering my work null and void, will change the fact that the genre exists and that the term is, undoubtedly, in use. I would fully agree that we may still treat the article as a stub to be developed by Wikipedians of musicological background, but removing it - only because I wrote it - does not seem to be a sufficiently grounded act. After all, my experience within the field of Polish sea-shanty may be verified: I have no business in fostering ideas of no substance or writing articles of no avail to anyone. Paweł Jędrzejko The author of the "Neo-shanty" article.[]
- 'because you wrote it' was not my rationale for nominating the article for deletion; please don't put words in my mouth. I do not speak polish: I am a British editor on the English wikipedia, I don't quite understand why you would assume I do. If there are publications that mention the genre you should include references to them, although a magazine called 'Szantymaniak' is unlikely to be considered reliable and third-party; third party sources don't normally have part of the genre name in their title. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Dear Ironholds, making a reference to Wirtualna Polska, which, after all, is a Polish-language service, you wrote: "that content was added by the guy who created this article" -- which made me think that a) my other work disqualified the legitimacy of my article, and b) that you have been following my articles published in Szantymaniak and debates recorded in the Polish sea-shanty forums, thus allowing me to naturally assume that you spoke fluent Polish; I do apologize for the misunderstanding. By no means have I intended to put words in your mouth :-) More importantly, however, there indeed exist no academic texts in Polish (apart from my own and Dr. Łątka's), which address the phenomenon of the Polish sea-shanty, much less its most recent incarnations. Still, the phenomenon is 30 years old: judging by the audiences of the 30 annual sea-shanty festivals in Poland and by the sales of the albums, we are looking at a group of 300.000 aficionados gathered around it. These people use the term "neo-shanty," which is why I believe it makes perfect sense to explain its sense to those who could be new to the genre, despite the non-existence of sources other than the two portals and the magazine I mentioned in my previous reply. Please, let me know what you think.
Paweł Jędrzejko The author of the Neo-shanty article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawel Jedrzejko (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ahh, I see the reason for the confusion; around here WP is a common abbreviation for Wikipedia (or WikiPedia, rather). Published academic articles by others are valid references (although I'm afraid we cannot accept yours); add Łątka's article in as a reference and after some basic checks of verification I'll close this AfD down and we can keep the page. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- How could I be so stupid :-) I am sorry about the WP; henceforth I'll know! And, of course, I'll introduce the references. Also, I suggest we invite others to expand the article: could you please help me do it? Thank you very much for your explanations,
- Ahh, I see the reason for the confusion; around here WP is a common abbreviation for Wikipedia (or WikiPedia, rather). Published academic articles by others are valid references (although I'm afraid we cannot accept yours); add Łątka's article in as a reference and after some basic checks of verification I'll close this AfD down and we can keep the page. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
yours, Paweł Jędrzejko The author of the Neo-shanty article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawel Jedrzejko (talk • contribs) 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm not a big person for polish musical genres; I mainly look at English law and similar. I would advise (although it isn't a foolproof idea) heading over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland simply because I assume some of the people there are polish and might be more familiar with the genre. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Neologism. (Though it was interesting to see the Banana Boat Song in Polski.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)DEL[]
- Delete because I don't get the "neo"-part. Shanties continue to be popular around the world, and of course they are no longer sung (just) by sailors. That neo-shanties are "specifically created for the purpose of stage performance" does not convince me at all; who is to say that earlier shanties were not? At what point did shanty become a performance rather than a work song, and in which parts of the world? Shanties have evolved as the (working) world has evolved, there's no doubt about it, but to draw some sort of absolute distinction based really on the fact that shanties no longer organically grow out of a praxis, that I don't buy. That neo-shanties "often rely upon multipart close harmonies and complex arrangements" I see as a gradation, not as an essential difference. Besides, I don't see what's specifically Polish about it--my stepfather sings shanties (or neo-shanties, perhaps--he's a metal worker and sings naval shanties arranged in some complexity), and his shanty choir is Dutch. I can say all this with some confidence because I cannot find a single reference that authoritatively coins this term and defines it. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Dear Drmies, the term has been introduced and then caught on because within the Polish sea-shanty scene, which, compared to other countries, is huge, the need arose to distinguish between the music of the bands performing "traditionally" and those offering modern music, whose principles derive from the poetics of the traditional trends. Moreover, after Polish bands started performing in international sea-shanty festivals, such as those in Cobh (Ireland), Paimpol (France), or Liverpool (England), also the Western sea-shanty community recognized the uniqueness of the Polish contribution. Bearing in mind that the Wikipedians participating in the discussion must know the subject, it would be relatively simple to ask such renowned performers as Johnny Collins, Jim Maggean or Pat Sheridan about the Polish Neo-shanty; if that should not suffice, please refer to such performers as Iwe van der Beck or groups such as Armstrong's Patent from the Netherlands. Myself, as the author of the article, I may not sound reliable. But I am certain that your English, Scottish and Irish shantymen who know Poland's sea-shanty scene well will disperse your doubts if you ask them. Moreover, if you read the article closely, in all probability your step-father sings modern songs, but whether they would qualify as a multipart harmony, modern-written songs composed in accordance with the principles of a poetics retaining the basic characteristics of a sea (or railroad/mining) shanty is rather dubious :-)
Yours, Paweł Jędrzejko The author of the "Neo-shanty" article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawel Jedrzejko (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- delete. With all due respect to Paweł Jędrzejko i respektujac wszystkich innych uwielbicieli nowych a rowniez starych szanty, the term fails the most basic wikipedia policy of verifiability: lack of any publications which discuss the term with minimal scholarship. Even Banana Boat, suggested by you as major neoshantiacs, does not say so in their webpage. - 7-bubёn >t 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Dear SemBubenny - I agree completely that basically only one published academic text (admittedly, my own) transfers the term popularly used by the debaters of the Polish sea-shanty forums into the space of academic discourse. Having said which, I also need to observe that there are virtually no academic texts addressing the question of the evolution of the sea-shanty as a genre. This, however, does not question the fact that the term is in use, so it would seem in order to explain what it came to mean. Speaking of Banana Boat, although I have made a classificatory reference in the article concerning the group, I also trust that overt self-definition by the group itself is not a mandatory condition to validate the attribution of a given classification to its music by others. Clearly, you read Polish very well; I recommend debates of the Szantymaniak Forum, especially those concerning the "purity of the genre." Still, if that fails to convince you and other Wikipedians voting against the article, I will have no other option but to humbly accept the decision and concentrate my efforts on something else.
Yours Paweł Jędrzejko the author of the "Neo-shanty" article
- Dear Wikipedians, please see the talk section (link above this discussion). Also, please consider the most recent additions to the text of the article. Paweł Jędrzejko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.33.168 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Do not delete: I really cannot see any reason why Jedrzejko's article should be deleted. The term "neo-shanty" is indeed known and widely accepted by the Poland's sea-shanty audience. The "neo-shanty" is a contemporary maritime work-song genre, resembling in essence, style, subject and form the traditional sea-shanties and foc'sle songs.
In his article "A NEW MUSICAL IDIOM. POLAND: World leaders in the preservation and promotion of maritime music?", Irish shanty-singer Pat Sheridan had in depth and enthusiastically described the Polish neo-shanty phenomenon in contradiction to traditional shanty-singing observed in English speaking countries. I had been a translator of this article to Polish. The article was published in the "FERMENT" periodical in Poland in 2008.
If you need me to tell you more on my views on the subject, I will be glad to participate in the discussion. Anyway, Jedrzejko's statement are to my best knowledge true and based on facts. You should not delete his article.
83.6.163.187 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Stefan Mikulski (Antek Stalich)[]
- Delete Clearly WP:OR, non-notable (no significant coverage in reliable sources). ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Vox populi, vox dei - I consent, and thank you for your discussion :-) Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete WP:OR WP:RS Neologism, Give it some time to see if it takes off. Dimitrii (talk) 19:36, 25 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Maciej Wilusz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No professional appearances, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE Kevin McE (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment does he acutally play for them? I don't see him in this squad list, [14] Govvy (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If he played for them, he wouldn't be listed for deletion because he would pass WP:ATHLETE :) I assume you meant "Is he on their books?"; he has only signed in the last couple of days, which might explain ESPN being slightly out of date. Kevin McE (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete until he's done something that makes him notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per Mr Kevin. And recreate if need be. Govvy (talk) 20:00, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Paris Hilton's Second Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Paris For President (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
Fails WP:V and WP:NALBUMS, and is borderline WP:CRYSTAL. Although Paris has announced a second album in the works, I couldn't find any sources that mention anything more than that. Moreover, I couldn't find any proof that Paris for President is even the title. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
:*Comment. The creator is also trying the same thing at Paris For President (album). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- While we're at it, let's salt these two names as well. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete both as WP:CSD#G4, we've already discussed the album at WP:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton's second album. The two at hand have (IIRC) substantially less information, and certainly don't adress the concerns from then. --Amalthea 19:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It's gonna be self-published, no info at all about the album, no sources, no signs of notability. TJ Spyke 19:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete And the rest can go and play. JuJube (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I've added Paris For President (album) now to this nomination. All arguments made apply since they are identical in content. --Amalthea 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Stand back, folks — it's hammertime! MuZemike 21:12, 21 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. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. The issue of merging, trimming, renaming or what have you can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While there is no argument that George W. Bush has been less than popular during his time as President, this article appears to be a strong WP:NPOV push attempting to construct a movement that has never officially taken hold. The article is even lead with the information that "The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has not considered the impeachment of President Bush, and the House of Representatives has taken no action to do so. The Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of resolving to impeach him." Furthermore, the actual size and contents of the article far outweigh the articles for actual impeachment hearings, as in such examples as Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Looking further, there already exists an article discussing Criticism of George W. Bush, which contains some information which is redundant comparred to those points discussed in the movement article, including Katrina, wiretapping, Iraq, and torture. While I can understand the controversial nature of the contents, I feel that it's best suited as a condensed version of itself within the existing Critcism of George W. Bush article. -- TRTX T / C 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep and speedy close - article has been nominated three times before, and always failed. That it is being raised on Inauguration Day feels very WP:POINTY. The article is not about impeachment it's about a movement, its supporters, their reasoning and the issues. That other articles could stand to be expanded is the first logical fallacy people grasp in order to contract Wikipedia to get rid of stuff they don't like. We have here a movement for which there was large support amongst the public, legal scholars, Congressmen and even local governments. Criticism of George W. Bush is certainly distinct from the movement to remove him from office. I guess for me it comes down to that we are here to explain history, and this AfD seeks to diminish an important aspect of this Presidency, and that harms Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Response: I take except to claims of WP:POINTY. The AfD comes today because I saw the article yesterday while reading up on both the President and President-Elect, and given the controversial nature of the article I wanted to ensure that I did some reading on past AfDs and also similiar articles (such as the ones I link to in the nomination text. I also take considerable exception to calims of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as it flies in the face of WP:AGF. I could see there being a basis if I were requesting the full deletion of all content, but considering my request is to simply remove this article and put any relevant information into the existing criticisms, I see no basis for an assumption that I am somehow pushing an agenda. -- TRTX T / C 17:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per above. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
NeutralTo me it appears to be somewhat OR and NPOV (giving lots of opinion polls and reasons about why he should have been impeached, and not so much—as far as I can tell—evidence of a real and organized "movement" that actually existed). On the flip side, though, it is well-researched, and the previous AfDs suggest that there is a pretty strong community consensus to keep it anyway. Politizer talk/contribs 17:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Striking my "neutral" and change to weak keep, change title. After looking at the article, there does seem to be some coverage of real stuff (like congressional and other actions) ... although I think it's inappropriate to call it a "movement." I wouldn't be averse to changing the article title (I don't have a good suggestion just yet). Politizer talk/contribs 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Re-opened by Fritzpoll (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy keep a) the article was nominated on Inauguration Day, which suggests either a lack of clue or disruption; and b) we have enough trouble deleting actual POV pushing articles (Allegations of Israeli arpatheid, anyone?). This is unquestionably notable; it was raised in Congress, for god's sake. Sceptre (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Response: This has to be the fourth time I've been accused of acting in bad faith (between David Shankbone and Sceptre). I have a well established editing history, and an excellent track record of participation in content discussions. To accuse me of otherwise when the evidence is there goes against WP:AGF. -- TRTX T / C 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "A lack of clue or disruption". Possibly the latter: what the hell made you decide to nominate it today? Could you have not waited until the National Mall cleared, at least? Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, yes...you said that already on your talk page. Would tomorrow have been any better? I mean it would have "only been a day". Would yesterday have been any better? Well, I hadn't read up enough similiar articles and previous discussions. As I said, there will never be "enough" of a wait when it comes to political discussion on the Internet, regardless of who or what the discussion is. Bush served for 8 years. People's views regarding his politics aren't going to change simply because the next person has been sworn in. Be it 5 minutes from now or 2 years from now. -- TRTX T / C 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Response: This has to be the fourth time I've been accused of acting in bad faith (between David Shankbone and Sceptre). I have a well established editing history, and an excellent track record of participation in content discussions. To accuse me of otherwise when the evidence is there goes against WP:AGF. -- TRTX T / C 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. A notable and well documented movement, on par with various anti-war movements and similar fads and movements expressing broad public sentiment. bd2412 T 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep-Plenty of sources. Notability is without question. If there are any problems with POV, this is not the appropriate venue for discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Speedykeep and fix NPOV issues through editing and, if editors insist on maintaining NPOV positions, dispute resolution. We delete articles because they 1) cannot be made to meet our requirements or 2) nobody cares to make them meet our requirements, not because nobody has done so yet. The more encyclopedic the topic, the less #2 applies, i.e. very encyclopedic topics should stay even if nobody cares to fix the POV issues. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC). Striking "speedy" - while this qualifies for speedy/snow close and barring something unexpected it will close as "keep," the discussion is useful and should continue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Keep Regardless of the fact that he's now forever unimpeachable as president, the article has historical importance about the movement to impeach, that is, it's clear that there are people that wanted to impeach him. Documenting such a movement is not POV, any more than documenting a ponzi scheme is POV against the perp, per WP:NPOV. Further, reducing an article is not the proper function of an AfD, per WP:BEFORE. With plenty of sources for verifiability, and notability is unquestionable. Discussions to merge, trim, etc. are part of edit consensus discussions in article talk space. — Becksguy (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Perhaps it is my understanding of AfD's that needs a bit of correcting. I will typically make it a point not to suggest an article be deleted unless I am able to offer an alternative for whatever content may be valuable/salvagable. It's my way of showing a willingness to compromise. -- TRTX T / C 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep but Merge or Rename in future. The "movement" most certainly had enough media coverage to make it notable, but it isn't really a significant movement, and as such stylistically it probably would best be served in Criticism of George W. Bush. This isn't to say that the "movement" was not large, but never appeared to reach the level of organization that would merit the use of the term "movement" and really was more an outgrowth of the opposition to George W. Bush. Failing a merge with criticism, renaming the article to better reflect that this was not a "true" movement would also be acceptable in my mind. This really should be a discussion on the article's talk page, as the article clearly doesn't fail WP:Notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: Changed to Keep rather than Speedy Keep after some thought. Speedy keep suggested I agreed with rationale that the timing of deletion for this article was improper. I do not agree with that line of thinking, as this would be a logical time to consider deletion. I see no impropriety in the AfD nomination of this article, so no reason for speedy keep. Just regular keep.Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The combined length of this article and Criticism of George W. Bush would be overwhelming. If merged, there would be pressure to spin off parts or cut out notable content. As to significance: the Speaker thought it had enough significance to announce it was off the table, and a former Attorney General actually wrote Articles of Impeachment. A resolution to impeach with 35 Articles of Impeachment was introduced in the House in 2008 and referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it died. Polls showed up to 45% of the public supported impeachment in 2007. All that, and more, seems rather significant, as it's not just a bunch of anti-Bushies or a fringe element, but a movement. Remember ITMFA? — Becksguy (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I disagree with you on whether this constitutes a movement...but this is a sematics/historical argument for another day. It belongs on the talk page of the article in a proper discussion of whether it should be merged or renamed. I should have made my feelings on the proper time for this discussion clearer. I have modified my bolded recommendation to reflect this temporal shift. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The combined length of this article and Criticism of George W. Bush would be overwhelming. If merged, there would be pressure to spin off parts or cut out notable content. As to significance: the Speaker thought it had enough significance to announce it was off the table, and a former Attorney General actually wrote Articles of Impeachment. A resolution to impeach with 35 Articles of Impeachment was introduced in the House in 2008 and referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it died. Polls showed up to 45% of the public supported impeachment in 2007. All that, and more, seems rather significant, as it's not just a bunch of anti-Bushies or a fringe element, but a movement. Remember ITMFA? — Becksguy (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I hold out little hope of anything changing (institutional bias and all that), but it's worth pointing out that Clinton actually was impeached and Impeachment of Bill Clinton is shorter than this article. I think this is worth a section in Criticism of George W. Bush (yes, that's a merge) but certainly not a whole article. --B (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge with Criticism of George W. Bush, Trim, or Rename to eliminate "movement" from the article title. I (among others) conducted a lot of clean-up in this article to get it to the state it is in now, but almost all of the remaining content is redundant, giving lengthy summaries of controversies already detailed in the Criticisms article and then citing a few commentators who called the controversy an impeachable offense. Often, the same individual commentators are given mention on multiple issues. Some may say that the failure of the previous AFDs shows consensus to keep this article, but as best I can tell, very few seem interested in contributing to the article beyond knee-jerk protectionism, as I would frequently wait for over a week without a single reply when I proposed an edit to trim the article which, when implemented, would be reverted almost immediately. To get some perspective, this is what this supposed "consensus" defended through three AFDs before cleanup began. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Trim by 75% or merge to Criticism of GWB. This article has far too much POV and ranting/raving. Actual impeachments don't get this much coverage. Timneu22 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The article is just like a propaganda, so I vote for merge with Criticism of George W. Bush. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No recommendation yet, but object to any attempt to speedily keep. I don't understand the objections to nominating this article today. After all, before today, impeachment of George W. Bush was still a theoretical possibility, whereas now it isn't. Thus, today was a logical day to nominate the article for deletion, since it is now certain that the movement will not succeed. That said, it may be possible to improve this article by normal editing to bring it closer to a neutral point of view. The movement may be notable even though it was unsuccessful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep This remains of historical interest. That it was seriously considered was sufficient to justify an article. IfWP were for advocacy, then it wouldn't be necessary to have this, as it is no longer relevant to practical politics. But this is an encyclopedia, & the history of his presidency and the discussion of the justification of his actions during it and the opposition to them did not cease to be of interest this morning. Questions of tone and content are dealt with by editing , not deletion. That one doesn't like the consensus about the editing is very emphatically not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- COMMENT: To compare the impeachment of Clinton with the attempted impeachment of Bush makes no sense of any kind. Allegations against Clinton amount to having sex with an intern (no one's business except their own) and the four Articles of Impeachment essentially cover lying about it. Allegations against Bush include subverting the Constitution, committing war crimes, violating his oath of office, lying, misuse of funds, torture, illegal detention, kidnapping, violating the Geneva Convention and US laws, illegal invasion of sovereign countries, illegal spying on Americans, and others included within the 35 Articles of Impeachment introduced in the House. "How many people died because Clinton lied." The allegations against Clinton are extremely minuscule as compared with those against Bush. The article about Bush should be many many multiple times the size of that on Clinton. And, to be perfectly fair, the other side of the "knee-jerk protectionism" coin is "knee-jerk deletionism". Also, failure to improve an article is not policy based grounds for deletion, rather it's grounds for editing. No one has suggested that this article is not notable or verifiable. — Becksguy (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "How many people died because..."
- This is not supposed to be about our personal political beliefs. The goal we are supposed to be aiming for is to build an unbiased encyclopedia. Everything you listed and more is already covered in Criticism of GWB. By far, the bulk of the impeachment article is simply reiterating (at length) topics which are more than adequately covered elsewhere. It serves little purpose to repeat this material at length in as many articles as possible when a simple inlink to a centralized summary will do. As I see it, there is nothing unique to the article on the impeachment movement which could not be summarized in a single subsection in the Criticisms article - and as this was a small and uncoordinated movement, if it could be called a "movement" at all, that would seem to be all the more that weight allows. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You are right, it's not about any of our personal opinions. The statement I used above "How many people died because..." is not mine. It's a rallying cry from the impeach Bush movement intended as an illustration of the large disproportionate impact of, and number of, "impeachable offenses" by both presidents. I should have placed it in quotes, and will do so now. The Criticism article does not contain everything in this article, nor it is about the movement to impeach which is separate from the criticisms against Bush which are not considered impeachable offenses. Although there are obviously overlaps. The thrust and main coverage of each article is different. Could an article be constructed that contain both? Yes, but it would be overwhelmingly large, require restructuring, and lack focus. And would most likely sustain pressure to split. — Becksguy (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Trim and merge with Criticism of George W. Bush The effort is worth of mention but most of this stuff is fluff about groups/actions of questionable notability, the article is full dead links and statements in need of better verification and just like any other article on a present political matter this one has plenty of neutrality issues. GWB isn't going to be impeached, cut the fat out of this article and then merge it with the criticism article. - Schrandit (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Definite keep. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. MarkRobbins (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep and speedy close - None of the arguments for deletion or merger are at all compelling. Spotfixer (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Trim to reasonable size and remove rationales or merge - The rationales for impeachment are absurd to say the least, saying they are "possible" reasons for impeachment is crystalballing. The disclaimer that the process is inherently political sounds like someone trying to justify including a list of things he/she doesn't like about Bush. Hiding behind the techniquality of this being a movement, rather than limiting it to what was actually given in articles of impeachment, allows for it to become a POV rant. Soxwon (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Crystal ball political lightning rod. Ought we have "Potential War Crimes Trial of Bush" ad nauseam? Best to head that misuse of WP off at the pass -- this is not an encyclopedia article as much as an extended polemic. And polemics, frankly, make for bad history. Collect (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, but I agree with TRTX's irritation at the repeated attacks that assume lack of good faith on his/her part. JamesMLane t c 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Notable and sourcing obviously exists, the rest is regular editing. Per AFD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidiate for deletion. Here's nearly a thousand book hits on Google Books which may help. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep
because I hate Bushbut recommending a move to something more NPOV like Efforts to impeach George W. Bush. Definitely clean up the NPOV soapboxery that is present. Otherwise, this is definitely notable (I don't have to go far at all to show notable examples of the lengths people went to impeach the now former president). MuZemike 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[] - Trim and merge to the Criticism article. As pointed out by the nom, the article opens up making it clear that the government never considered impeachment. That doesn't mean that no desire existed, of course, but come on, every political leader has a group of people clamoring for their blood. There a lot of redundancy here to what already exists in the Criticism article, so why not take what's useful and unique here and place it there? 24.174.68.191 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Don't see any reason to delete. Not sure what the alleged violation of NPOV is; the "rationales" section details facts that support the desire for impeachment, highly relevant to the article. (For instance, "In addition, the American Bar Association, in February 13, 2006, issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing Bush of exceeding his powers under the Constitution." This is a highly notable fact; it's unusual for the Bar Association to take such a bold political stance.) Also don't understand why the article's title is problematic. The article could use some cleanup and general work, for sure; but I don't see what's biased about it. An article about the Ku Klux Klan is not an endorsement of the Klan; neither is this article an endorsement of this movement. -Pete (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The problem then becomes that anything can be justified as a rational reason for impeachment. You need something that was used rather than just what some people think might work.Soxwon (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No; I disagree with this sort of slippery slope argument. As with any Wikipedia article, the thing that prevents us from including "just anything" is editorial judgment. Policy and general rules alone cannot protect us from doing stupid stuff; we still have to be diligent writers, researchers, and editors, and discuss borderline cases carefully. There ain't no shortcuts around that. That becomes a topic for the article's talk page, rather than a deletion debate. -Pete (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, but editorial judgement in this case is trying to guess what Congress deems impeachable offenses. That seems to be WP:BALL. I think we should instead focus on what rationales were actually used instead. Soxwon (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I agree with this line of reasoning for the article. I apologize if I'm repeating myself, but in its current state the article reads more as though somebody is presenting a case for impeachment rather than reporting on what has been done to impeach. This is especially true in the "Rationals" section. A better approach for inclusion of such information would be to start at a point such as Kucinich's resolution, as that appears to be the most formal attempt to actual impeach Bush. -- TRTX T / C 14:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, but editorial judgement in this case is trying to guess what Congress deems impeachable offenses. That seems to be WP:BALL. I think we should instead focus on what rationales were actually used instead. Soxwon (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No; I disagree with this sort of slippery slope argument. As with any Wikipedia article, the thing that prevents us from including "just anything" is editorial judgment. Policy and general rules alone cannot protect us from doing stupid stuff; we still have to be diligent writers, researchers, and editors, and discuss borderline cases carefully. There ain't no shortcuts around that. That becomes a topic for the article's talk page, rather than a deletion debate. -Pete (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Trim and merge. There was a movement to impeach Bush. But the article suffers from severe WP:COATRACK problems -- for example, the sentence Pete quotes as a rationale to keep the article is a clear WP:SYN violation, since the ABA criticism had nothing to do with the movement to impeach Bush other than an editor linking the two together as a rationale. Article needs a great deal of trimming, and what's left can probably be subsumed within the Criticism page. THF (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- COMMENT: This article is about a grassroots movement to apply pressure on the House for the impeachment of Bush. An impeachment resolution was raised in the House (and then died in the Judiciary Committee). There are plenty of reliable sources that show that a large number of people tried to get the House to impeach Bush by creating pressure on their Representatives, the public, and the press by writing books, articles, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, holding rallies, making speeches, creating blogs, letter writing campaigns, getting local governments to pass resolutions for impeachment, and so on. All that certainly and clearly adds up to a movement. As to possible impeachable offenses, Gerald Ford famously said in the House on April 15, 1970: “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history". We are documenting what the reliable sources say were the claimed impeachable offenses by those pushing to impeach, not necessarily just what was in the impeachment resolution, nor what Congress would have considered impeachable offenses since we can't know that now. Even those that oppose this article agree there was a movement, with some disagreement about it's significance. The ABA statement is pertinent, and I don't see any SYNTH issue. From WP:SYNTH: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. That's clearly not the case here, since it states that Bush exceeded his constitutional authority, as claimed in the rationale for impeachment, so it's not a novel conclusion. There would be an over sized Criticisms... article if this article were merged there. And I think all of it should be kept, which leads to keeping this article without trimming. And trimming is an editing issue anyway, not for AfD, per WP:BEFORE. — Becksguy (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If it's not synthesis then it is WP:BALL: However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense (other than treason or bribery). Therefore, this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." This is used as justification for the list. That seems to imply opinion and speculation rather than hard fact. The articles actually used are a better source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- COMMENT: Correct, impeachment is a political process. And we report on political processes and reflect what the reliable sources say about political parties, movements, positions, campaigns, and politicians. This is no different. We are reporting on what the reliable sources say the allegations as to impeachable offenses and positions of this movement are. That is not a crystal ball, as no one is claiming that any of the allegations would have been considered by Congress any more than we claim people will vote for a particular candidate for political office. That there are a significant number of people that believe that Bush committed war crimes, and other allegations, is demonstrated. We do not opine on the truthfulness of those allegations, rather report accurately that they were made and that others supported or opposed them if the viewpoints are significant. It is a fact that the Articles of Impeachment resolution was introduced to the House by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in June 2008 (H Res 1258) and that the resolution was referred by majority vote to the Judiciary Committee. Even if the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment are used as a template, they are sufficiently numerous and broadly construed as to include almost everything anyway. So WP:BALL fails here. — Becksguy (talk)
- So then write an article about Kucinich's articles, and where appropriate reference the existing controversy articles. I'll take a second look, but I believe each "rationale" listed in the "movement" article has a subsequent breakoff article of its own. And there is the Criticism of George W. Bush article which already contains a large amount of the content repeated in the "movement" article. -- TRTX T / C 04:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep and speedy close - article has been nominated three times before, and always failed. This article should remain open. It shows how "popular" the president was. Also, there was a movement(while it may not have been large, it did exist). The media acknowledged it as a movement on several occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- In regards to the "It was nominated 3 times and always failed": I'd like to point to WP:NOTAGAIN and remind you that it doesn't give an article carte blanche to continue on unimpeded. Especially when all three times those who didn't vote keep (and also didn't vote delete) were recommending cleanup. I would say that the article being renominated thrice is an indication that multiple editors and numerous occasions felt that no such undertaking was ever done (or was ever considered) once the "Keep" was announced. Furthermore, things can change...and it's been over two years since the last AfD. -- TRTX T / C 04:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep: Possibly rename if the title is so offensive to so many. There is to my knowledge no controversy over the factual nature of the article, only a controversy over whether or not the facts contained adequately constitute a "Movement." "Calls for Impeachment of GWB" or something similar ought not offend anyone; Unless someone claims these calls and other functions described in the article did not in fact take place. Brotherchristian (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Trim and merge into Criticism of George W. Bush due to WP:UNDUE. Should there be any prosecution for the now-former U.S. President, some of the material here could be incorporated into the article of the trial... but that's way into the future, if it occurs at all. The "movement" is being motivated by the criticism; so it is not independent of it. B.Wind (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, pro forma comment: why is it possible to renominate if already numerous AfD's resulted in keep? How many times may one try?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- For more information regarding WP's current views on repeated AfD noms, see WP:NOTAGAIN. The previous nomination was in October of 2006. Remember, consensus can change. -- TRTX T / C 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep and rename to Bush impeachment campaigns - there were several campaigns both in Congress and in the wider community, all of which failed. Brisvegas 09:18, 25 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 a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Stage a scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band, self promotion and blatant advertising. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Delete-Not sure why this was AfD. It should probably be a Speedy Deletion candidate. Nothing notable here. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:37, 20 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 (A7). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Puppetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable online persona. Non encyclopedic. ←Spidern→ 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern→ 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete. Utterly non-notable. And what on earth is "fretting" anyway? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
This is way too complicated for me to reply with all this code, but my argument is that, since there's a Frets on Fire page, there should be an article to the best fretter in the community to referer to. Just because you don't know what "fretting" is, doesn't mean it should be deleted.
I am, again, sorry for not knowing how to code this properly - THEHighFlyer15
- Speedy delete notability not asserted. JuJube (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- delete no reliable sources. - 7-bubёn >t 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete: db-bio. Schuym1 (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Completely non-notable. Too bad tagging it with speedy delete would probably be met with decline. LeaveSleaves 19:50, 21 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. renaming can be done at the article talk page, but consensus is clear for retention. MBisanz talk 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Phone Call to Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable slang term. Article appears sourced, but all references describe only single case of police brutality, and it is not clear if the term "Phone Call to Putin" was used in any other cases. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This is notable as a case taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and won by the victim. This is also a widely known name and method of torture in Russia, just like "elephant" and some others. Please see, for eaxmple, this Newsweek article: [16]. It tells "a torture method widely known as "a phone call to Putin." Biophys (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment You have basically confirmed my own opinion that it is the case Mikheyev v. Russia] which is notable, not the neologism. Newsweek may claim it is widely known as, but the facts within the Newsweek article still only relate to Mikheyev's case, which is the notable entity here. --Russavia Dialogue 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep--I have no doubt about the notability of the subject: 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- this article is not about Aleksey Mikheyev.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- [17]DonaldDuck (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Thanks, your search seems to establish the notability of the term. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Of course that search is full of things such as: "In a phone call to Putin yesterday, Clinton reportedly mixed congratulations", "Bush placed a phone call to Putin", "But the phone call to Putin at a time when all Western capitals were expressing varying degrees of dismay", "Bush placed a 12 minute phone call to Putin", "The day after Bush's second phone call to Putin on June 5", "Ukrainian President Leonid D. Kuchma said in a phone call to Putin", "In a phone call to Putin last night, Sharon offered condolences". It does not establish notability. --Russavia Dialogue 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- In fact, that search give's notability to Bush's phone call to Putin more than it does to this example. --Russavia Dialogue 21:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Of course that search is full of things such as: "In a phone call to Putin yesterday, Clinton reportedly mixed congratulations", "Bush placed a phone call to Putin", "But the phone call to Putin at a time when all Western capitals were expressing varying degrees of dismay", "Bush placed a 12 minute phone call to Putin", "The day after Bush's second phone call to Putin on June 5", "Ukrainian President Leonid D. Kuchma said in a phone call to Putin", "In a phone call to Putin last night, Sharon offered condolences". It does not establish notability. --Russavia Dialogue 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Thanks, your search seems to establish the notability of the term. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep- The article may be a little on the stubby side, but it has plenty of sources that indicate notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep sufficiently sourced. If the title is inapt, change it - deletion is not the cure for that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Snowball keep I trust User:Biophys about this, I think nominator is not familiar with Russia and should not be editing, let alone deleting Russian articles.travb (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment, quite frankly you are way off based because DonaldDuck is Russian! --Russavia Dialogue 20:31, 20 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) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Comment - Relisted and reopened at request. — neuro(talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If you're going to do a relist, it's only fair that you should mention the comments that were made between January 15 and today...
[list of votes in 3rd AfD redacted, 3rd AfD was out of process and most of the votes echoed only that] What was the basis for the request? Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That was a different deletion discussion entirely. I may notify the affected users later. — neuro(talk) 16:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Comment This AfD has been relisted by Neuro at my request following comments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Phone_Call_to_Putin. This AfD had been closed early, but many non-keep comments were unforeseen. Now that it has been relisted, this AfD can run as long as may be needed to get thorough input. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Snowball keep and close The last AFD was unanimous as is this one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment If it was unanimous, it wouldn't be at AfD in the first place, and it wouldn't have been taken to WP:DR and re-opened. --Russavia Dialogue 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as per all of the arguments above. There's clearly a consensus here. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - Strongly suggest nobody closes this one early, even if a slew of keeps come along, just to save on fallout. — neuro(talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Phone Call to Putin is a non-notable neologism used to describe electric shocks given to a single person. It appears some editors in this AfD have misunderstood what the topic is about. WP:N states: "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." The sources used in this article do not give significant coverage of Phone Call to Putin, but rather to Alexey Mikheyev, and mention Phone Call to Putin in passing; there is nothing more that can be said about this term past it being electric shock given by attaching electrodes to the ears, and that this is only recorded as being applied to a single person, Mikheyev. The term does not meet the basic notability guidelines, and would be best placed in an article on Alexey Mikheyev, and done so in passing as per the sources which discuss this notable individual. As this is an article on a neologism, it absolutely lacks the substantial details on the term itself, every single one the sources used in the article relate to Mikheyev's case, which the more I look at it, it isn't the person who is notable, but the case, Mikheyev v. Russia. --Russavia Dialogue 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as well sourced and a likely search term; move (leaving a redirect) if people think that a different title is more appropriate. This concept has been subject of non-trivial independent coverage; it appears to be a shoo-in per WP:N unless I am completely misreading the sources. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This article describes a well sourced torture technique and meets the notability criteria. The issue appears to be the article name, if this is the case then AfD is not the appropriate venue, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Martintg (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep & move to Alexey Mikheyev as per DelRev nomination. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as a neologism. The torture incident itself probably merits coverage somewhere else (Human rights in Russia? Mikheyev v. Russia?) --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep. Russian newspaper articles clearly say that this slang term is well known without any relation to Mikheyev incident. - 7-bubёn >t 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Delete - changed my opinion. After more careful reading I see it is unclear whether this term is a commonly known expression or just an inside joke in this particular squad of the Russian police. - 7-bubёn >t 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Please provide evidence/verification of this. Because of the sources in the article thus far relate to the overall Mikheyev v. Russia case. --Russavia Dialogue 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A rather strange request, I must say. You can read Russian, can't you? Okay: "на жаргоне оперативников это называется «звонок Путину»". Want more? Of course, I am pretty sure it was invented way before Putin, but it is not the reason for deletion, rather for renaming/merging into electric shock torture. - 7-bubёn >t 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Why is asking for verification a strange request? If one is going to make an assertion of notability, then one has to back it up with verifiable sources. OK, the cherry picked sentence fragment you have provided above is from Novaya Gazeta, in which is clearly says: Нижегородец Алексей Михеев подвез знакомую девушку. Вечером девушка не пришла домой, и Михеева арестовали. Пытали, как обычно, то есть так, как пытали индейцы захваченных в плен белых и как пытают чеченцы русских контрактников. В числе прочего вешали на мочки ушей электрические провода — на жаргоне оперативников это называется «звонок Путину». Михеев признался в убийстве и изнасиловании. Милиционеры устали, пошли попить чайку. Полумертвый Михеев выпрыгнул в окно с третьего этажа. Сломал позвоночник, навсегда стал инвалидом. Через четыре дня девушка вернулась домой, живая и здоровая. Алексей Михеев подал в Страсбургский суд." By reading that, it is clearly in regards to the court case, and it seems to be based on court papers submitted by Mikheyev himself. So your claim is still not backed up with sources. --Russavia Dialogue 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- These are your speculations. The article clearly says "in the slang of police operatives it is called...". It does not say "Mikheyev alleges that in the slang of police it is called", and I have no reason to disbelieve that the reporter was misguided as to the meaning and the usage of the term. Anyway, I changed my vote, but for a different reason. - 7-bubёn >t 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's not my speculation. It is the fact. There's not a single source out there which uses the term outside of the Mikheyev case. And there is every reason to doubt anything that Latynina says. She is the Russian Ann Coulter, but on the other side of the nuttery spectrum. She makes all sorts of polemical statements and has nothing to back them up but her own hatred. --Russavia Dialogue 11:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- These are your speculations. The article clearly says "in the slang of police operatives it is called...". It does not say "Mikheyev alleges that in the slang of police it is called", and I have no reason to disbelieve that the reporter was misguided as to the meaning and the usage of the term. Anyway, I changed my vote, but for a different reason. - 7-bubёn >t 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Why is asking for verification a strange request? If one is going to make an assertion of notability, then one has to back it up with verifiable sources. OK, the cherry picked sentence fragment you have provided above is from Novaya Gazeta, in which is clearly says: Нижегородец Алексей Михеев подвез знакомую девушку. Вечером девушка не пришла домой, и Михеева арестовали. Пытали, как обычно, то есть так, как пытали индейцы захваченных в плен белых и как пытают чеченцы русских контрактников. В числе прочего вешали на мочки ушей электрические провода — на жаргоне оперативников это называется «звонок Путину». Михеев признался в убийстве и изнасиловании. Милиционеры устали, пошли попить чайку. Полумертвый Михеев выпрыгнул в окно с третьего этажа. Сломал позвоночник, навсегда стал инвалидом. Через четыре дня девушка вернулась домой, живая и здоровая. Алексей Михеев подал в Страсбургский суд." By reading that, it is clearly in regards to the court case, and it seems to be based on court papers submitted by Mikheyev himself. So your claim is still not backed up with sources. --Russavia Dialogue 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A rather strange request, I must say. You can read Russian, can't you? Okay: "на жаргоне оперативников это называется «звонок Путину»". Want more? Of course, I am pretty sure it was invented way before Putin, but it is not the reason for deletion, rather for renaming/merging into electric shock torture. - 7-bubёn >t 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep (would not mind a move) but would like to point out that whatever this article is, it is certainly not about a neologism. I'm open to good arguments for deletion but quoting WP:NEO to death is not going to do it and in fact I almost wonder if people quoting it realize how irrelevant that guideline is in the present case. "Phone call to Putin" is not fighting for a place into the next edition of Webster's. In any case, how about moving and redirecting to "zvonok Putinu"? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It is absolutely about a neologism. I have a source from 1994 which documents torture by SLORC in Myanmar which includes: electric shocks applied to fingertips, toes, ear lobes, penis, or testicles. Or another source which documents abuse by the US with "Mr. Agiza was stripped naked and strapped to a wet mattress. Electrodes were then applied to his ear lobes..." Or this Amnesty source which states "Unai Romano...alleged...he was subjected to electric shocks to his ear-lobes..." If this article not documenting a non-notable neologism (none of the those sources above call it "Phone Call to Putin"), what exactly is it documenting? Also take note of this edit, in which a previously removed category was re-added into the article (and now removed again), that will likely indicate reasons for several of the keeps above, which don't seem to be concerned with getting it right, but POV-pushing. As to moving to "zvonok Putinu", that is just as non-notable as the English. I can find no English reference to the English neologism in the judgement of the HR court in Strasbourg. Also there are only 2 news sources which use the term in Russian - one being Latynina from Novaya Gazeta (why am I not surprised?). There are zero scholar sources, and 1 book source (which may or may not be on this term). --Russavia Dialogue 02:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge into Human rights in Russia. Per WP:NEO. Or/and other Police torture in modern Russia like articles. The article is fully referenced and this is an important subject. Phone Call to Putin can be made a sub chapter of a lager scoped article. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think Torture in Russia is better. But it does not invalidate this article. So, keep.Biophys (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I am surprised that there is no article on Torture in Russia in Wikipedia, given the extensive coverage of the topic, for example here, here and here. So I have created a redirect which could be expanded into an article in the future. Martintg (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I am too surprised that Russavia calls this "non-notable neologism". Almost everyone in Russia knows this expression. Just to clarify, only this specific way of applying electric shock (to the head) is called "phone call to Putin". There are other ways of torture with electric shock in Russia. There is also a "Crucifixion of Christ" (as described in this Amnesty International report) and another method that is usually applied to women as described in this report: 23-year-old mother was detained by Russian federal forces in Ingushetia, blindfolded and routinely tortured for two weeks, including with electric shocks every day. "The electric wires were connected to the straps of her bra on her chest."Biophys (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm in Russia and I have never heard this expression prior to running into this wikipedia article while wikisurfing.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I don't usually do this Biophys, but I am calling a spade a shovel, and calling "bullshit" on your claim. Do you personally know almost everyone in Russia? Unless you are a CIA agent, and have access to mind-reading data on all Russians, how on earth could you know what almost all 142,008,838 Russians have or haven't heard of? But to explore this b/s a little further, what other Russian reliable sources, apart from Novaya Gazeta, have used this term? And remember, Novaya Gazeta has one of the lowest readership rates in Russian media (it is a fringe newspaper). Look at the figures from the National Circulation Service (also this); Argumenty i Fakty, 2,840,341. Izvestia, 371,000. Komsomolskaya Pravda, 729,897. Moskovsky Komsomolets, 1,215,000. Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 638,000. Trud, 375,000. Vedomosti, 239,000. Express Gazeta, 562,994. Novaya Gazeta, 171,060. N.G. has a lower country-wide readership than many regional newspapers from cities such as Ivanovo, Tolyatti, Tyumen, Ufa, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Rostov-on-Don, etc. For someone to even begin to make a WP:REDFLAG claim that almost everyone in Russia knows the expression, the term would have had to appear in at least one of the major Russian newspapers. Even then, to claim it is notable for WP, it has to be much more than what is currently in the sources. Others may trust you on this, but b/s clearly needs to be called out. --Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I live in Russia and I've never heard of this "term" before reading this article. Moreover, quick google search doesn't seem to return any relevant sources. ellol (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I am too surprised that Russavia calls this "non-notable neologism". Almost everyone in Russia knows this expression. Just to clarify, only this specific way of applying electric shock (to the head) is called "phone call to Putin". There are other ways of torture with electric shock in Russia. There is also a "Crucifixion of Christ" (as described in this Amnesty International report) and another method that is usually applied to women as described in this report: 23-year-old mother was detained by Russian federal forces in Ingushetia, blindfolded and routinely tortured for two weeks, including with electric shocks every day. "The electric wires were connected to the straps of her bra on her chest."Biophys (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I am surprised that there is no article on Torture in Russia in Wikipedia, given the extensive coverage of the topic, for example here, here and here. So I have created a redirect which could be expanded into an article in the future. Martintg (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think Torture in Russia is better. But it does not invalidate this article. So, keep.Biophys (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Non-notable neologism. Sources document only one case of use. Not enough to deserve a whole article. Offliner (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete or move to Mikheyev v. Russia, with the article focused on the case. Reason: lack of sources. The "method" is only reported in relation to a single case. While journalists Nemtsova and Latynina reported the method to be widely known they did not provide at least any different case when this "method" would be used. Knowing certain "yellowishness" of these journalists, sources are insignificant. ellol (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete without prejudice as a neologism. This needs more time to become notable. Wikipedia isn't the newspaper. Themfromspace (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Phone Call to Putin is a non-notable neologism.FeelSunny (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Move to Mikheyev v. Russia with a redirect from Phone Call to Putin. Yes, it's a neologism, but most of the sources (Newsweek, United Press International, Radio Free Europe) use the phrase, so it's notable enough for a redirect. The article, however, belongs at the case name. Horologium (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete (or merge to wherever). The article establishes notability of the term based on its being mentioned in passing in relation to one and only one case. If the keep proponents are so convinced that this term is beyond being a "non-notable neologism", why in the world have such a hard time providing references which tie the term to something other than Mikheyev's case? The term is "widely known" in Russia and is mentioned by numerous independent sources? Give me two (2!) such sources, and as long as they are reliable and don't reference back to Mikheyev's case like every single other source mentioned here, I'll change my vote to "keep" ("strong keep" if you give me three). Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:29, January 21, 2009 (UTC)
Neutral comment So far, my take is, this is beginning to sound like a topic which, in English, in English-language news sources, could have some notability but, in Russia it may be less notable, or not at all. Given notability on en.Wikipedia is overwhelmingly driven by coverage in English-language sources, maybe this makes one wonder, would a seeming lack of notability on ru.wikipedia have sway on the thinking of editors commenting at en.Wikipedia as to a very Russian topic which may not be notable in Russia but could be elsewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I applaud your believe in good faith, but I've encountered most voters in this AFD somewhere else on Wikipedia before and I recognise the voting patterns... It seems that some Russian wikipedians can't bare critisism of Russia so they will whitewash articles like Phone Call to Putin instead of creating articles like Torture in Russia. Maybe AFD's should only be decided by administrators in the future... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Most people in Russia know this expression. It is far more notable there. But the corresponding article in Russian WP was indeed deleted, just as every other material critical of Putin.Biophys (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "Most people in Russia know this expression." is an unsorsed claim intended to promote an opinion, in other words, a lie. You contradict to multiple native Russian users, including me, that say none of them or their friends heard this term b4 reading the source. I, personally, thought (judging by the name) it was some article about Bush calling to Putin on some business before I opened the article.FeelSunny (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- How I wish that would have surprised me... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I hope you aren't including me in that Mariah-Yulia. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the other people in this AfD who have simply expressed a delete opinion would agree that Mikheyev v. Russia is a valid article and it should probably be detailed within that somewhat. It has nothing to do with whitewashing, but providing balance and having that balance in the right places. And notice how Biophys has again said that most people in Russia know the expression, but he has totally ignored where I have called him on such rubbish; unfortunately there's a history there of him ignoring questions and sidestepping issues such as these. If a large percentage of people in Russia couldn't name GWB at the Prez of the US, how the hell would they have heard of this fringe term used in a newspaper which has an extremely low readership level written by a yellow journalist. --Russavia Dialogue 11:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Most people in Russia know this expression. It is far more notable there. But the corresponding article in Russian WP was indeed deleted, just as every other material critical of Putin.Biophys (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, although an article named Torture in Russia should cover a lot more. Grey Fox (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Many of the delete votes focus on the fact that the coverage using the term seems to focus on this one case. That us why moving the article to the case name with the term as a redirect is appropriate. The redirect from Torture in Russia makes less sense since all of the reliable sources discussing the term focus on the Mikheyev case, rather than the more general topic. Redirects are cheap, but they should be used judiciously. Horologium (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, wiki deserves an article called Torture in Russia which covers a lot more than just a single case. According to pretty much every human rights group, torture in Russia is widespread. Grey Fox (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- keep Lots of problems but RS claim: ", a torture method widely known as 'a phone call to Putin.'" I'm good. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge into Human rights in Russia. Per WP:NEO it is a non-notable neologism so it is not notable for an article. We do not have an article for Palestinian hanging as that article is also a not notable neologism and it is redirected to Strappado. Phone Call to Putin is even less notable than Palestinian hanging as the term "Palestinian hanging" has been used to a great degree by human rights organizations such as HRW and the Netherlands institute for Human Rights. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong delete. I live in Russia most of my life and never heard of such expression. I guess I am ready to hear in reply something like "dude, you have never been tortured by Russian police or FSB, that's why you don't know this expression" :). If one person mentions it at a court hearing, it doesn't mean this torture method exists or is used at all. KNewman (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- To the contrary, cited sources (including Yulia Latynina) tell this is a very widely used method that even has a name.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Like I mentioned before (you must have missed my comment above)—if this is such a "very widely used method... [with] a name", why not support it with numerous sources that are not tied to the Mikheyev's case? You surely can't undermine your argument if you do that, and since the method is so widely used and known, it should be no trouble at all for you to find the said sources? Why beating around the bush and going in circles? I'd personally love to have this article to stay, but I just can't justify it with what meager support has been provided so far. Indeed, sourcing plain vanilla "Bush's phone call to Putin" is easier than this allegedly famous torture method!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, January 22, 2009 (UTC)
- To the contrary, cited sources (including Yulia Latynina) tell this is a very widely used method that even has a name.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment It should be noted that the court case (which would be notable for an article) had the torture of Mikheyev not found as fact but alleged. Whilst the Court may have found that he probably was tortured, the court judgement itself states that the torture was "alleged". And still not a single source of the usage of this term, outside of this case, has yet been found. I can find no mention of this term in other documents filed with the court, etc, such as this (word document) which mention the term. It would appear to have been a concoction of Novaya Gazeta, or other such media outlet. --Russavia Dialogue 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sounds stange: the defendant won the case, and Russia was required to pay a compensation ordered by the court. Other than that, we can see here a group of Russian users who all (except me) support deletion. I guess the problem is not the torture, but the name of Putin. This is all very personal in Russian politics. Saakashvilli called Putin a "LilliPutean" and made a personal enemy.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yeah, and Lavrov called Saakashvili a fucking lunatic. Let's build an article based around that term, no? Or perhaps Tie eater? It has nothing to do with the term, it has to do with the simple fact that ALL sources point to a single case, and not a single person has been able to show otherwise. --Russavia Dialogue 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sounds stange: the defendant won the case, and Russia was required to pay a compensation ordered by the court. Other than that, we can see here a group of Russian users who all (except me) support deletion. I guess the problem is not the torture, but the name of Putin. This is all very personal in Russian politics. Saakashvilli called Putin a "LilliPutean" and made a personal enemy.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No, the problem we discuss here is not the torture. It's the term itself, that was not known to any other Russian user but you. Don't you find it strange others don't know the term Novaya Gazeta says is known to everyone? Or do you think we are all members of a "Web brigades"? (another "perfect" article you've created). BTW, never thought you are a Russian national. So you emigrated to the US after the term became "so popular" in Russia? Or were you told it is by some informed US sources? Or you mean you're an ethnic Russian?
- See, there is one important thing: we may like or not like Putin. I personally is not a fan of this man by no means. But most of us here just love Russia itself, and it makes - me personally - feel sad when I see a huge base POV against Russia of the English WP just b/c Russia sells oil and not buys it, like the West.FeelSunny (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This is simply ridiculous. This expression was described by a Russian journalist, Yulia Latynina as something widely known in Russia. She is right. Indeed, I knew this expression even before her report, although I currently live in US. It is enough to read Russian press. There is nothing patriotic in denying torchure in your country, no matter if this is Russia, US, or China.Biophys (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Indeed, do we trust the word of a number of anonymous Russian nationalist Wikipedians or the published word of an accredited Russian journalist? The answer WP:RS and WP:V require us to trust what Yulia Latynina has said in print over what FeelSunny, Offliner, KNewman or Russavia may say. AfD is not a vote, regardless of how many Russian nationalists pile on in this discussion. Martintg (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We now have 13 "keep", 9 "delete" and 3 "merge/move". "Merge" suggestions do not belong to AfD and should be discussed separately.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You need to differentiate between "merge" and "move". My suggestion to move doesn't equate to the same thing as any of the merges proposed, and in fact is essentially a "keep". Horologium (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- AFD is not a WP:VOTE Biophys. Martintg, who do we believe? I say we believe WP:RS. It has now been asked now no less than 4 occasions by different editors to demonstrate this terms usage outside of the yellow press Novaya Gazeta, and show some mainstream usage in Russian media, particularly in some of the larger media outlets such as KP, Trud, AiF, etc. The only thing we have so far is User:SemBubenny provide a source which only backed up what I have said all along; it has only ever been used in the case of one person. And it has nothing to do with denying of torture in Russia; torture occurs in every country on the planet, and anyone who would deny that is a nutcase. Everything we have said is within the confines of policy, guidelines and attempting to build an encyclopaedia. So Biophys says it is simply ridiculous, well let me say that is insanely ridiculous to build an article about a notable subject based upon a term which ALL evidence points to only ever being used in relation to that case. It would be like building an article on George W. Bush around the term Miserable failure, or Tony Blair at Bush's poodle (which one should note is a deleted redirect, although there are 10,000s sources for that term). Or it is like building a pyramid not from its base, but from its tip. --Russavia Dialogue 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- We now have 13 "keep", 9 "delete" and 3 "merge/move". "Merge" suggestions do not belong to AfD and should be discussed separately.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - clear consensus, it is a notable and well referenced article. Ostap 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - well sourced and clearly notable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - as yellow press neologism, not so widely known as claimed here, and definitely not widely used in English language as meager 100 Google hits show with practically all of them citing the Newsweek or Wikipedia. Torture of Mikheev is already described in the other article, so there is no need to merge. I have to admit that this Afd was brought to my attention by Offliner, so I am not sure if my vote will be counted. I would appreciate if the people who voted keep would also admit if they were asked to participate here. (Igny (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- Comment I have just realized that there is no article on Mikheyev or his torture case, which are just redirects to this article. This case of torture is apparently well documented and notable. So I change my opinion to rename and rewrite. (Igny (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- Merge. Currently it's a WP:COATRACK article, not about the method as such, but about the specific case where it was documented. If there's nothing more to be said about the method than that it happened in that case (see lead sentence: ... is a Russian neologism for a torture method allegedly used by Russian police to extract a confession out of Alexey Mikheye), it can easily be integrated in an article either about that person (if he's notable), or about the court case (which definitely is), or a wider "human rights in Russia"-style overview article. Notability and coverage of the term as such has not been demonstrated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Reply. According to multiple sources this is general and wide spread method of torture, the Mikheev is only a high-profile case. Someone modified the text to distort what the sources tell. Biophys (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Warrington (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Rename to Alexey Mikheyev and develop it into an article/stub. I am more than skeptical with regard to the present title, its contents and notability. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Rewrite and move. WP is not a dictionary of fascinating phrases, but this article does appear to start to document noteworthy events. We read that [Mikheyev's] case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France and became notable as "the first serious victory in a case of torture" brought to the Court against Russian government. Clarification, please. For one thing, what is a "serious victory"? Oh, sure, I can guess that this is the direct quotation of second-language or careless writing or machine or otherwise dubious translation of something like "significant victory", but I am not going to polish the English for such a serious matter on the strength of mere guesswork and I hope that nobody else does either. (Indeed, I'd wonder how some previous "victory in a case of torture" might not be significant.) Based on reliable sources (in whatever language), who is/was Mikheyev and what was his case? Rewrite this article more informatively, and move the result to Alexey Mikheyev over the redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 24 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 deleting speedily as nonsense at best. Possible vandalism or disparagement. Dlohcierekim 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Lenny numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I was unable to find any reliable sources that verify any of the article's content Google and Google News. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete. Nonsense. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:07, 20 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Freedom's English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be an unsourceable article, would not meet the usual inclusion criterion of WP:N. WilyD 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as a non-notable neologism. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per Rwiggum. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as neologism and WP:OR. I can find no external sources for this phrase. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as a non-notable neologism. Plus, the stinking gurkin is the mer'kin by the same author, which is currently prodded. Non-notable neologisms on top of non-notable neologisms in an endless loop of non-notable faux-dictionary fluff. See UrbanDictionary for new words, and the Wiki dictionary project for established ones.Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Is a gurkin anything like a gher'kin? —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Apparently my spelling is the source of the smell. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete obvious junk (but I commend the author for the serious tone of his/her remarks). —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as neologism for which I can find no evidence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 22 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 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Katharine (Katie) Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An IP nominated this for speedy deletion with the words "Subject of the article (probably also its author, see the page history) is not notable. She cycled across America in a race, but was not even the youngest person to do this (note "youngest ever British"), not that that would make her notable." I declined to execute a speedy deletion on that basis, since there is an assertion of notability. However, there are no references and the notability claim is insufficient to merit an article. Prod was contested in December by an IP without explanation. BencherliteTalk 15:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC) WikiProject Cycling notified BencherliteTalk 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Without voting either way, what would constitute the highest level of non-professional competition in the sport of cycling? What would she have to compete in to meet this requirement of WP:ATHLETE? The article has very little information, but if multi-day races of this sort are the highest level of non-professional competition, then she would be notable under WP:ATHLETE and should be kept. If this race does not meet that requirement, obviously she is subject to deletion unless reliable third party sources can be found to establish notability independent of this race. And while writing about yourself is not encouraged, WP:COI does not automatically make the person non-notable; if the IP editor is correct that the author is the subject of the article, that itself does not justify deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I was not relying on any COI as a ground for deletion. BencherliteTalk 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I know, I wasn't saying you were, but that was in response to the comment by the IP that you quoted, which suggested COI is grounds to delete. I was responding to his comment, which implied COI supports deletion, not saying that was your argument. Sorry if it wasn't clear I was responding to the text you quoted by the IP editor. :-) Theseeker4 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- And I ought to have said that I realised that you were making the distinction between me and the IP's argument, but that I was making the comment for the benefit of those who came along later. BencherliteTalk 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Granted, a bicycle ride across a continent is a feat that most of us can't accomplish, but are all the competitors in all marathon races inherently notable? In this case, I don't see a source for the statements that she was the first Scottish female cyclist, or the "youngest ever British female cyclist" to complete the RAAM, and I don't know that that would make her more notable than any of the other competitors. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - On general notabilty grounds, I could find no evidence for notability as I could not find any coverage. The only item of significance was the self-published information about the cycling team from here which includes the claims mentioned above. But of course this isn't a reliable source. With respect to looking at the guidelines for athletes, the criteron of competing at the top of her sport is not satisfied. There is a presumption that competing at the top level of her sport means she has risen above others at lower levels to compete at the pinnacle of her sport. With respect to the Race Across America, the entry requirements for teams does not require any qualifying requirements. In other words, there is nothing about the team race that would distinguish any entrant as notable, as the fact that they are entered only demonstrates that they entered the race and nothing else. -- Whpq (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. While her achievment is great, she is by no means the first to do it and I cannot see any independent reliable source coverage of the event. JulesH (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
I think it should be kept. The author, who may or may not also be the subject, has tried to increase validity of the article by including more references, all of which I consider to be trustworthy, and rather than deleting the article purerly because of it's lack of content I think the author should be contacted and encouraged to increase the content. If i had to guess I would say that the author is not even aware of this debate. I believe the subject of the article is likely to become of Great Britains most promising cyclists and this articles allows the general public to track her performance. It's currently the cycling 'off season' in the UK so I suggest leaving the article until the subject has competed in several more races, thus giving the author more chance to assert the subjects notibility. - 22/01/09 - User: Anon - 23:09 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.1 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If you become notable in the future of course you can have an article then, but we'll leave it to impartial third-party authors and editors to decide if and when that time comes. Please note that weighing in to oppose deletion from a Durham University proxy doesn't help your case! 79.64.206.182 (talk) 17:27, 24 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Melding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
New construction method. Given that all the links are to one company, I believe the term is a neologism and the article is spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Agreed. The article reads like it was lifted from another site, and is generally unsuitable as an encyclopedic article. KaySL (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Seems to be a promotional article for a specific company's process. Pictures of the product and process all seem to have copyright violation issues. No real hits on a search that match what is described in the article. Delete as promoting a company and a lack of notability demonstrated by reliable, third party sources. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete (as WP:SPAM) and recreate as a dabpage linking to the following: LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Meld (cards), melding is displaying a set of cards to other players
- David Melding, an English politician
- Melding Plague, a fictional virus
- Melding can also refer to joining, blending, combining, or merging things into one
- Meld
- Comment I've created the page here. KaySL (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as spam. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Seems to be a trade name for Quickstep's patent-pending technology. Not notable. Could be mentioned in the article on welding. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete non-notable neologism used by one company. -Atmoz (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete probable spam. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:13, 21 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 00:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Buono!2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete nn unreleased album Mayalld (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, fails to meet WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. I can find no sources that would establish notability. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: no evidence of notability WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 08:40, 21 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 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- CityEngine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Promotional material for a product, and no assertion of notability. Doesn't quite fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion, and the prod was contested. Politizer talk/contribs 14:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. A non-consumer software product, a 3D modelling engine. External links provided are to company websites and blogs. Closest they come to a claim of notability is a link to an in-house site claiming that the software has won an obscure award. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep: Proof of notability: -- Virt (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Review in half-a-million member digital artists community website Renderosity ( link to review)
- Full Article on New York Times Website (link to article)
- Implements widely respected cutting edge technology in procedural modeling technologies (multiple papers accepted at world's largest computer graphics conference Siggraph: link to acm search results)
- Keep: Proof of notability: -- Fabianmueller1982 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2009 (GMT +2)
- Used in a university project at Virginia in prepration of Siggraph 2008: http://www.romereborn.virginia.edu/gallery.php
- Keep: Proof of notability: -- StefanGross (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2009 (GMT +2)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Phineas and Ferb: The Soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The titles suggests that it's a soundtrack, but the article only mentions one song. I did some research, and I currently have yet to find any evidence that any such soundtrack actually exists. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This should've been speedied (I saw it was turned down for that though). The only notable song in the entire show is the theme song and the rest is unremarkable background music. No reason to exist or redirect. Nate • (chatter) 15:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:04, 22 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 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Mayu Sakai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable manga author. Written a few short series, none notable either. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Article nothing more than a formatted copy of her ANN profile with a link to her blog. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Declined speedy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. I'd be a lot happier if you'd waited on this AfD until those on her works had finished. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- None of her works are notable, beyond maybe Rockin' Heaven (which I still disagree with) and that isn't really enough to claim she is notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Fait_accompli. You are attempting to delete the obvious merge target for the numerous prodded/afd'd articles on her works. Why not wait and see how THOSE pan out? What, are you taking over for TTN now? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Obvious merge target for what? An unnotable author and her unnotable works (and sorry, but considering she's only written four series period of which 3 are at AfD, numerous is a stretch). Also please note that a - Fait_accompli does not apply here at all, this is not a "large number" of articles by any stretch nor does it say anything about removing a small group of unnotable articles at all, its cleaning up behind an overly enthusiastic fan. Also, That RfA has nothing to do with me as I was not really a party in it at all, and any restrictions do not apply. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Fait_accompli. You are attempting to delete the obvious merge target for the numerous prodded/afd'd articles on her works. Why not wait and see how THOSE pan out? What, are you taking over for TTN now? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- None of her works are notable, beyond maybe Rockin' Heaven (which I still disagree with) and that isn't really enough to claim she is notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: So, some stats. All four of this author's series have been put up for deletion. Of these four, one prod was replaced with a merge proposal, two were AFD'd with a result of positive keep (as opposed to a no consensus default keep, I mean), and the other AFD is still in progress, but looks like it'll resolve to either merge-to-author or delete. Assuming that result, the subject of this article is the creator of two notable works. Does that make her pass WP:CREATIVE? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Not really. She still has no significant coverage anywhere, and considering those two keeps were primarily based on the translation issue and the now removed MoS notability addition that is now being discussed at WP:BK, they have not actually shown any real notability beyond "they were translated" (and considering there seems to be objections to having BK applied to graphic novels, they would then default back to WP:N, which of course does not have such an exception either and are still unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep I'd say multiple works from a major publisher does make her notable. I can see the line being drawn on either side of an author like this, but given the success of at least two of her works internationally, deletion seems uncalled for. Doceirias (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep If her works are deemed notable, then that makes her automatically notable. If it is determined than none of her creations are, only then can you get delete this. Dream Focus (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Wrong. Nothing in Creative says that having a notable work makes you notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That's circular reasoning since the reason cited to keep one of her works was that it was by a notable manga creator. --Farix (Talk) 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete The author fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. I will also point out that the AfD results of one of her works was actually a "no consensus" result with the two keep comments cited a fake notability criterion. --Farix (Talk) 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No, the closing result for both Rockin' Heaven and Nagatachou Strawberry was "keep". Whether the latter should have been a "no consensus" is another matter (that's how I would have closed it), but please don't make false claims. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So, getting back to answering my question above: if you read WP:CREATIVE carefully, one notes that it's not enough to have created notable works, but you have to have created works notable in certain ways. There are ways of having your books pass WP:BK that do not meet you passing WP:CREATIVE, and Sakai's works so far seem to have done just that. Pending a demonstration that her works have been multiply reviewed or that she herself has been multiply covered, she does not meet our notability standards at this time: Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- She is an entertainer. WP:ENTERTAINER "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." If it here works are popular, in confirmable sales or countable illegal downloads(some fansub sites keep track of such things), then she is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- She is not an entertainer. Authors are covered by creative, not entertainer, nor does having a few people post fansubs count as a "large fan base" nor having "a significant cult following". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- She is an entertainer. WP:ENTERTAINER "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." If it here works are popular, in confirmable sales or countable illegal downloads(some fansub sites keep track of such things), then she is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:17, 25 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 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Bugger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Wikipedia is also not the place for word histories. This article is composed entirely of those two items (the two main headers are "History" and "Usage"). I can think of nothing encyclopedic to say about this word, and the topic (as opposed to the word) is covered adequately by buggery or sodomy. Powers T 13:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —
Powers T 14:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I've always understood this to be the British equivalent of the All-American "F-word". The Wikipedia articles about both words are equally dull and loaded with OR observations about how the word can be used in context, and apparently were more fun to write than they were to read. That said, I think that if the article about the American expletive were nominated, it would be an easy keep, and the same holds true for this one. There is a continuing need for deadly dull articles about subjects that are not taught in school, and Wikipedia serves that need. Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - what on earth makes you think a word that has been attested in English since at least 120 years before English speakers settled North America is "all-American" or an "American expletive"? —Angr 15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Oh, I didn't say we invented the f-word, anymore than our British cousins invented the act that it originally referred to. We just perfected its use as profanity. Because that's what we're good at. USA! USA! Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. The article could probably be better sourced (but then if you hit Special:Random ten times you'll probably find at least seven articles that need to be better sourced), but it is unquestionably a valid encyclopedia article. We have an entire featured article about about a word's history and usage, so I don't know what leads LtPowers to the conclusion that such articles are inappropriate here. —Angr 15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Thou is (art?) a far better article than this. Not every word has the potential to be written about encyclopedically. That some do is no evidence that all do. Powers T 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The fact that this article is of poorer quality than a featured article is no reason to delete. The fact that the word bugger does have a lengthy, partially sourced, interesting and encyclopedic article shows that it at least does have the potential to be written about encyclopedically. —Angr 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- But it's not encyclopedic. All it contains is lexicographical information -- history, usage, that sort of thing. That's not encyclopedic. Truly encyclopedic articles on words have extensive discussion of the words' effects on culture and history, not simply their presence in culture and history. "Thou" rises to that level, as does "fuck". "Bugger", simply, does not. Powers T 14:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The fact that this article is of poorer quality than a featured article is no reason to delete. The fact that the word bugger does have a lengthy, partially sourced, interesting and encyclopedic article shows that it at least does have the potential to be written about encyclopedically. —Angr 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Thou is (art?) a far better article than this. Not every word has the potential to be written about encyclopedically. That some do is no evidence that all do. Powers T 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge, perhaps with redirect to buggery. The only thing I see of interest that's not covered in "buggery" is the "Bagarap" paragraph (and maybe the Stevenson anecdote); pretty much everything else in here (etymology, usage) is either DICDEF or already found in "buggery." Drmies (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Mostly unreferenced content, and generally articles on word usage do not belong in Wikipedia anyway - they don't translate well into other languages. This belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Michig (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This is already way beyond being a dictionary article, so WINAD doesn't really apply. Much of what is here would not sit well in the buggery article, since the main usage of the term is nowadays as unrelated to that word as politics is to politic. Unlike Drmies, I can see several things which are encyclopedic but neither etymological nor covered at buggery - the controversy over the Toyota ads, for one thing. Certainly this is, as Angr points out, a perfectly acceptable subject for a wikipedia article and unquestionably encyclopedic in scope. Simply because one user "can think of nothing encyclopedic to say about this word" doesn't mean that others will find themselves at a similar loss (I can think of nothing encyclopedic to say about Paris Hilton - should her article be deleted?) Grutness...wha? 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hi Grutness, here are the Google News results for toyota + bugger. I challenge you to find something in there that (in a non-trivial) manner says something in-depth about the ad. I tried but failed. And I might as well edit the article to insert an OR tag--because what seems to matter is the offensiveness of the word and the expectation of the PR company that it would attract attention; precisely that link isn't easily verified (maybe because it's so obvious, or maybe because it isn't that big a deal). I may add that there is no reference whatsoever for this statement. The article as a whole is almost completely unreferenced, the most solid of references being...a dictionary. No, I'll stick to my guns here; there really is no scope here. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Seems to be quite a lot here. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- What do you mean by "beyond" a dictionary article? What referenced material is there in this article that wouldn't belong in a comprehensive dictionary? The etymology belongs, and the usage guide belongs. So what is there here that is "beyond" what a dictionary should include? Powers T 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There's quite a bit there which wouldn't be in a Wiktionary article, which is the dictionary we'd be most likely moving any information to. This has considerably more than many, many vocabulary articles on Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hi Grutness, here are the Google News results for toyota + bugger. I challenge you to find something in there that (in a non-trivial) manner says something in-depth about the ad. I tried but failed. And I might as well edit the article to insert an OR tag--because what seems to matter is the offensiveness of the word and the expectation of the PR company that it would attract attention; precisely that link isn't easily verified (maybe because it's so obvious, or maybe because it isn't that big a deal). I may add that there is no reference whatsoever for this statement. The article as a whole is almost completely unreferenced, the most solid of references being...a dictionary. No, I'll stick to my guns here; there really is no scope here. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Almost everything here should be in a Wiktionary article about the word. A dictionary entry should cover all the meanings and shades of meaning of a word, preferably with examples, which is exactly what this article does. Look again at Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary entry is about the word, covering in one article all the different ways in which the word is used - as this one does. An encyclopedia entry is about a thing, person, place, concept etc. In Wikipedia, if a word has several meanings, a disambiguation page points to articles on each meaning. If more than one word describes the same concept, redirect pages point to the article on the concept. But this article is purely about the way the word is used, not about the concepts. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Once again, this fallacy -- that Wiktionary articles should be limited to what most Wiktionary articles currently look like -- raises its ugly head. Powers T 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's no fallacy that Wiktionary has its own style about what its articles should look like and what they should contain - and what this article contains is utterly inappropriate for Wiktionary and would not be accepted there. What is a fallacy (or rather, a misconception) is that WP:WINAD means that words are inappropriate topics for encyclopedia articles. —Angr 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Once again, this fallacy -- that Wiktionary articles should be limited to what most Wiktionary articles currently look like -- raises its ugly head. Powers T 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Agreed. From Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed.
- Some of the OED entries give huge numbers of examples illustrating different meanings and uses of the word. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Oh yes, wikipedia is place for histories, including word histories. - 7-bubёn >t 00:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. Would this article, if translated into Swahili, have any interest to someone who spoke only Swahili and was not interested in learning English? Encyclopedia articles should be about subjects that have meaning whatever language you speak. An article explaining the many ways in which the word लौंडेबाज is used in the Hindi language belongs in a Hindi dictionary - not in Wikipedia. I would have no problem if the entire article were presented in Wiktionary. There is no policy or guideline that says a dictionary article has to be short. The OED has lengthy articles on word origins, evolution and current usage, and Wiktionary can too. Check the guideline: Wikipedia is not a dictionary
- Yes it would have interest to a Swahili speaker, in my opinion. You are confusing two things: interest in learning English language and interest in learning about English language. - 7-bubёn >t 16:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A Wikipedia article describes a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote.
- A Wiktionary article describes the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote.
- In this case, the article precisely fits the Wiktionary definition, and does not fit the Wikipedia one at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- These are your personal definitions which I consider sufficiently incorrect and vague to make you make decisions many people would disagree. - 7-bubёn >t 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Not personal definitions. Check Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles. See first entry in the table.
- Comment. Would this article, if translated into Swahili, have any interest to someone who spoke only Swahili and was not interested in learning English? Encyclopedia articles should be about subjects that have meaning whatever language you speak. An article explaining the many ways in which the word लौंडेबाज is used in the Hindi language belongs in a Hindi dictionary - not in Wikipedia. I would have no problem if the entire article were presented in Wiktionary. There is no policy or guideline that says a dictionary article has to be short. The OED has lengthy articles on word origins, evolution and current usage, and Wiktionary can too. Check the guideline: Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Major differences
Wikipedia | Wiktionary | |
---|---|---|
Articles are about: | a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth. | the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth. |
Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms): | are duplicate articles that should be merged. For example: petrol and gasoline. | warrant different articles (e.g. petrol and gasoline). |
Articles whose titles are different spellings of the same word or lexeme: | are duplicate articles that should be merged. For example: colour and color. | warrant different articles (e.g. colour and color). |
The same title for different things (homographs): | are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data). | are to be found in one entry. (e.g. backup). |
Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A word is a concept. This article is about a word itself, and words are just as entitled to encyclopedia articles as any other concept. —Angr 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This is far more than a definition, and exactly the kind of article we should have. I can probably add some material from An Encyclopedia of Swearing by Geoffrey Hughes (ISBN 978-0765612311). the wub "?!" 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I didn't say it was just a definition; it's also a usage guide and an etymology. All of which belongs in a dictionary. Powers T 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Not to the extent written here, it doesn't. This article would be unacceptable at Wiktionary because it's an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry. —Angr 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I didn't say it was just a definition; it's also a usage guide and an etymology. All of which belongs in a dictionary. Powers T 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Hang on. Can we please hold off closure on this one? In the next day or two, I mean to transcribe the content into the Wiktionary entry - I don't think I have to rearrange or drop anything, just reformat - and flag it for attention by the Wiktionary editors. For past experience, I know that they are both meticulous and brutally logical. Let's hear what they have to say - we are debating from one side only. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]- What the Wiktionary community thinks is frankly irrelevant here. They can write their articles how they want, and they are obviously welcome to reuse this article (with the correct attribution of course). However that should have no effect on the article on Wikipedia, just as keeping the article here should have no effect on their article. the wub "?!" 14:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Done anyway. See wikt:bugger, and related entries, which now hold the complete content of the article in Wiktionary format. For what it is worth, the initial response from a Wiktionary administrator was "Yep, I saw what you did, it was mostly good". Aymatth2 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Re-arranged and expanded the article to fix typos, include additional content from Wiktionary and to make the two articles easier to cross-reference. But I will not take responsibility for keeping the two in sync. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Warrington (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Any particular reason? This isn't a vote. Powers T 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You can not add all this information to a standard Wiktionary, and the article is much more than just a definition. A piece of culture history, and, it is in my opinion interesting and rather well written.
- Comment. On the one hand, the article is clearly a word definition that belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. On the other hand, it is a well written light article, and may be a common search target. Logically, according to the rules, it does not belong. Pragmatically, given the support expressed by several editors in this debate, perhaps it does. Wikipedia is not a dictionary documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. But Wikipedia:Use common sense may also apply. What harm would result from leaving the article in? I would prefer to delete, with a redirect to the Wiktionary page, mostly because I think in an undertaking as complex as building a collaborative online encyclopedia it is best to avoid breaking widely debated and agreed policies for a trivial reason. Trivial precedents can have destructive consequences. This article, from any point of view, is trivial. But it is hard to have strong feelings about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This expresses my opinion quite well. Keep. Thmazing (talk) 04:34, 24 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 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Evander Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, the reason was Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Seems valid deletion reason to me but since contested prods get restored, I list it here. Tone 13:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I agree he doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines currently, but it's likely he will after the NHL entry draft in June. I realize we shouldn't engage in crystal ball gazing, but it also seems silly to delete it just to recreate it in five months. I don't think a stub is doing any harm. Powers T 13:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! talk... 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Non-notable ice hockey player. Article can be recreated if he wins a major award or goes in round 1 this summer. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally or otherwise achieve notability so fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -Djsasso (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete When he plays professionally, or if he does get drafted in the first round, the article can be recreated or undeleted quite easily by an admin. But for now, he is a non-notable amateur player. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep World Junior Champion and likely first-round pick in June. -- Jc121383 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:CRYSTAL. The fact that he will likely be picked in the first round is not a valid keep reason. We've established before that playing in World Juniors does not equal notability. --Smashvilletalk 20:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm not a fan of how this guideline is always thrown around. Wouldn't deleting the article be in violation of this also? Plus WP:CRYSTAL throws out the word verifiable. It's verified that he's ranked 13th by Central Scouting. There are 30 teams. All mock drafts I see have him in round one. Though validity of those can be called into question. It just comes to a point where common sense and reasonability have to take over. Does it make more sense to start an article now and add information to it or to delete an article now and wait to make it when you have to go back it time to get citations, information and such? The itchy trigger finger on the deletion of an article because the person isn't notable at the moment doesn't make sense to me. Jc121383 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. --Smashvilletalk 20:50, 24 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 snowball delete - 7-bubёn >t 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Slurgyness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article on a neologism, an example of what Wikipedia is not. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it for things made up one day. This term has no real notability. A speedy was declined for this article, and the original author did away with a seconded PROD, so here we are at AfD. --Dynaflow babble 12:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- As the article tells us outright, it is an abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise a protologism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and novel concepts are not permitted. And no, Wiktionary doesn't want unattested protologisms, either. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Not verifiable by reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Delete I would have tagged it for a G3 speedy myself. --Finngall talk 14:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - as opposed to claiming notability, the lead sentence admits the opposite. "Slurgyness is a 'Neologism' as such this article does not claim that slurgyness is an established or even a 'real' word.". LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - per nom and other comments. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete with a prayer/request for snow. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete garbage. JuJube (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, WP:SNOW - the article basically admits it's a pretty precise violation of WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Indeed, it doesn't quite work with any of our speedy-deletion criteria but it's certainly worth removing forthwith. ~ mazca t|c 22:35, 20 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 Döner kebab. Material has been merged. Mgm|(talk) 13:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Mahmut Aygün (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This person is notable for one sole event. This sole event does not meets the criteria for inclusion. DFS454 (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If it's to be deleted (and I can appreciate the rationale), then I think its contents at least merit merging into Döner kebab. (Note: I'm the creator of the article.)--A bit iffy (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Agreed Merge and Redirect --DFS454 (talk) 12:49, 20 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. G11, promotional material. Mgm|(talk) 13:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yesterday.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a website with an Alexa ranking in the 600,000's. Written in a promotional manner, and the creator readily admits that this article was written to increase the site's exposure. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:18, 20 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm Throwing My Arms Around Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NSONGS. Attempt at redirecting to parent article was reverted, so here we are. Hasn't charted, hasn't won any awards, hasn't been covered by multiple artists. Can't meet criteria until Feb 9, so it should be create protected until then. —Kww(talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep: as the editor who reverted the redirect I believe the topic of article meets the general notability guidelines as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --JD554 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep The nominator did not consider the general notability guidelines as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Mgm|(talk) 13:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I most certainly have considered them. In my view, articles need to meet both their subject specific guideline and the general notability guidelines in order to be kept. That's an issue that there isn't consensus on one way or the other (see Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, which is why I take articles that only meet one or the other to AFD.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- WP:N states in the first paragraph: A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. (my highlighting). That to me says that the topic doesn't need to meet both. --JD554 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm not saying your reading is dead wrong. It's a bit long, but actually taking the time to read Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, specifically section B, is interesting and educational, and provides examples of many different arguments pro and con. The main problem with your interpretation is that it would allow the Kevin project to write an SNG that said "All people named Kevin are notable", and that would then permit articles on people named Kevin, even if they failed the GNG. Not a good answer, I don't think.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Luckily WP:NSONGS also states: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Whew ;-) --JD554 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - If an article meets the basic notabiliy guidelines, then it should be kept. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - sources establish notability without any regard to what specific notability criteria for music. -- Whpq (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Doesn't have to chart to be notable, and is already being played and shown on national TV. Coverage (e.g. [18], [19]) is sufficient for an article on a release by a highly notable musician.--Michig (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This is a single release by a major recording artist. Why on earth would it be deleted? The discography would look pretty daft with a hole in it. What a waste of people#s time flagging this for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Van Der Lingen Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A family had an ancestor in the mid-19th Century notable enough to merit a few paragraphs in the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Therefore, so the logic seems to go, three of his 20-odd-year-old descendants and their parents deserve their own article at en.wiki by virtue of their august ancestor. This Gottlieb Wilhelm Anthonie van der Lingen gentleman may actually be notable enough for an article (though I can't really tell; I don't know Afrikaans), but the focus of this article is a small subset of his descendants, and they seem to all fail WP:N, both individually and collectively. --Dynaflow babble 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not Family Tree Maker. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Gottlieb Wilhelm Anthonie van der Lingen has some notability on the account of being the founder of an important educational institute in south africa, but the family article lacks any notability. /me dives into speedy deletion criteria. Fransw (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Addition: I still believe it satisfies criteria a7 for speedy deletion, but it has been tried before... Fransw (talk) 16:14, 20 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Per WP:WEB, an award allows it to pass the notability guideline and sources are established as reliable. The delete votes here are effectively nullified due to this fact. Drop me a line at my talk page if you think this close is improper. Thanks! (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel • work 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Looking for Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comic has absolutely no sources that are independent from the subject, and all other sources are the comic itself. The only two sources that are not the comic is a source relating to games, and a source relating to WoW. Per WP:N, for an article to have notability, it must have significant, reliable, 3rd party sources that are independent from the subject.
This article has none of these. — Dædαlus Contribs 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete- as Daedalus says, the sources provided are either primary or unreliable- useless for establishing notability. I've had a look on Google and can't find anything better. Also it's chock-a-block full of original research. Reyk YO! 11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. First, Stratics is a reliable independent source (the real problem is that the link doesn't work right). Second, the comic has won a major industry award, one of the Joe Shuster Awards (or, more accurately, the creative team won the award for their work on this strip and Least I Could Do). Agreed on the original research, but that's cause for paring, not deletion. Powers T 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Stratics is an Internet network of web sites and message boards focusing on massively multiplayer games. They are not independent from the subject. It is stated right there, in their own article, that they cover the subject covered by the comics. Same with the WoW source. They have not shown themselves notable outside their genre, so please explain your comment, as it is not true given the above.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That's not what "independent from the subject means". They don't mean "independent from the same topic area as the article's subject", because that would mean we couldn't use sources like Variety for entertainment articles, which is absurd. It means the source must not have a business or operational association with the specific subject of the article, which is the case here. Powers T 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Stratics is an Internet network of web sites and message boards focusing on massively multiplayer games. They are not independent from the subject. It is stated right there, in their own article, that they cover the subject covered by the comics. Same with the WoW source. They have not shown themselves notable outside their genre, so please explain your comment, as it is not true given the above.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Powers T 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete- Great comic, but I agree that it does not meet the notability standards of wikipedia yet. Yes, it did win that Joe Shuster award (http://joeshusterawards.com/2008-nominees-and-winners/, scroll to about halfway down) and it dit get a mentioning in stratics (http://ddo.stratics.com/content/news/archive/arc11-2006.php, at about one-third down, or do a quickfind on LFGComic), but that last one is only for a wallpaper they made. All other sources are either from worldofwarcraft.com (not a 3rd-party source, at best a 2nd-party source), LICD (other project by the same authors) or the lfg website itself. The only good source would be the Joe Shuster award one, which is not nearly enough to source the entire page. On the other hand, articles of this type do tend to gather quite a few sources from the comic website itself, mostly in support of short claims by 3rd-party sources. My stance: either delete or merge with Least I Could Do (which is, at a quick glance, also suffering from a shortage of 3rd-party references). That is, unless proper 3rd-party sourcing can be found. Fransw (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: here is a brief review of the comic, which might serve as an additional source. Powers T 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep WP:WEB states The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization, which this meets by winning the JSA. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Funny how you don't state, the entire policy: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.. This is the number 5 cite, which what you stated above refers to, here, I bolded the relevant excrept. As said, the sources must be independent, and they are not, thus, they cannot be used to establish notability.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.
- The second, of three, criterion, which I am quoting above, meets the verbiage any one of the following criteria. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No, it doesn't, what I quoted above is what is cited by the criterion you cite.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The second, of three, criterion, which I am quoting above, meets the verbiage any one of the following criteria. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Then I shall copy-paste the entire subsection in question, and ask that you point to criteria #2, where your cited requirement is to apply? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- {edit conflict)I was striking some of my comments, as I mis-read something, but to the point, the criterion that you cite does still not meet the requirement, as it is a secondary source, it isn't third party, or independent from the subject. As you can see, I added a ref, or note list below, and for the second criterion, it gives several examples of sources which are clearly independent from the subject of that which the comic covers, eg, roll-playing games, mmorpgs, etc.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I still beg to argue your reasoning. The awards organization is an independent body which is not associated with the subject matter in question. Taking WP:PSTS as a position on suitable sources, there are three levels of sources:
- Primary sources are closely associated with the subject
- Secondary sources are at least one step removed, and continues with Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Why does not an independent awards organization meet secondary source requires in this case?
- Tertiary sources are those such as Wikipedia, which are not to be used to satisfy any policy or guideline requirements.
- Your phrasing seems to confuse "third-party" with "tertiary sources". Also, the cited footnote for criterion #2, which I am using in my argument, is a partial list of awards; not exhaustive. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes it does, my bad on that, and my above post was off too, I thought you were referring to the second cited object, now I realize you're referencing the awards section. All that aside, yes, it does have a notable award for comics, and not webcomics, which.. Well I'm just not sure about that, but as I was saying, I still do not believe this webcomic is notable because of a single award.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So, even though the basis for your argument was proven wrong, you're sticking to your guns no matter what? Powers T 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The basis for my argument was not proven wrong, the article does not have any third party reliable sources that are independent from the subject, in order to vouch for nobility, and lastly, WP:WEB is a guideline for inclusion, as is WP:N, and I do not think that a single award, however notable, is enough to make this webcomic notable.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The awards body mentioned is independent of the subject matter, unless you can bring forth evidence that the awards body is somehow associated with the subject. Again, I think the phrasing independent is being misinterpreted, as Lt. Powers' above example of the Variety magazine exemplifies; under that kind of reasoning, what would Daedalus' consider of sourcing to the Emmys or the Oscars? Also, the statements at WP:WEB are singular in their requirements: any one of the criteria listed must be met; for the award, this is also singular in the policy, in that it says an award, not multiple awards. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I suggest you correct yourself, WP:WEB is not a policy, but a guideline, as I said above. Secondly, various actors that have won Oscars are not notable because they have won Oscars, but because they have significant coverage about that that is independent of the subject of the film industry. Now, as to the award, it is not independent from the subject, the same as the Oscars, but again, I just said that in my reasoning, I do not believe that a single award makes an article subject notable.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The awards body mentioned is independent of the subject matter, unless you can bring forth evidence that the awards body is somehow associated with the subject. Again, I think the phrasing independent is being misinterpreted, as Lt. Powers' above example of the Variety magazine exemplifies; under that kind of reasoning, what would Daedalus' consider of sourcing to the Emmys or the Oscars? Also, the statements at WP:WEB are singular in their requirements: any one of the criteria listed must be met; for the award, this is also singular in the policy, in that it says an award, not multiple awards. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The basis for my argument was not proven wrong, the article does not have any third party reliable sources that are independent from the subject, in order to vouch for nobility, and lastly, WP:WEB is a guideline for inclusion, as is WP:N, and I do not think that a single award, however notable, is enough to make this webcomic notable.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- So, even though the basis for your argument was proven wrong, you're sticking to your guns no matter what? Powers T 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes it does, my bad on that, and my above post was off too, I thought you were referring to the second cited object, now I realize you're referencing the awards section. All that aside, yes, it does have a notable award for comics, and not webcomics, which.. Well I'm just not sure about that, but as I was saying, I still do not believe this webcomic is notable because of a single award.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I still beg to argue your reasoning. The awards organization is an independent body which is not associated with the subject matter in question. Taking WP:PSTS as a position on suitable sources, there are three levels of sources:
- Keep as per Powers, Yngvarr. Winning a notable award shows notability and there are independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Really? Can you please cite which sources are independent from the subject? Also as to the meaning of independent, that refers to the subject which the source covers, because a source that covers a particular subject is obviously going to have a bias concerning that subject. Hence, the two sources this article has are not independent from the subject.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Again, that's not what "independent" means in this context, and I think you'll find broad agreement on that point among editors of the relevant guidelines. Powers T 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note, for example, that WP:GNG says: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." "Subject" in this context means the subject of the article, not the general topic area. Powers T 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note for yourself, that that particular sentence has a cite to a foot note, a foot note which reads Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations. I bolded the relevant part of the note. The strong connection that exists between the two sources, and the subject matter, is that the subject matter is a webcomic concerning RPGs, and the two sources write about stuff RPG related.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm sorry to belabor this issue, but I need this stated in explicit terms: are you saying that, for instance, any industry magazine, regardless of the industry, is unsuitable for sourcing? That IGN is not to be used to source for video games; that CNet is not to be used to source for technology? The Oscars cannot be used to source an Oscar award? Those have a strong connection with the associated subjects. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm not referring to instances of rewards, I'm referring to sources which are used to determine nobility. They can be used as sources for material, but since they concern the subject material, they are obviously going to have a bias concerning the subject matter, but then again, I may be wrong, as what you indicate above may be different from another AfD I used this argument in. To reference, the article for deletion was about a skateboarding dog. Now, the sources for that article were, I believe a single publication that had to do with dog tricks. Now, the AfD ended in a merge to a dog tricks article, but the dog originally mentioned in the article was removed, as there was no indication this dog was notable besides all the other dogs who could skateboard.
- Now, now that I think about it a bit more, what you say is rather broad. Look at it this way. Game publications, such as EGM review games. Now say a game is reviewed by EGM, can this review be cited as a voucher for nobility? No, as magazines about games review games, it isn't that much of an achievement to be reviewed, as it is something that every new game gets. IGN can be viewed the same, as they review games as they come out, citing a review for a particular game as reason for notability is no big deal, or rather, wouldn't work. Actors aren't notable because of a single reward they received, they're notable because they've been featured in many films and works, as per WP:ENTERTAINER. Now reading your post again, I see that I made a small mistake in my response: The Oscars can be used as a source, for an Oscar. That's like asking if an award program can be sourced for the awards it gives out, but as I was saying, it's a different issue, as it is in regards to WP:ENTERTAINER. To CNet, it would depend. Do they review every single new tech product that comes out, or do they review tech products which are in a new field, or products which do something completely better than most products?— Dædαlus Contribs 11:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm sorry to belabor this issue, but I need this stated in explicit terms: are you saying that, for instance, any industry magazine, regardless of the industry, is unsuitable for sourcing? That IGN is not to be used to source for video games; that CNet is not to be used to source for technology? The Oscars cannot be used to source an Oscar award? Those have a strong connection with the associated subjects. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note for yourself, that that particular sentence has a cite to a foot note, a foot note which reads Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations. I bolded the relevant part of the note. The strong connection that exists between the two sources, and the subject matter, is that the subject matter is a webcomic concerning RPGs, and the two sources write about stuff RPG related.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note, for example, that WP:GNG says: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." "Subject" in this context means the subject of the article, not the general topic area. Powers T 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Again, that's not what "independent" means in this context, and I think you'll find broad agreement on that point among editors of the relevant guidelines. Powers T 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Really? Can you please cite which sources are independent from the subject? Also as to the meaning of independent, that refers to the subject which the source covers, because a source that covers a particular subject is obviously going to have a bias concerning that subject. Hence, the two sources this article has are not independent from the subject.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep From what I'm reading, I believe that Daedalus is mixing the notability argument with sourcing independant of the web comic (or at least the discussion has made it sufficiently confusing). I'll take the latter first. The Shuster Awards are independant of the comic itself (and I just fixed the link that went directly to the listing for the 2008 awards on the Shuster Awards website, but do have to scroll down to the pertinent award). It's not affiliated with the comic or the creators in any business sense, which goes to the heart of independance, which would be unbiased. I consider both Blizzard and Stratics to be independant. That said, more independant sources and real life commentary would definitely improve article, but deletion is not approrpriate.
As to notability, and particulary the last post, ONE award is enough for notability per the WP:WEB. That is the standard that applies for a web comic. Your discussion of IGN and game magazines that review games as they come out is not analogous- these are awards that are given out once a year, not reviews from every single web comic. IMHO (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- And per this(^), I withdraw this AfD.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:29, 22 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 One-hit wonders in the UK. MBisanz talk 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- One-hit wonders of Alternative Guises in the UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pure original research. 'Alternative guises'? I'm not even sure what that means other than a catch-all excuse for including trivia, and neither the article nor Google are of much help. CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm afraid this argument is pure nonsense. I have researched this matter with the help of Google searches and the Guiness Hit Singles book itself. The article has already been there for a few months and no-one else has had a problem with it. The article also explains what is meant by alternative guises so anyone who has actually read the article will know so to say I'm not even sure what that means just shows that this person has not read the article. This article was created to accompany the One-hit Wonders in the UK article as the acts mention ed are one hit wonders however they consist of artists who in themselves are not OHWs. It would not have been right to include them in the main article so I thought this was the best solution. --Cexycy (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- In other words, it's an Original Research fork, using inclusion criteria, standards, and specific terminology (such as 'Alternative Guises') of your choosing. As for the expression 'Alternative Guises', would you mind giving the original source of that term and where it's being used by someone other than yourself, because Google was no help there, only throwing up this article and various mirrors? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's funny you should say that because it is a term used by the Guiness Hit Singles book. Once again I really don't see what you're getting at. When people look at the main OHW article there is a link there to this article and therefore it is there to support it. I did try having the two articles together but it just got a little messy therefore I created a new article. --Cexycy (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Except that most of entries in the article are not "one-hit-wonders". They are duos of mainstay artists. The title is misleading, the content is dull. Merge, if it's worth saving at all. NVO (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Have you READ the article? I don't believe you have otherwise you would not be saying that. The acts listed are OHWs in THAT guise only. The artiocle clearly states that the artists involved have had other hits but just not under that name or grouping. --Cexycy (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge. It's a fork of One-hit wonders in the UK using a broader definition, but since there is no universally accepted definition, it should be a section there. Rd232 talk 11:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Please see my comment above. --Cexycy (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge as a section in One-hit wonders in the UK. Just because a term is used in one book, it does not become suitable as a criterion for a Wikipedia list article. In my opinion, this article is excluded by WP:NOTDIR#5; it is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- On further inspection, I think that the One-hit wonders in the UK article itself suffers from many of the same issues; despite the trivia, arbitrary definition of inclusion criteria and cross-categorisation issues, that article does have a stronger claim of cultural significance. I will leave my recommendation as-is therefore, and consider listing One-hit wonders in the UK for discussion if this article is merged or deleted. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Okay then maybe a merge would be a good idea however this would make the article quite long and people may not always be interested in the whole thing, maybe just one part or the other, hence why I created the seperate article in the first place. --Cexycy (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If a split is needed (and it isn't yet according to WP:SPLIT), I don't think this would be a good criterion. Perhaps splitting by decade (I note the entries are dated and in chronological order) or something equally objective would be more appropriate. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Okay then maybe a merge would be a good idea however this would make the article quite long and people may not always be interested in the whole thing, maybe just one part or the other, hence why I created the seperate article in the first place. --Cexycy (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete or merge (see below). This article doesn't even reflect what I thought it would from the title. (I had expected from the title to see the UK equivalents of "Don't Think Twice" by The Wonder Who?, or "(Meet) The Flintstones" by the B.C.-52's -- in other words, established artists who had one additional hit using a different name.) There is nothing surprising about an ad hoc duet recording only one hit song together nor is it a sign of lack of success that a collaboration records only one hit single together. Theoretically, the content of this article might be worth saving under a title focusing on the fact that the songs described are collaborations, rather than a title which unnecessarily refers to them as "one hit wonders". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Upon further consideration, I think this article could be slightly merged into One-hit wonders in the UK. The slight merger could consist of a heading stating something like "The following collaborations are classified as 'one-hit wonders' by Guinness Hit Singles because these particular combinations of artists had a single #1 hit with no other chart entries in this particular configuration. However, in each case, the participating artists had additional hits separately." Then just list the artists, song titles, and years (I'd recommend a chronological list). It wouldn't be necessary to state for each such collaboration, "They never had any further chart entries together as a duo, but each has had many other chart entries separately", "They had no further hits together but they have have hits by themselves", "Both singers have had other hits, but nothing else together", or other similar comments as this article does repeatedly. (There are a few non-collaboration examples that don't fit this description, such as Chef and Tubeway Army, which can be dealt with in a separate section.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You were expecting "established artists who had one additional hit using a different name". How is the article NOT about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexycy (talk • contribs)
- Well, I do see at least one example of that in the article: Chef, who was actually Isaac Hayes recording as his South Park character. But I don't think that, for example, "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" is an "alternative guise" for either Bowie or Jagger; it's a collaboration of the two of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Well according to the Guiness Hit Singles, the book this whole thing is based on, "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" are a guise as such. As you know David Bowie is one artist, established and had may hits for himself, the same goes for Mick Jagger. Together they technically another artist as they did use another name, in this case it was quite simply "David Bowie and Mick Jagger". I know this sounds a little pedantic, but thats what the article is mainly about, an act which has topped the charts, going to numberone and having nothing else. A one-off collaboration is no guarentee that it will go to number one, nor is it a guarentee that they will not release another single. This artcile is about listing such artist who are OHW in a certain name, but not overall. It's hard to explain, but I'm sure you understand. --Cexycy (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Well, I do see at least one example of that in the article: Chef, who was actually Isaac Hayes recording as his South Park character. But I don't think that, for example, "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" is an "alternative guise" for either Bowie or Jagger; it's a collaboration of the two of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You were expecting "established artists who had one additional hit using a different name". How is the article NOT about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexycy (talk • contribs)
- Comment - I wasn't aware that this article was up for deletion. I have put a lot of work into the parent article, but contested these inclusions in that the multitude of one-off duets wasn't really noteworthy. If you look at the talk page you'll see an endless discussion where neither could agree, but to be fair it's a debatable subject (if you look at the 1st archive on the talk page you'll see that the situation used to be much worse - and that discussion went on for several years!). In the end, I agreed to a seperate article as it got rid of the non-worthy cases. My other solution was to have these one-off duets as a list at the end of the article, which is a possibility - but they're definietly not worth anything other than that. So I would suggest a merge rather than a delete, but would need to be reworked into a basic list. Criterion for one hit wonders is a minefield and there is no definite solution (by anyone - ever) so without going into original research, the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles criteria was used as it's been since 1977 the most authoritive word on the charts (hell, they were the ones that defined which charts were official - and are now universally accepted). --Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I agree. I also put in a lot of work for the parent article and as the above user just stated we had a lot of disagreements, but no problem, I even suggested to him (or her) that maybe a new article for such a list would be a better idea, to which s/he agreed that would be a good idea. This was suggested after Tuzapicabit said that the article was starting to look a mess. Why isn't anyone listening to me? I guess if what has happened isn't a good idea, I would suggest a merge, which is what I was originally working for in the first place. Can't say fairer than that. Merge it in at the end as a seperate list as we all agree they are OHWs but they also are not, if you see what I mean. --Cexycy (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
But I don't think that, for example, "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" is an "alternative guise" for either Bowie or Jagger; it's a collaboration of the two of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, finally someone who agrees with my point! This was exactly my point of reason for not including these - "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" are not an act in their own right - they are 2 seperate chart artists and were never intended to be seen as a new act starting out - and the very title the record was put out under acknowledges it (also if this was the case - David Bowie and Mick Jagger would be an article and of course it isn't). So can't we just exclude all these one-off collaborations completely. I've already suggested a merge but I'm bordering on delete because it muddies the water of what the article is actually about if somebody who's less well-informed comes to the page and then sees mention of Bowie, Jagger, etc. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - as per my above post and having had a long think on the subject, the seperate article is ill-explained and can only cause confusion as to what a One Hit Wonder is should anyone visit the article. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge - as per the directly above post, how about we just merge the articles and change the explaination a little, and thus eliminate confusion? As for one-off collaborations which were not meant to be a new act starting out, the reason why they never charted again is irrelavent. The article is meant to be about listing acts which had a number 1 and nothing else, full stop. Any additional information can still be added inbetween acts listed as has always been the case. --Cexycy (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I have merged in this article with the parent article and done a little tidying up, what does everyone think of this? It can always be undone if not too good. --Cexycy (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge - I recently removed acts from the One-hit wonders in the UK article which were on both lists but that was reverted by Tuzapicabit not really sure why. That illustrates the confusion surrounding this ill defined fork. Better to have it as a subsection of the One-hit wonders in the UK article. Valenciano (talk) 23:14, 24 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. I am no expert in Japanese names, so I am not sure which way the name is correct. You should consult someone from WP:JAPAN probably to find it out first. But an AfD is not needed to delete a page in order to make room for a move, so this AfD can be closed. SoWhy 13:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sadao Watanabe (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Watanabe Sadao should be moved here. KnightMove (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The proper way to proceed would be to tag the article
{{db-move|Watanabe Sadao}}
. No AfD discussion is required. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:36, 20 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- List of plugins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article currently contains just some random list of libraries, not plugins. No selection criteria mentioned, no sources, no references. I sincerely don't have a clue what does "list of plugins" means — plugins for what? If we'll really start collecting all plugin instances (i.e. plugins for photo editors, for browsers, etc} — all in the same list — what's the point for such a list? What do they have in common? A word "plugin" in its name? GreyCat (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Too broad a criterion for a list. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Inclusion criteria are too broad. - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. -Atmoz (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. No sources, incomplete, and always will be: there are thousands of plug-ins, new ones every day. Plug-in (computing) covers the topic adequately. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Rename to List of computer libraries and expand. If it gets too long, split into appropriate sublists. DHowell (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. My computer now has at least 5216 libraries available. I guess there's at least that much for other operating systems. Such list would be unmaintainable and, most of all, I don't see what does it trying to achieve? --GreyCat (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Are all 5216 libraries independently notable? A list of notable software libraries would serve all three purposes of lists in Wikipedia: information, navigation, and development. DHowell (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment. My computer now has at least 5216 libraries available. I guess there's at least that much for other operating systems. Such list would be unmaintainable and, most of all, I don't see what does it trying to achieve? --GreyCat (talk) 09:11, 23 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Book spam. No evidence of notability is cited (just one brief review). The author who created the article is busy spamming it across dozens of other articles. Dicklyon (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete I see no notability, it seems more like a promotion of this book then an encyclopedia article --Pstanton 07:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Delete - not a very notable book. Wandering Courier (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Asserts no notablility. Note It has also been spammed to other language Wikipedias--DFS454 (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- By "spamming", I was trying to comply with the order to connect my article with links. Now I am spamming. I have nothing to gain from promoting this book. I realize now that the book should have several years of publication to age like a fine wine. When it does, and several reviews come in, I shall put it back up. Yet it seems that opinion is against me, so I shall delete it. Good day. Kerry Douglas 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. A review in the Library Journal indicates notability, and I don't find the tone of this article to be too far out of NPOV standards.--ragesoss (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- What does that mean? Isn't notability established by citing independent reliable sources about it? If you found some, cite them. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. If, in a year, there are a dozen good reviews in notable journals, then will you relent? Will your for five reviews? Three? How many reviews does it take for you to relent? Does it have to age a while? It was a close call for me to write it, but I thought the article was a good contribution to the various Stoic schools. I did not have any "unlawful" capitalist gain from writing it. I do not work for the author or the publishers. I am a public librarian who saw a work that contributed something to popular understanding of Stoicism. It is perhaps my naive understanding that a recent book raise some hackles. Perhaps at three good reviews we can talk about keeping the article? Otherwise, just drop it?Kerry Douglas 04:29, 24 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 01:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- National-Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. It's never been written about in any book or other non-internet medium and it's supporters waver in the neighborhood of 10 Veganbikepunk (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Veganbikepunk (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete and merge I'd have to say delete, but can we archive this in some way, and merge the content into related articles? This isn't a bad article by any means, and I'd hate to see well-written content deleted wholesale just because the main article was not notable. That being said, this article really doesn't meet notability. --Pstanton 07:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- See Wikipedia:Delete and merge. The anarchism and nationalism article is a possible target for a merge. Skomorokh 07:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete I think that it's rather clear that this article is maybe the only significant mention of this topic anywhere. Having this article seems only to grant some form of credibility to an idea that doesn't really exist outside of a very few bizarre corners of the internet and wikipedia. As to merging and saving the article, I think that were the topic of any encyclopidic relevance I'd agree, however I imagine innumberable articles could be well written about obscure people or topics and if everyone was saved simply because they were well written the value of the encyclopidia would be diminished.--97.120.94.36 (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Skomorokh 07:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Keep - Other than the nominating editor's complete loss of AGF in the article's creator, there is some wholly missed information. The numerous refs can be dwindled down but still have enough to pass N. Well written and informative on a growing political think tank. Hooper (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep - I have actually met the leader of the Australian cell, can confirm they do practice street activism in Melbourne and Vietnam. Premature nomination. Ottre 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Sources are available to establish notability, [20]. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment The second Strong Keep should be disregarded on two levels. 1) It's entirely anecdotal, and wikipedia is simply not the place for articles written about anecdotes. 2) It claims to have met the leader of an anarchist cell. Ridiculous on the face of it. Very telling, though, I must say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.94.36 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment How is it ridiculous?
- Somebody please call public eye magazine to find whether or not they employ fact checkers (a National-Anarchist protest is covered here). Ottre 13:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable. There are plenty of sources, and a Google search shows a great deal of discussion about the subject. The subject is mentioned in the broader anarchism and nationalism article, but this one gives a lot more detail. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Notable, I've seen it talked about quite a lot. Zazaban (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Delete This article is absolute rubbish. Sourced to white-power newsgroups and blogs, this article WAAAYY over-represents the notability and importance of this very small, insignificant ideology. L0b0t (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment As I said in the last AfD there is not a single reliable source cited anywhere in this article. All the sources cited are web forums, white power websites, commie agitprop, radical rag-sheets, and unattributed political screeds. This article fails WP:GNG, WP:NOBJ, and WP:RS. L0b0t (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Keep National Anarchism is a new political movement that 1) Has been written about in books (Tradition and Revolution by Troy Southgate) 2) It is widely acknowledged on all sides of the political spectrum to be a new political movement 3) Every year or so it's people with a partisan agenda against National Anarchism or constantly revert relevant edits to the article that call for it to be deleted. 4) National Anarchists have engaged in political activism throughout the world and are clearly a notable current of the anarchist movement. Rjuner —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[]
- 1) Troy Southgate is the creator of this particular sub-genre of an ideology so of course he has written about it (primary source). 2) This sub-genre is not even widely acknowledged by anarchists, let alone "all sides of the political spectrum". 3) Failing to assume good faith and questioning the motivations of other editors is not a valid argument at AfD. 4) Many people around the world have engaged in political activism, that does not make them notable, only reliable sources publishing material about the activism does so. Again, there are no reliable sources anywhere in this article. L0b0t (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Notable and well sourced. There is no requirement to have subject of an article published in books.Biophys (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Delete Not only is this not notible, the only one non-internet source so far come up with is written by the "founder" and perhaps only member, of this obscurest of obscure topics. On top of that the publisher of the book written by Southgate is about as obscure as you can find. One un-noteworthy from an obscure publisher, plus a slew of internet links to obscure nazi webites does not make for a genuine movement, or notability. At most there should be brief mention of this concept in fascism, or nazism. --WikiAlmighty (talk) 05:12, 23 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 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Untitled Eighth Studio Album (Green Day) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
per WP:HAMMER. Also, a good deal of the information is unsourced, and seems to be very much in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per crystal hammers. Lugnuts (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, I've never used a crystal hammer - but it sounds both impractical to make and fragile. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You will come to be surprised by its strength and versatility. tomasz. 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Writing an article before the name of the subject is known is not a good idea. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete from London to the Bay. tomasz. 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Break it down! JuJube (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - smells like hammers. the wub "?!" 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Get yer hammers out. WIKIPEEDIO 04:09, 21 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 00:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- George W Bush Legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Personal essay, nothing encyclopedic, all original research MrShamrock (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Speedy Deleteas original research. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 06:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]- That isn't part of the speedy criteria. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- ...Well, I want it to be. :p Delete Then. ...Quickly. But not speedily. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Delete as original research, this would appear to be someone's essay. --Pstanton 07:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Invade countries and plunge AfD into trillion-dollar debt err, I mean Delete. Complete original research. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as OR. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - non-encyclopedic original research. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: WP:OR --> WP:SNOW please. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete snowing. JuJube (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. As others have said, it's a personal essay, and it also appears to be aimed at promoting a book (a collection of opinions on the subject). JamesMLane t c 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Oh no, way too soon. The relevant guidelines concerning this article include WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc... Themfromspace (talk) 11:12, 22 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 - standard nn-band. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Mister got heat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Author's username implies NPOV failure, band is not notable for anything MrShamrock (talk) 06:14, 20 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 Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Chuvash State Puppet Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article on a puppet theater in the Chuvash Republic makes no real claim of notability beyond mentioning two associations the theater belongs to. Very little context. Article is also orphaned. --Dynaflow babble 06:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep A Google search and Yandex search would indicate some degree of notability, as there are various articles from Regnum.ru, and various Chuvash and Tatar media outlets which discuss this theatre. --Russavia Dialogue 06:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep I think the evidence shows this is rather famous of its sort. DGG (talk) 09:51, 20 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 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Part of a walled garden of SYN/OR by Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the modern Islamic world. All sorts of things are attributed to a religion without any sources, or when there is a collaboration involving all sorts of people. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - in theory might be workable as a list, BUT: So much of what is actually "modern" in this timeline involves broad cooperation with scientists from around the world... including many Jewish scientists. There's even a picture of a Jewish scientist in the article mislabled as a Muslim. How do we show that each person listed is actually Muslim? How do we decide "how Muslim" they have to be to get on the list: is having a Muslim grandmother enough? I don't even understand what this timeline is supposed to be of... inventions? What constitutes enough notability to be listed here: anything done by a Muslim that is even remotely scientific or engineerish? Do we include the whole catalog of every scientific journal and every bridge built in Iran and Pakistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJGW (talk • contribs)
- Delete I agree, while theoretically this list would have some value, there is no proof that these people are actually religious muslims, which obviates the notability and usefulness of this list. --Pstanton 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Keep "Modern" is defined in the article to mean "after the Islamic Golden Age," just as "Modern history" in English means after the middle ages. Used in the sense of the Muslim cultural area, not religion, this is a valid article topic and a defensible list. Used in the sense of people descended from those in the Muslim cultural area, it's a good deal fuzzier, but possible. If religion is wanted, some of the 20th century people are definitely Muslims , information about most of the rest is known one way or another, and ones before 1900 can all be assumed to be at least nominal Muslims. Almost everything there is sourced, and I see no OR whatsoever. The assemblage of information is not OR. It's just a question of defining the parameters for selection. Of course people collaborate; these are the major inventions in which people from that culture area/religion has a leading role. It shouldn't be seen as the things the Muslims did without help from anyone else. I see nothing unencyclopedic about the recognition of ethnicity. I see nothing wrong in the world with pride in ethnic accomplishments, either. I think it would be better to start here than to start over. If deleted, which it should not be, I'll gladly userify to anyone who wants to work on it further DGG (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Article can't decide whether it's Islamic, Arab, Indiviual, National or even a real topic. Tries to bring in every possible angle on completely unrelated topics in certain places with no individual conideration or realistic criteria. As there is no serious academic topic discussing or researching Muslim specific scentific researches beyong the Islamic Golden Age, and the fact that those elements, when stripped of all the unverifiable religious classifications, national specifics and comment on western muslim achievments which are in no way segregated from any other development, would be negatable, I see nothing salvagable in this indiscriminate list. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep since this is an interesting and search-worthy list of technological and scientific achievement. I didn't expect to be impressed by it, but I am--it seems solidly based on adequate references. Any problems regarding who or what is Muslim or not can be cleared up in discussion on individual topics; pretty much any ethnicity/religious group has the same definitional problems, and those don't stand in the way of having lists like List of Jewish American visual artists or List of Christian country artists. I know, I know, "other stuff exists" is not an argument--but he who hath ears to hear knows what I mean: definitional problems of ethnicity (etc.) are usually handled in an ad-hoc, conversational manner, rather than by fiat beforehand. I'm chiming in with DGG. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Firstly, Jewish is an ethnicity, unlike Islam. As for the Christian one, it isn't about Christians who play sport or paint pictures or whatever, it is about Christians who are notable for doing Christian work, in this case, religious music. YellowMonkey
- Comment Jewish is NOT an ethnicity. They only claim this. Look at the article "Who is a Jew. 78.144.227.243 (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
(click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - Drmies stated it best. Valid and well done article that shouldn't be deleted due to nominating editor's faiths. Hooper (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Accusing a user of bad faith is considered uncivil, especially when unsubstantiated and without a single reason. I'd personally like you to remove you entire comment including the bolded keep which adds nothing to this discussion (it's not a vote), however that is unlikely to gain any support, so you should at least apologise to the nominator for your rash and factless claims. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as per Drmies. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete If the article was subdivided by nationalities, it might make more sense. It would seem their religion is not relevant to their scientific achievements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Please don't take this the wrong way: "it would seem their religion is not relevant..."--to you perhaps! It seems relevant to me, and no doubt to many others. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- He quite clearly specificied "to their scientific achievements", and is correct; the achievements weren't related in anyway to their religious beliefs, and "it's interesting" is not a valid reason to keep an otherwise perfectly invalid article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Take it easy Jimmi Hugh--note the ellipsis. I did not exclude anything; I know what he said and I can read, thank you very much. You seem to be expressing a case of "I don't like it" under the guise of some absolute objectivity. And who said that these characters achieved what they did because they were Muslim? No one, and it wouldn't make any sense. By putting words in my mouth you're digging a hole for yourself: a perfectly acceptable list such as List of Jewish American biologists and physicians is full of people who were, say, biologists in ways unrelated to their Jewishness. The same is happening here, as DGG explained above. Let's stick to the facts, shall we? If you have a problem with someone taking pride in accomplishments by Muslims (whether observant or not, whatever branch, no matter), fine--but don't bring that in here please. WP does the same for Jews, Christians, African-Americans, etc. Of course there can be difficulties, but see the introduction to List of Christian thinkers in science--these can be solved. As to the nay-sayers who say that this is "essentially POV," all I can really say is "huh?" Is it essentially POV to have an article on flying animals, since it excludes creepies and crawlies? Drmies (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- He quite clearly specificied "to their scientific achievements", and is correct; the achievements weren't related in anyway to their religious beliefs, and "it's interesting" is not a valid reason to keep an otherwise perfectly invalid article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Please don't take this the wrong way: "it would seem their religion is not relevant..."--to you perhaps! It seems relevant to me, and no doubt to many others. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- NB the Christian example is not a fair comparison because that list is of Christians who do Christian work, ie, praising Christianity in their work. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Apologies if I sounded anything but calm, I had thought my comments cold, but not negative. I don't agree that any of the articles you referenced that aren't related to the merit of the categorisation have any place on Wikipedia either, so it's a fairy weak argument. Also, the flying animals article (or at least that which is redirects to) clearly metions insects ("creepies and crawlies") in the opening paragraph, and any further missing information should of course be added. I won't go on to accuse you of bad faith, I'm sure you already regret saying I was making claims of not liking this indiscriminate and unmanageable list for any reason other than the ones I listed above, and forgive you for saying so. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I'm sorry if I suggested bias; I should have chosen my words more carefully. Your forgiveness is kindly accepted. However, I stand by my points, and I hope you will look at my words carefully. These articles I referenced, your opinion on them (or mine) is not quite relevant since they are stable and utterly non-controversial. In other words, my argument isn't "weak" for anyone who sees these articles as non-controversial, which I gather would be a majority of WP contributors (just go through their histories). And I reiterate, the point is not that this one should exist because those exist--the point is that problems of denomination and ethnicity can be solved. YellowMonkey, the Christian country article does precisely that, in the second and third sentence: it defines "Christian" for the purposes of the article. (One could get picky and define "Christian" in really narrow ways, of course.) And might I add that your comment, "Firstly, Jewish is an ethnicity, unlike Islam," is a really narrow definition of "Jewishness"--one that would make many of my Jewish friends non-Jewish. So yes, I tend to lump those terms together a little bit (a very American thing, perhaps--that one can choose their own destiny and salvation), and I do think that the article could do a better job of defining what it tries to list, but that's not a reason for deletion. Honestly, Jimmi Hugh, I really don't see what's so "perfectly invalid" here. Or why it should be indiscriminate: Muslim + (scientific or engineering feat) = inclusion. No problem, once "Muslim" is defined one way or another. Unmanageable? why? Drmies (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It is unmanageable because it is inherently a synthesis of sources, none of which can be verified in the context of the actual stated fact (read:"because they were Muslim", as opposed to "they were Muslim".) As can already be seen from this schitzophenic article as it stands, there is a natural and indiscriminate move toward facts related to national Islamic acheivement, individual merit in none Islamic countries, and an inherently WP:OR set of facts which draw upon these factors regardless of purpose or the opinion of the developer who in many cases made developments independent of their religion, and which even ignores religion in the case of generic Arab developments. There isn't a set of facts which can be considered purely Muslim, and I don't have the capacity to picture a definition in which that would be possible. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2009 (
- I'm sorry if I suggested bias; I should have chosen my words more carefully. Your forgiveness is kindly accepted. However, I stand by my points, and I hope you will look at my words carefully. These articles I referenced, your opinion on them (or mine) is not quite relevant since they are stable and utterly non-controversial. In other words, my argument isn't "weak" for anyone who sees these articles as non-controversial, which I gather would be a majority of WP contributors (just go through their histories). And I reiterate, the point is not that this one should exist because those exist--the point is that problems of denomination and ethnicity can be solved. YellowMonkey, the Christian country article does precisely that, in the second and third sentence: it defines "Christian" for the purposes of the article. (One could get picky and define "Christian" in really narrow ways, of course.) And might I add that your comment, "Firstly, Jewish is an ethnicity, unlike Islam," is a really narrow definition of "Jewishness"--one that would make many of my Jewish friends non-Jewish. So yes, I tend to lump those terms together a little bit (a very American thing, perhaps--that one can choose their own destiny and salvation), and I do think that the article could do a better job of defining what it tries to list, but that's not a reason for deletion. Honestly, Jimmi Hugh, I really don't see what's so "perfectly invalid" here. Or why it should be indiscriminate: Muslim + (scientific or engineering feat) = inclusion. No problem, once "Muslim" is defined one way or another. Unmanageable? why? Drmies (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Apologies if I sounded anything but calm, I had thought my comments cold, but not negative. I don't agree that any of the articles you referenced that aren't related to the merit of the categorisation have any place on Wikipedia either, so it's a fairy weak argument. Also, the flying animals article (or at least that which is redirects to) clearly metions insects ("creepies and crawlies") in the opening paragraph, and any further missing information should of course be added. I won't go on to accuse you of bad faith, I'm sure you already regret saying I was making claims of not liking this indiscriminate and unmanageable list for any reason other than the ones I listed above, and forgive you for saying so. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as per Jimmi Hugh. The bias of the author is deplorable in itself, but what really degrades the Wikipedia project is the way sources are misquoted to arrive at the desired conclusions. Any such list would also reserve space for contradicting opinions, but this list, as much as its offspring Inventions in the modern Islamic world practically completely lacks them. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- What bias is that? After the Ali shuffle was removed (quite rightly) by the nominator, I don't see what's biased. Editors below say the same thing--without any kind of evidence to back up these serious allegations, or they claim SYN, without even a suggestion of what the "position" would be that's supposedly advanced by the original research. What position? That a Muslim guy invented fuzzy logic? That's not a position--apparently that's a fact. (Even if the article gets that fact wrong, that doesn't change the basic situation--it just means more and better editing needs to take place.) And I've been looking for an example of misquoted sources--can you be more specific? Finally, what "contradicting opinions" should such a list take into account? That a certain person did NOT invent a certain kind of ladder? I'm puzzled; please clear this up, because your arguments sound convincing but as yet lack substance. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ref one says the pirates used the boats, not that they invented them. Ref 2 says Yazdi found "an" amicable pair, not which one, and he is listed as Arabic though the Yazdi article says he's Iranian. The next entry is about a 1600s sundial when the first known sundial is from 5000BC. It also mentions a 1600s compass, though these go back (in Europe and the "Islamic world") to the 1200s. The next entry is philosophy, not science or engineering. The next two entries are of unknown reliability as their source is written by a faculty member at a medical university, not an historian, and it was not published in a wp:RS... it is also not a unique feat by far (having been done by others even 700 years before). The next item (the final item in the first section) seems truly remarkable... unfortunately I have been unable to find confirmation of this from non-POV (ie Muslim heritage) sources.[21][22]
- That's the whole first section being wrong, misplaced, or questionable. Shall we move on to the second section? NJGW (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Thanks for providing some evidence. A quick look suggests to me that you may well be right about one or more of these things--I no longer buy the first entry, for instance. But what you identify as a 'sun dial' entry isn't just about a sun dial per se, but about a Qibla. Philosophy, many would argue (such as Aristotle--esp. relevant given the importance of Arab/Muslim philosophers in the preservation and transmission of his work), is in fact science--your definition strikes me as narrow (and fortunately I'm not alone). I'll not comment on the next two, since it's late, but I am somewhat bothered by the final note you strike: that a "Muslim" source would be essentially POV. The link (note 10) is not working, and sure, it's on a "muslimheritage" site--but if that site along disqualifies the report from being truthful, then, well, I don't know, but I think we've crossed a line. Are you really saying that only non-Muslim sources can authoritatively speak of Muslim technological feats? Drmies (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That's the whole first section being wrong, misplaced, or questionable. Shall we move on to the second section? NJGW (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- All I can glean about the Qibla is that it is a sundial with a compass... wich is odd because you need a compass to set up the sundail anyway. The philosophy entry is about existentialism, which would not be found in a science book or journal today (perhaps a breif mention in a cognitive science text book though)... I see your point, but would argue that under today's definition it does not fit. As for the last entry, I'm not saying that Muslim heritage sites are untrustworthy, only that I could not find a google scholar article which backed up their claim. I found lots of information about the Western scientist who they mention, but nothing in which he discusses the objects they claim he has studied so closely. A heritage site of any sort is going to be POV and fail wp:RS (UNLESS it passes wp:V). I found a cached version"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us in which the scientist is quoted as saying "when I first discovered these I was told by the museum as well as historians of metal work that that was physically not possible," but there is no attribution and no other google hits for that phrase. It does seem to be a true marvel, but I can't find any wp:V sources for it. NJGW (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I appreciate you actually looking for sources--I am firmly convinced that this article has a claim to existence but could well do with better sourcing, and I wish more contributors here would do the work like you've done it. That sort of groundwork will also help take care of any (real or unreal) POV bias--but let's face it, *any* claim that a certain inventor or scientist (or president of the US) is of a given heritage or cultural world has a kind of bias built into it. If someone wants to claim that my grandfather, who owned a trucking company, was Muslim and that therefore Muslims make great truckers, that would be OR, and SYN, and nonsense, etc. But individual claims such as made in the article can be checked and verified and (unlike what Gun Powder claims, below) I am not averse to that work--I'm glad to see you aren't either. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- All I can glean about the Qibla is that it is a sundial with a compass... wich is odd because you need a compass to set up the sundail anyway. The philosophy entry is about existentialism, which would not be found in a science book or journal today (perhaps a breif mention in a cognitive science text book though)... I see your point, but would argue that under today's definition it does not fit. As for the last entry, I'm not saying that Muslim heritage sites are untrustworthy, only that I could not find a google scholar article which backed up their claim. I found lots of information about the Western scientist who they mention, but nothing in which he discusses the objects they claim he has studied so closely. A heritage site of any sort is going to be POV and fail wp:RS (UNLESS it passes wp:V). I found a cached version"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us in which the scientist is quoted as saying "when I first discovered these I was told by the museum as well as historians of metal work that that was physically not possible," but there is no attribution and no other google hits for that phrase. It does seem to be a true marvel, but I can't find any wp:V sources for it. NJGW (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - WP:SYN. Sarvagnya 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per Jimmi Hugh; a complete POV mess. Giggy (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - WP:SYN. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: Selected users have been notified of this debate. → AA (talk) — 12:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- These are not "selected users". These are, without a single exception, users who have participated in the discussion on the Talk:Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age and the Talk:Inventions in the modern Islamic world, edited and helpt improve these articles. As editors who showed an active interest in the topic and gave their input, they have a right to be informed about a pending deletion. See Friendly notices. Note that I deliberately did not inform anonymous users. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hey, if you've selected them based on their previous work and their interest, then they are "selected users" (a matter of basic dictionary meaning). You can call them "friendly notices," but there is a template for that. This is how you phrased it: "Articles on 'Islamic' inventions: Hello, I saw you were engaged at one time about the sense or nonsense of the article series which has been created in recent times." That's not exactly neutral--note the quotes around the word "Islamic" (in irony?), and note the suggestive "sense or nonsense"--these are not exactly technical WP terms, unless you're talking about "blatant nonsense," in the sense of db-g1, and I'm sure you don't want to do that. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I did not know there was a template, next time I will use one, of course. "Sense and nonsense" is actually as balanced as can be. Islamic is in "'" because many people do not see the faith as particularly relevant to the inventions - one of the core problems of the two articles here-, hence it is neutrally put, too. Do you want to challenge the right of these users to be informed? Actually, I prefer users who do actual work on the articles, over those who simply pop up at the deletion pages, post keep, but then let others do the cross-checking of dozens or hundreds of sources. If you ask me, it should be even the other way round: Only users who have a record of actively and constructively participating in editing before, should have a right to decide about deletions. That is in this case not you for one. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I think any reader of this exchange can discern how spurious especially that last argument is. Are you suggesting that I never did any 'real' work on WP and should therefore shut up? Drmies (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I did not know there was a template, next time I will use one, of course. "Sense and nonsense" is actually as balanced as can be. Islamic is in "'" because many people do not see the faith as particularly relevant to the inventions - one of the core problems of the two articles here-, hence it is neutrally put, too. Do you want to challenge the right of these users to be informed? Actually, I prefer users who do actual work on the articles, over those who simply pop up at the deletion pages, post keep, but then let others do the cross-checking of dozens or hundreds of sources. If you ask me, it should be even the other way round: Only users who have a record of actively and constructively participating in editing before, should have a right to decide about deletions. That is in this case not you for one. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- These certainly are "selected users"; as selected by you - in this case based on a criteria, according to you, of them having worked on the article before (although many others have also worked on these articles whom you did not inform) and I notice that many of the editors have not made any edits to any of the articles you have referred to. → AA (talk) — 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Many did edits. And, Friendly notices makes it clear that editing is not a necessary condition for having the right to be informed about an ongoing deletion process, intensively engaging in discussion already is: For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hey, if you've selected them based on their previous work and their interest, then they are "selected users" (a matter of basic dictionary meaning). You can call them "friendly notices," but there is a template for that. This is how you phrased it: "Articles on 'Islamic' inventions: Hello, I saw you were engaged at one time about the sense or nonsense of the article series which has been created in recent times." That's not exactly neutral--note the quotes around the word "Islamic" (in irony?), and note the suggestive "sense or nonsense"--these are not exactly technical WP terms, unless you're talking about "blatant nonsense," in the sense of db-g1, and I'm sure you don't want to do that. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete and try again. As I tried my hand at cleanup of this article I kept hitting the same problem, the stuff is sourced but the sources are mis-used, mis-quoted, sometimes just plain wrong, and are all "spun" to reach a synthesis (WP:SYN). The editors involved have admitted in there talk or on their talk pages that they edit from a POV. This does not make their efforts wrong, it just adds a skew to their writing that we all have to be mindful of. A rethink from basics is needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - WP:SYN. good intentions, bad idea, very poor implementation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- suggestion There is a true Muslim tradition in science, before the adoption in most Muslim countries of the Western scientific and academic traditions in the 20th century. Before 1850, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the people listed are, in the absence of other evidence, both of the Muslim culture and the Muslim religion. After that there are two possible ways to think of this, and I consider both of them valid: the cultural background, and the religion as such. Since some people of Muslim descent may not actually share the Muslim traditional cultural background to any noticeable extent, it will be easier to do the subset who are known to be of that religion. I note that this discussion is not unique to Muslims, but that we've had similar discussions for many of the scientists of a particular religion or ethnicity articles & categories. DGG (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment The article has nothing to do with religion, rather it documents the achievements of Muslims. What is wrong with that? As far as I can see it does violate any policy. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Suggest. This needs to be approached as a question about how we best cover the history of science and technology, not a question about whether Muslims are "allowed" to record their achievements. First point: I'm not particularly fond of seeing scientific and technological development as a series of "inventions". How new ideas and technologies were implemented is just as important as how they were thought up. Also, timelines are much harder to maintain in an NPOV state than prose articles (they are prone to the inclusion of poorly-sourced factoids). So... history of science and technology. Can we break it up geographically? Yes, we can and we do. And in the Middle Ages, the Islamic world was a cultural entity, often called "the Islamic Empire". It had a distinct scientific and technological tradition, currently being presented in a UK TV series by Jim Khalili. We cover all that already, but some readers will be asking: What next? What happened to that tradition? Well, from the early modern period until 1918 the Muslim world was roughly equivalent to the Ottoman Empire. Therefore we should have an article on Science and technology of the Ottoman Empire that this article can be merged into. What we do with the post-1918 material, I don't know. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I endorse this line of reasoning and that of Mcorazao below. They show why the title is SYN and how to fix it, and how to turn this into a useful article rather than a POV list. NJGW (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. An article should only be nominated for deletion if it has no grounds to exist in the first place, not because the current state of the article isn't good enough. YellowMonkey hasn't provided any reasonable rationale to nominate this article for deletion. The reason why I originally created this article is simply because the previous article from which much of the information was drawn (Timeline of Islamic science and engineering) was getting too large, so I created this article as a sub-article and moved all the information after the 16th century here. If there is any problem with the title or the scope of the article, these can be addressed without having to resort to deletion. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete & Redesign. I think the article in its current form needs to go but I think in a larger sense there is some useful content that could go in a useful article. To begin with this article is essentially a list article, albeit a well formatted list which is inappropriate. More than this, though, the connection between all the accomplishments is just the tenuous relationship of religion. Articles with such tenuous relationships seem more like entertainment than education. I think an article discussing, in an encyclopedic fashion, accomplishments of predominantly Muslim nations or nations of the Middle East or some such thing would be useful. But even at that, the article should not be a list but rather a general discussion with specific accomplishments highlighted. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Muslim, it seems to me, means a lot more than just "religion." As DGG has suggested earlier, there is a large cultural/geographic component to it, and to claim that the article claims that this is a purely religious matter is to muddy the waters. The article does not claim that there is something really Muslim or Koran-inspired about, for instance, fuzzy logic. In short, the article does not state that there's something intrinsically religious about any of these inventions, though some (the Qibal comes to mind) are inspired by the demands of religious practice. Can the article do with clarification of that basic term? Sure. Can it do with some more content (I mean text, context) for some of these periods? Sure. Can individual entries be sourced better? Probably. Should an entry like Muhammed Faris 1985 space trip be left out? I think so, personally. But as Jagged85 points out, quite rightly in my opinion, these are matters that can be dealt with in the normal editing process and certainly don't require deletion. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strongly disagree with this attitude. Islam is a religion not an ethnicity or a culture. This hypothesis implies, for example, that Coptic Egyptians either are Muslim or else have more in comon culturally with the British Christians than Muslim Egyptians. Both are ridiculous. Islam is a religion period. Certainly it is true that many regions that are predominantly Muslim share a common culture (this is not, however, universally true) but to suggest that this means that the culture and the religion are one and the same is offensive. The point I was making above is that some of the accomplishments listed were made by individuals who spent their careers in countries that are not predominantly Muslim and so were more a product of those cultures than the cultures of predominantly Muslim countries. And again, the Muslim world is not confined to the Middle East. To suggest, for example, that the cultures of Saudia Arabia, Kosovo, and Indonesia are all more similar to each other than other cultures simply because of their Muslim majorities is ridiculous. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep The article is sourced. The decisions on what information should be included and how it's presented should be worked out on the article talk page. This subject meets all the relevant criteria for notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep DGG's rationale overrides the two comments that precede his. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete WP:SYN. Religion has absolutely no bearing on what these people did. Frotz (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Either delete, or merge into other relevant articles. Typically we don't have articles on timelines. That's why we have Template:ProseTimeline. Khoikhoi 06:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - as Khoikhoi states above, this is a prose timeline, an unwieldy format discouraged by wikipedia. The article has a number of other issues. If rewritten, the article should be stripped to 1 line entries like Timeline of chemistry. Dialectric (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep - this is a legitimate topic, but the current article is really a rag bag of material given often inflated importance. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Why a weak keep? I am lead to believe it is notable, and admittedly needs to address some issues. The article has nothing to do with religion, it's just that they happen to be MuslimsLOTRrules Talk Contribs 13:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That's absurd! It clearly states Muslim in the title. If I added a non-Muslim to the list, it would be removed, because they are listed purely "to do with religion". The fact they happen to be Muslims is exactly what it is about, and your claim that the Religious element is unimportant is precisely the argument for every single Delete vote. You are correct, they do just happen to be Muslim; you are correct, the article should have nothing todo with the their religious affiliations; you are wrong though in believing that makes the article Valid; that is the definition of an indiscriminate list. It defies reason that you could state such a core reason why the article is invalid, anti-policy, and turn that into a keep vote. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Islam has no bearing on what these people did. Being Muslim had nothing to do with their scientific discoveries and inventions. They are notable not because they are Muslim; they are notable for what they did. --vi5in[talk] 18:49, 24 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 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Pascual Izquierdo Egea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I was initially going to suggest that this article simply be transwikied to the Spanish Wikipedia, but since a Spanish version of the article already exists, this should be deleted instead. Not only is most of it in Spanish, but all the sources come from the subject's own book. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment Each language's Wikipedia is its own autonomous project with its own policies for among other things inclusion in the encyclopedia, but does the fact that the Spanish Wikipedia has an article on this subject (when they'd be the first, logically, to publish one) say something of his notability? If no reliable sources independent of the subject exist, then fine (I notice they don't even on the es.wikipedia article), but maybe they just haven't looked any harder than anyone here has. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 05:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment I just restored the AfD tag which had been removed. I don't know much about this field, so I have not searched for possible sources for notability. The article is pretty bad, though, and if kept needs major re-writing and editing to remove peacock terms and such. --Crusio (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep and rewrite. Meets WP:PROF, he is the editor of two academic journals Protohistoria and Revista Iberoamericana de Historia.Change to Delete, journals are not available in academic libraries. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per J.Mundo's improvements, subject meets WP:PROF. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Looking at the bibliography in the esWP, this archeologist he has published a total of 9 articles and his doctoral thesis; no independent books. The two journals are very minor, with no copies in worldCat, or at LC or British Museum- It's only a major well-established journal where the editorship meets WP:PROF. Allowances do have to be made for it being a very specialized field not well represented in the US: Spanish protohistory, but I think someone with this sparse publication record and without evidence of an academic position fails WP:LPROF very conclusively and is not notable. DGG (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- The journal "Revista Iberoamericana" is listed in the Autonomous University of Madrid's library, 1 and Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. I could not find a single entry for either of the journals in WorldCat. Thus, like DGG, I do not think he meets WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). Does not seem to pass other notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. This distinguished researcher is editor-in-chief and publisher of those publications, but the more important thing is that his methodology let us to reconstruct, as a solid framework, the economic history of all the ancient peoples. All the readers of Wikipedia have right to know this. Thanks. (Blasdelezo) 03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this topic.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete As per the detailed analysis of DGG and Eric Yurken's additional data. Fails WP:PROF by a long way. --Crusio (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
*Keep. Dear Crusio, have you read my post? Your opinion is absolutely subjective. I am also professor and researcher and cannot understand your interest about this matter because you are not an historian or an archaeologist. I repeat: this individual has contributed much to science. That is indisputable, please evaluate this data. (Blasdelezo) 09:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (striking, voting twice --J.Mundo (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[]
- Dear Blasdelezo, yes, I have read your post and no, my opinion is not purely subjective but based upon the decidedly objective criteria of WP:PROF. As shown conclusively by DGG and Eric Yurken, these criteria are not met. I am perfectly willing to believe that this person has made wonderful contributions to science. But for an encyclopedic article, we'll need a little bit more tangible evidence than some editors just saying so. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. I am absolutely agree with the enormous importance of the scientific achievements of this researcher. CSIC, Spain. --Obama2012 10:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC) — Obama2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crusio (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF, per DGG and Eric Yurken. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:28, 21 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 G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sms4funny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable webportal . Couldnt find any third party references. Site is primarly for Adsense revenue. A few months only since the creation. Article was made by the Portal developer( Kaleelkr (talk · contribs · count) ) himself. Strong COI . Another creation Raftha CSD was removed by the IP editor which is the creator himself. Other creations like Kaleel rahman and Pixel aim are already CSDed and deleted. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 05:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Fails WP:WEB. utcursch | talk 05:48, 20 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 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Per the discussion on the talk page, this article inherently violates WP:SYN, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - What a mess! There's no sense of what the word "modern" means (eg entries from the 1500s), no coheisive sense of "Muslim world" (eg Jewish and other non-Muslim entries, entries from US and other such nations), and no sense of what "inventions" means (Philosophy? Marching bands???; plus items that were invented first by others but then tweaked or reinvented). Also, not always accurate (check the entries under Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world#Mechanical_clocks, where there are numerous errors/discrepancies with the source). NJGW (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
NeutralKeep content somewhere because... I think the article is inappropriate (and there are certainly problems we can nitpick within it), but I think the same is true of Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers, Timeline of Islamic science and engineering, Irish inventions and discoveries, History of metallurgy in China, History of metallurgy in the Indian subcontinent, Metallurgy in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and probably many others as well. In the metallurgy cases, why isn't this information in the Metallurgy article or a new History of metallurgy article? I think that, rather than just delete this single article, the entire issue needs to be looked at, with somebody taking the time to find a large number of the articles like this and then proposing what should be done with them as a group. On this article alone, I would vote Delete, but I'm not comfortable deleting this article, which looks like it has some interesting information in that may not be elsewhere on Wikipedia, without addressing the larger issue. BTW, it doesn't violate WP:OR to have an article consisting of smaller items, each of which could potentially be articles of their own, except they are too small or perhaps not notable enough completely on their own -- I don't see anything in the article that attempts to advance a position outside of the listing. RoyLeban (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Vote change: Just to add a comment on potential SYN violation -- it seems to me the only thing here that could be synthesis is the title. There may be inaccuracies, there may be POV sections, but a list of facts (once verified, etc.) isn't synthesis. Still, I have problems with it and think the whole area, including the US article mentioned below should be examined. I'm fine with this article as it exists today going away, and maybe the content gets dispersed to avoid POV issues, but do something with this well-sourced content and don't do it in isolation of other problematic articles. Wouldn't it be great if Wikipedia had thousands of articles on inventions? RoyLeban (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete As original research, and the article is a mess besides. --Pstanton 07:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- It isn't OR in that there are lots of references and, well, it should be easy to work out who invented what and if they are muslim. Ironholds (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as an inaccurate, misleading mess. It is potentially useful, although I agree with RoyLeban's sentiment that we need to take a look at this sort of article anyway. Potential usefulness does not impact on this article; while it may be decided we need an article that expresses this sort of sentiment I highly doubt much of the content of the current article will be included in it. Ironholds (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete because it's original research, and bad original research at that. I started trying to clean up the article by deleting items that were clearly outside the scope (e.g. the work of US scientists with an Iranian background), but if this work continues we will have an almost empty article. There is certainly potential for an article on "science in the modern Islamic world" but it should be in the usual form of a coherent article and not a list. There could perhaps also be a category for "inventions in the modern Islamic world", but not I think an article. LeContexte (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
KeepMerge with Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers. First, the meaning of modern in this context is explained in the article: most medieval (more exactly, post Islamic golden Age). Second, the selection of items listed does myh and large appear to be notable, though we should double check we have proper articles on them. Some of the earlier ones are not very exactly documented as to just what they did. Third, the major necessary improvement is a chronological arrangement with the broad groups--this alone would clarify things. There are an enormous mount of general and specific sources, even in english, and all of this can be well documented. Used in the sense of the Muslim cultural area, not religion, this is a valid article topic and a defensible list. Used in the sense of people descended from those in the Muslim cultural area, it's a good deal fuzzier, but possible. If religion is wanted, some of the 20th century people are definitely Muslims , information about most of the rest is known one way or another, and ones before 1900 can all be assumed to be at least nominal Muslims. Almost everything there is sourced, and I see no OR whatsoever. Assemblage of material is not OR, and it's just a question of selection. I think it would be better to start here than to start over. If deleted, which it should not be, I'll gladly userify to anyone who wants to work on it further. DGG (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Keep. Article is well sourced. Compare it to List of United States inventions and discoveries that has no references. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Other stuff exists is not a valid argument, but thanks for pointing out something else that may need to be looked at :P. In addition it isn't a valid comparison; if that article was 'List of United States inventions and discoveries' about discoveries made in the US by US citizens and half of it was full of people who weren't US citizens, people who once visited the US and people who live near the US then the analogy might work. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- My main argument is that the article is sourced. If some of the items doesn't belong in the article then it should be edited like you did. If expanded and edited the article has potential. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's inherently OR and SYN. Putting sources and doing OR doesn't work. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- My main argument is that the article is sourced. If some of the items doesn't belong in the article then it should be edited like you did. If expanded and edited the article has potential. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep - article is well sourced, it may have some issues but is generally acceptable. It is thus notable. List of United States inventions is in a worse state that this (at least this has references). LOTRrules Talk Contribs 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- See conversation immediately above. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." WP:OSE
- Is that a reply to the 'other stuff exists' point? Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." WP:OSE
- Keep Article is sourced and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's inherently OR and SYN. Putting sources and doing OR doesn't work. YellowMonkey
(click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Is your argument that they arent inventions? or aren't from the Islamic world? or both? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Funny I thought wikipedia was supposed to be full of notable, sourced, well-written articles on all topics. Hooper (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's inherently OR and SYN. Putting sources and doing OR doesn't work. On sourced topics not synthesised ones. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, because ultimately the article's scope and the way the material represented was totally inadequate at addressing pressing questions:
- Why should these inventions, any inventions, be specifically called Islamic? By implication, there should also be Hindu, Jewish, Taoist and Christians inventions (and lists on them).
- The scope scope of the article remains hazy. Is it about Muslims or the Islamic world in general, about believers or a world region? What have Soviet scientists and Jewish Iranian immigrants to the US to do with the tag "Islamic inventor"? Do individiual 'inventors' even want to be addressed as Muslims?
- With many inventions, the quoted sources only say that this and that was made by this and that person, but they do not say it was invented by him. And in the cases the sources do so, they often do not explicitly claim that it was first invented, that is they do not support the strong claims made here consistently.
- In sum, I found it an originally researched article with a quite strong POV synthesis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, starting with its title. But it has proper referencing and it cites many valid historical points. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep: An article should only be nominated for deletion if it has no grounds to exist in the first place, not because the current state of the article isn't good enough. The reason why I originally created this article is simply because the previous article from which much of the information was drawn (Inventions in the Islamic world) was getting too large, so I split it up into two articles: Inventions in medieval Islam and Inventions in the modern Islamic world. If there is any ambiguity over the term "modern", then it could simply be renamed to "Inventions in the post-classical Islamic world", unless anyone has any better suggestions? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete- WP:OR, WP:SYN. Sarvagnya 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete, once again, per nom and Sarvagnya. Giggy (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - WP:OR, WP:SYN. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Despite apparent synthesis upon the basic definition, the article is a list, which tries to tie together concepts in other articles, as opposed to being a separate topic. The article will require a rename to include "List of..." and also to rethink the word "Inventions". It should either become "Achievements", or the article should be rewritten to remove scientific discoveries. I'd also advise regular editors to be certain all entries are from the "Islamic World" and are not simply Muslim. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete and try again. My cleanup of edits along these lines at Telescope related articles, (and trying to chase down more of these "facts"), has made me very aware of the problems contained here. The stuff is sourced but the sources are mis-used, mis-quoted, sometimes just plain wrong, and are all "spun" to reach a synthesis. The editors involved have admitted in there talk or on their talk pages that they edit from a POV. This does not make their efforts wrong, it just adds a skew to their writing that we all have to be mindful of. A rethink from basics is needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Please prove it. I cannot take your word for it.LOTRrules Talk Contribs 18:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:SYN. This article is essentially a copy of Inventions_of_the_Islamic_Golden_Age. I am very annoyed at the need to constantly chase down gross inaccuracies, exaggerations, and fabrications. Furthermore, very few (or maybe none) of the inventions described have anything remotely to do with religion. If you sort inventions according the religion of the inventor, you'll end up with four or five very long lists and a several little ones. Except for beating your chest, how useful would these lists be? Frotz (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete or merge per above. Khoikhoi 06:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - WP:OR, WP:SYN - as above, there are thousands of patents for any given region of the world; a comprehensive article of this nature would be impossible, even without all of the dubious assertions (sustainable boat? disease diagnoses as inventions?) Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - unless some reliable sources can be found for the whole concept (not just for individual inventions), this can't be anything but synthesis. Orpheus (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Delete per WP:OR, and WP:SYN. These inventions have nothing to do with religion. The link is incidental - the inventions haven't been created because of Islam or because the inventors are Muslim. --vi5in[talk] 18:51, 24 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- List of people from Akron, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Plain and simple, it's entirely redundant to Category:People from Akron, Ohio, which even the edit history indicates. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete There really should be a speedy delete for redundant material, which this is, so delete it. --Pstanton 07:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Keep - The common user sees pages, not categories and history. Redundant to those of us who know our way around, but not for those who come here looking for this exact type of information. Keep. Hooper (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete and redirect to category if desirable. Punkmorten (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This list has no redeeming features. People who don't know about categories can find them with the search box. - Mgm|(talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Lists can be annotated; categories cannot. Powers T 14:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete This has never attempted to be anything more than a duplicate of a category, nor do I expect that anyone will ever attempt to annotate it after three years. Other than that "The following people were all born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Akron, Ohio, and its surrounding metropolitan statistical area, including Portage County, Ohio, and Summit County, Ohio," this gives no clue as to the importance of Aiden Tozer or any of the other entries. In fact, the list doesn't even give a clue as to what connection someone might have to Akron. I don't buy the idea that we have to make copies of every category for the benefit of folks who don't know their way around. Mandsford (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - lists and categories are not duplicates, but have independent uses. That this hasn't reached it's maximum potential is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 15:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - as Wily and LtPowers have said, lists and categories fulfil different functions and the list here is not "redundant" to the other. Just because not much work has gone into improving the list does not mean that it never will or that time is now up (unless there is now a timelimit that nobody told me about!) BencherliteTalk 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep After I updated the article I plan to sort the people by last name under subheadings, add a breif comment about their association with Akron, and of course, reference it. Does it need cleaned up? Yes. Please see other examples of what this article is aiming for here. §hep • Talk 16:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Fully redundant to Category:People from Akron, Ohio. A classic Granfalloon. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - Similarity between a list and a category is NOT a reason for deletion. Period. Hooper (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Actually, it would be if the list was not able to be annotated usefully. There are some situations in which having both would be redundant. Powers T 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, I don't see the point of spending time looking after these if they are identical to the category but Stepshep is prepared to "add value" to it so time should be given. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, I think this list should be cleaned up and put in order (alph.) like on the other articles of list of people. Take a look at the article List of people from Dayton, Ohio, this gives ideals on how to improve the article. OHWiki (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep The normal way to do lists-of-people-from-place is to include them in a list in the article under a section, "Notable natives and residents" (see WP:USCITY), but only if there are a small number; this list is following the standard method of splitting out a list that would otherwise overwhelm Akron, Ohio by its length. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 21 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. While most of the commenters cited common sense and exceptions, they didn't need to. The article has multiple reliable sources thus meeting WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Boldly closing. Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Get On Your Boots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NSONGS: has not charted, has not received any awards, and has not been covered by multiple artists. Article needs to be deleted and protected against recreation until Feb. 22. 2009, the first day that it can chart, becoming eligible for an article. —Kww(talk) 03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Totally disagree. This song came out this morning digitally and is impacting radio like crazy already. Basing an article's relevance solely on chart performance and eligibility is antiquated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdg46 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep and close:This nomination is (apparent) procedure getting in the way of common sense. This is the lead single of the new album for arguably the world’s most popular current band. Every other U2 single has an article – to delete for one month is just silly and a waste of time – the nominator themself acknowledges that some effort will have to be made to keep it deleted. Why not devote that energy to letting people improve it. Fan forums are abuzz with 1000s of posts in 24 hours, it’s crashed download websites, and I’ve bought it already from iTunes. Certainly notable already – even apart from the fact that its U2’s first album single in 5 years. It’s not like it’s a single from some garage band that’s never going to go anywhere. Suggest WP:IAR to allow for some common and constructive sense. (in fact, I suggest this nomination be wrapped up quickly so as we can get back to something constructive,--Merbabu (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- ps - I think we all know it's going to chart. Aren't there better things we could be doing rather than deleteing and rewriting. ???
- Seconded: Though I recognize it isn't a "chart" per se, the song is currntly the seventh most purchased song on iTunes over the last 24 hours. There has been plenty of coverage of this song in both the written media and in terms of radio airplay, and just because it hasn't charted "yet" doesn't mean that it's worthy of deletion. It's more than notable. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep: Honestly, what is the point in deleting this article when it will just be recreated when it does end up charting? Are we making Wikipedia better by deleting an article and then forcing us to start from scratch again in a month? This is a pointless deletion nomination. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep: Speedy keep from me too... Sounds like someone's got a grudge against U2... hint hint... but seriously this article is by no means egregious. Save us the work of a rewrite. RShnike (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep Song notability is much more than receiving awards, charting, and being covered. If all song articles had have those requirements, then most song articles would not be notable based on that comment, including every article in Category:Upcoming singles. This is the first single from U2's new album and has been written about by tons of media publications, and definitely deserves an article. Although the song was just released today (for airplay), there are plenty of sources out there that make this topic notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Keep. While I have some sympathy that this was/is WP:CRYSTALBALLing, a quick search on google news reveals multiple sources [27]. --Deadly∀ssassin 05:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep per WP:COMMON. This "movement" to delete first-singles-from-album articles began with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Life Would Suck Without You, I think. It was debatable there, but is just plain foolish here. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment This isn't a "movement" ... single articles aren't supposed to be created until after the single charts, receives an award, or is covered by multiple artists. There isn't a "but it's by so-and-so" exemption built into WP:NSONGS. I redirect or nominate for deletion any and all singles that violate WP:NSONGS, and there isn't anything different about this one. If it was generally released this morning, I would agree that it's close enough that it probably isn't worth bothering, but so far as I can tell, it was some kind of promotional release: the article itself says that digital release is on Feb 15.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Scroll from WP:NSONGS to the top of that article: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Read all the comments here. Maybe this case is the common sense occasional exception that it's talking about? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- And the bit about the digital release is immediately followed by and a physical format will be released the following day complete with a citation. --JD554 (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- And where would you gain consensus to ignore a notability guideline except at AFD? Don't get me wrong ... I genuinely believe this article should be deleted and creation salted, but if consensus goes the other way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- SO can we move on? --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Nothing's harmed by allowing a discussion to proceed for the allotted five days.—Kww(talk) 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- SO can we move on? --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- And where would you gain consensus to ignore a notability guideline except at AFD? Don't get me wrong ... I genuinely believe this article should be deleted and creation salted, but if consensus goes the other way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Keep - no point in deleting a perfectly good article that no doubt will be re-created if deleted after the single is released. Matt (Talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per the crapitude of U2. Nah, I mean keep per, if nothing else, WP:IAR. If the "rules" say this article shouldn't be, right now, they're wrong in this case. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, while technically correct, I believe this is a time for common sense and ignore all the rules. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep: there's no need to WP:IAR as it meets the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[28][29][30]. --JD554 (talk) 08:48, 20 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. A7 Tone 13:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Dancing Turtle Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable company; with added COI issues. Blowdart | talk 22:10, 15 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) 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete: Doesn't even claim notability, and definitely fails WP:CORP per above. --Deadly∀ssassin 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY, non-notable company. Matt (Talk) 05:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete Looks vaguely like advertising and it doesn't assert any notability, so per A7..... --Pstanton 07:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Delete: Probably not speediable due to claims of a significant customer base but still not notable enough to keep. Dancing Turtle Records looks the same. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:38, 20 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 00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Darkness Dynamite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy A7 (band) declined on the grounds of tours. Problem is, those tours are planned. This band has not yet achieved enough notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Not a notable musical group. --Pstanton 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Delete - I can't find any reliable sources to establish notablility. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:25, 20 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. – wodup – 07:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Communists and their impact on the enviroment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An admin mistook this prod for an AfD and restored the article. I say good idea. Let's snowball it. Original research, opinion piece. No sources. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as an WP:OR essay. JJL (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong delete. Wow, the stuff that turns up! Snoball, I think. J L G 4 1 0 4 03:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete OR, not to mention nonsense. Maralia (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete--darn, Communists want us to buy cars... Wait, the punctuation is incorrect. They hate cars. Got it. Snowball!!! Drmies (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I dunno. I think Trabants are cute in an ugly sort of way. :) I deleted it as nonsense, restored it on the recommendation of another admin and I therefore vote to delete. Snowballs, anyone? PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Delete as WP:OR and inherently against WP:NPOV. Those naughty communists and their trickery. --Deadly∀ssassin 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Delete As recreation of deleted material and an attack page. --Pstanton 07:28, 20 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 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Der Hexenkreis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a local chapter of the national Mortar Board honorary. There is no separate notability for this chapter. In addition, the editor who has been creating the article appears to have a direct relationship to it raising WP:COI concerns. The facts presented are undocumented and perhaps inaccurate. The article covering the national states that men were first allowed as members in 1975, but this article says men were allowed into the Cornell chapter in 1973. The article fails to explain the nature, function and purpose of the organization. Most of the article is biographies of alumni better covered by preexisting individual Wikipedia articles. The discussion page for the article indicates a probable plagarism concern. Racepacket (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Well established, and the second oldest honor society at Cornell are more than enough to satisfy notability. Proxy User (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note That (2nd oldest at Cornell) has been disputed and no references have been cited to support it. Ndenison talk 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: From the Cornel Web site: "Established 1892, Der Hexenkreis is the oldest chapter of Mortar Board, predating the national society, founded in 1918, by more than a quarter century. It was one of the four founding chapters along with Swarthmore, the University of Michigan, and Ohio State, and continues to actively serve the campus and community." http://www.rso.cornell.edu/mortarboard/about.html Proxy User (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Well there's a supporting reference for it. Ndenison talk 01:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That is not the Cornell website, that is the website of the local Mortar Board chapter. Cornell gives free webspace to each registered student organization (rso). You can't use a student organization's website to establish notability or to resolve disputed facts (unless it is somehow an admission against its own interest.) Otherwise, I could register a student organization (say, the Campus Tirade for the Holy Rutabaga (actually registered in 1970)), get rso webspace on the Cornell website and then claim that my organization has been a secret society since 1892.[31] Of course, nobody would believe me until I cut and paste my website content onto Wikipedia. (See International Rutabaga Curling Championship#History) I think that half the problem is the inherent non-notability of a "secret society." If Der Hexenkreis wants to be like Skull&Bones, Quill&Dagger or Sphinx Head, it should spend a few million dollars for a stone building on campus with stained glass windows, or no windows, and let people speculate about it. Replicating the organization's website on Wikipedia is self-defeating and a violation of WP:COI.Racepacket (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Regarding the "second oldest honor society" comment, it isn't really. No one would argue that both Sphinx Head and Phi Beta Kappa can also be described as honor societies, and both were at Cornell before Der Hexenkreis. Also, the organization is never called "Der Hexenkreis" (at least, not since 1918). It's merely the Der Hexenkreis chapter of Mortar Board.
- Other issues:
- It cites an ad for its own membership application for the quote "one of the highest honors bestowed on Cornell undergraduates."
- Membership was secret only for its first couple years, but public long before 1918. Here's its class of 1905 [32].
- Keith Olbermann does not appear on the full list of members that I have seen. Mary Donlon was a member though.
- It began tapping men in 1975 with the national organization, not 1973.
- Although Mortar Board is a fine organization at Cornell with a rich history and excellent members, this article misrepresents it. It is not perceived in the way that this article presents it by anyone outside of its own membership. The organization has been undergoing an identity crisis for the last five years in an attempt to be perceived in the same way as Sphinx Head and Quill and Dagger. Mortar Board is a great organization, but it is a different kind of organization.
- Cornell2010 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- That is not the Cornell website, that is the website of the local Mortar Board chapter. Cornell gives free webspace to each registered student organization (rso). You can't use a student organization's website to establish notability or to resolve disputed facts (unless it is somehow an admission against its own interest.) Otherwise, I could register a student organization (say, the Campus Tirade for the Holy Rutabaga (actually registered in 1970)), get rso webspace on the Cornell website and then claim that my organization has been a secret society since 1892.[31] Of course, nobody would believe me until I cut and paste my website content onto Wikipedia. (See International Rutabaga Curling Championship#History) I think that half the problem is the inherent non-notability of a "secret society." If Der Hexenkreis wants to be like Skull&Bones, Quill&Dagger or Sphinx Head, it should spend a few million dollars for a stone building on campus with stained glass windows, or no windows, and let people speculate about it. Replicating the organization's website on Wikipedia is self-defeating and a violation of WP:COI.Racepacket (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Well there's a supporting reference for it. Ndenison talk 01:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: From the Cornel Web site: "Established 1892, Der Hexenkreis is the oldest chapter of Mortar Board, predating the national society, founded in 1918, by more than a quarter century. It was one of the four founding chapters along with Swarthmore, the University of Michigan, and Ohio State, and continues to actively serve the campus and community." http://www.rso.cornell.edu/mortarboard/about.html Proxy User (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
DeleteNeutral (I don't really know anything about it, and don't feel I can make an informed !vote) per previous discussion. Ndenison talk 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Hi everyone, I began this article, here are some comments. I hope this works, I'm new to wikipedia, I'll try to get to all the points. Most of the history of the organization and much of its alumni listings are very well documented in the Kroch Library at Cornell University (particularly the most recent packet compilation of our history printed in 1996), however, those documents are not online. I have listed the kroch library listing on the page, however (http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ead/htmldocs/RMA02199.html)
1. Der Hexenkreis is not just a local chapter of Mortar Board-- it is a hybrid organization. Our traditions and rituals, including our initiation spot on campus and other rituals have been around since our founding in 1892. We are also associated with Mortar Board but this is not the only aspect of the society. It is one aspect.
2. It is the second oldest non academic honor society at Cornell University. Look at the new links on wikipedia that lists all of Cornells organizations-- not only is it listed as "Der Hexenkries" not the Der Hexenkresi "chapter," but it lists the founding as 1892. Sphinx predated DerH, but Quill and Dagger did not (founded in 1893). Phi Beta Kappa is an academic society. Membership in Der Hexenkreis is not based solely on grade point average.
3. The references, esp. in the Sun, are more extensive and not sponsored by the organization, and are not a part of the free website made by the organization. The sources ARE notable-- esp. the news articles. Our events, involving Pres. David Skorton and former Pres. Hunter Rawlings show this, as they would obviously not speak for an organization that was not legitimate or prestigious.
4. In response to "donating buildings"-- Though Quill and Dagger and Sphinx Head have been able to donate a lot of money-- particular in the early 20th century, because Der Hexenkreis was a WOMENS society until the 1970s, that money was obviously not as readily available. So, for obvious reasons, we do not have a tower to call our own, though we do have an initiation site that has existed for over 100 years.
5. Membership for QD and SH are also no longer secret, though they claim still to be "secret societies." DerH was once a secret society (its membership was secret), it is now an Honor society without secret membership-- we no longer call ourselves a secret society.
6. Keith Olbermann is an alumni member and each spring announces DH tapping season on his show. Obviously, this is hard to cite.
7. 1973 was a typo, just changed it.
7. Der Hexenkreis is not trying to imitate any organization, it has a rich enough history of its own for the past 117 years-- it has no need. It is different from SH and QD because it engages in public activities on campus, neither of the other organizations do because they remain "secret" and "honorary." DerH distinguishes itself because part of accepting membership is a commitment to engage in public activities that serve the Cornell community rather than simply seeing membership as an honor. There has been no "identity crisis," this has always been the mission and will always be the mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortarboardcornell (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- QD at least engages in public activities, the membership of both SH and QD are not secret. I am puzzled by Mortarboardcornell's edit here [33] which draws a comparison between SH, QD and DH. Is the argument that there has been really three of these societies around for the last 115 years, or that DH and Mortar Board is really unlike SH and QD and is more like Phi Beta Kappa? Racepacket (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
I'm sure it was clear, but in case not, I DEFINITELY do not think this should be deleted. It is an important part of Cornell's history as a university and community. I will be adding more information soon to the page, but do not have the time right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.209.165 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- I appreciate Mortarboardcornell's enthusiaism for his/her organization and I hope that he/she becomes an active Wikipedia contributor. However, I have three fundamental concerns: 1) The Wikipedia model is that we create articles and write about things that we feel are notable as uninvolved 3rd parties. People don't write about themselves, their family or their favorite organization. Wikipedia requires an outsider to say "Wikipedia needs an article about Der Hexenkreis" and start it, current members of DH are not allowed to do that. Secret societies pose special problems for this policy. I know about Skull&Bones from walking past its building on the Yale Campus, and it is notable and covered by the media, so I could see a non-member starting that article. 2) There are over 50 national collegiate honor societies, most of which have over 200 chapters. As a matter of policy, does Wikipedia want to maintain over 10,000 articles covering these honoraries at the chapter level or is our national coverage sufficient? I know that there are also campus-specific honoraries, and I support covering them. (For example, I remember that Ag students had an honorary called Ho-Nun-De-Kah, but it could be covered in a couple of sentences in the College of Agriculture article). So far, I have not read anything in the DH article that could not be covered in a few extra sentences in the national Mortar Board article. 3) Even if Mortarboardcornell is an excellent researcher and does a proficient job in creating the article, wikis need a stream of readers and editors to keep articles honest and current. If he quits editing or graduates from Cornell, who will check this article over time?
- Perhaps as a first project, Mortarboardcornell should start an article about something outside of Cornell and get experience abouth the process before undertaking the DH article. Racepacket (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- To quote WP:COMPANY, "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." Racepacket (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Fails notability - article appears self promotional and self-serving. --HighKing (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Summary: a new user Mortarboardcornell creates this as his/her only article, and obviously has a connection to the organization, raising WP:COI concerns. WP:COMPANY says we cover the national Mortar Board, but not the individual chapters unless notability can be established. Although Mortarboardcornell has made a few corrections and improvements in the article, notability beyond the national has not been established (as of 2009-01-17) for this chapter. Racepacket (talk) 11:22, 17 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 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak Delete - per everything Racepacket says, and, well, despite all the verbiage above, I don't really see, in the article, any evidence of notability. Quill and Dagger, if that comparison is permitted, has mention in the New York Times going back decades. Nothing against this organization-- they sound like one among many fine honors societies. But per WP guidelines, and per my own research to determine any kind of notability, I can't see a reason to keep the piece. J L G 4 1 0 4 03:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete While I can see both sides of the issue, at a glance, the article seems to be deeply POV, not really notable and there are issues with sourcing --Pstanton 07:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Keep - and that ref provided is fine. Hooper (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment - WP:COMPANY requires "reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area." Only sources offered are the local organization's website and the campus student newspaper. Materials which the local chapter deposited with the Cornell Archives are not suitable secondary sources to establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 13:09, 21 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Sound Document (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Label has You Say Party! We Say Die! but no independent sources for a V, NPOV, NOR article on the label itself. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- What has happened that record labels of notable bands are suddenly deletable? The precedents, from what I recall, have reached a consensus that if there are multiple sources about the bands themselves (which mention that the bands are on that label) then that is sufficient for our notability guidelines. In this case, You Say Party! We Say Die! and Cadeaux are both notable (even though no one has yet written the article about Cadeaux). Anyway, I have added a few sources that mention the record label and verify that Dani Vachon is the owner. I would recommend keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There may have been a concensus formed, but it still fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - I believe Paul Erik said it best. Hooper (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. It meets WP:PEOPLE. We could rewrite it and move it to the page about the owner, but the result is pretty much the same. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- How does it meet WP:PEOPLE? The three "sources" are barely passing mentions. We have no sources or hope for any with which to create a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Does not meet WP:CORP or even the brief note about labels in WP:MUSIC, viz: "...one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).". PKT(alk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 06:54, 23 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. WP:HEY turnaround occurred, clearly going to snow. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- CrunchPad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Project to build a low cost web tablet. Only references are to the inventor's own website. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
[[34]] - more coverage here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.18.185 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Merge with TechCrunch. Certainly notable enough to mention, it hit the front page of Techmeme (as you can see from the above link) and there is independent coverage. Without more third party sources however, I don't think it's ready to be a stand-alone article, so merge.Change to Keep per the new sources. Steven Walling (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. References added, see the article! --Kozuch (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Merge. With the new references added, this article can be written into TechCrunch and salvaged.Changing to Keep per new consensus. KaySL (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yeah, but it barely - even if - qualifies as a stub-class article. Merging it into TechCrunch as has been suggested would be a far more efficient resolution, surely. KaySL (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Right now it's barely a stub. But that doesn't mean it always will be. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, and this subject meets that threshold. If you think it should be merged, that's fine. Take it to the talk page. All I'm saying is that the information needs to be kept, not deleted (after all this is AfD, not AfM). -Atmoz (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Yes, that's true, but the outcome of this discussion is not exclusively whether it should stay or go, but rather what should happen to the subject matter if it's kept. KaySL (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Right now it's barely a stub. But that doesn't mean it always will be. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, and this subject meets that threshold. If you think it should be merged, that's fine. Take it to the talk page. All I'm saying is that the information needs to be kept, not deleted (after all this is AfD, not AfM). -Atmoz (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep or merge with TechCrunch or Michael Arrington. It definitely meets notability guidelines, but may not be ready for its own article yet. Note that the product has not yet been released, so we need to be careful with WP:CRYSTALBALL (Does CRYSTALBALL apply only to events, or to products and other things like this as well?) LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Hence the article reads "initiative", not a product.--Kozuch (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment 'Initiative', product, it's an academic issue right now. The question is over the article's notibility. And LinguistAtLarge, I interpret the content of Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL#CRYSTALBALL to mean that products are covered by the policy also. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep: This article is notable enough that I searched for it in reference from this newspaper article. Siraf (talk) 19:21, 20 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Zeyd Naito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable ex-band member stub. Nothing of note via Google about his new side project either. Possibly a vanity creation, see [35] JoannaMinogue (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom fails WP:MUSIC. --Deadly∀ssassin 05:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect. The article has too little information to stand alone, but deletion is not warranted. If he was once a member of a notable band, then he's notable, at least in the context of that band, so his name should redirect there until the side project gains traction. - Mgm|(talk) 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Redirect: to band. Schuym1 (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: The band he was once in has released only an EP on an indie label. Normally I would say redirect in the case of musicians, but there doesn't appear to be any notability in this situation. MegX (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - non-notable musician. TheClashFan (talk) 09:06, 21 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 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Deir ez-Zor Camps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The idea of "Deir ez-Zor Camps" which the article is based on is a fictional concept. There is no single research published using the title "Deir ez-Zor Camps" and the google search [36] only gives 10 web pages that are mirrors of this article in Wikipedia. The references used in the article mentions Armenians being perished around the town "Deir ez-Zor," but none uses the term "Deir ez-Zor Camps." In the case of the first citation used in the article; there is no single sentence in the book that matches "great "killing center."" Google Book Search results in "Your search - Search results for 'Deir ez-Zor camps were a great killing center' - did not match any documents." The article is original research or original thought of the autor. There is not any independent sources of sufficient depth that covers this topic. Cemil Yilburak (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Most of the references in this article are not available online. And because it's Martin Luther King Day in the United States, libraries are closed. I am withholding comment regarding the disposition of this article until I can obtain a copy of the book in the first reference, and possibly other referenced works, to determine whether they substantially verify the content. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 01:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Nordic, look at Google books: for example,
- "out of Deir-ez-Zor camps" [A Crime of Silence: The Armenian Genocide - Page 80, by Permanent People's Tribunal, Gerard J. Libaridian, Permanent Peoples' Tribunal - 1985 - 249 pages]
- "Only 50000 people made it to Aleppo, 120000 survivors arrived in Hamah, Horns and then Damascus, whereas 200000 were moved to the Deir-ez-Zor camp.[The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans - Page 157, by Sébastien de Courtois - 2004]
- "Last winter they were in an Armenian Camp at Deir Ez-Zor". [America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915 -by J. M. Winter - 2003 - p. 162]
- Christopher J. Walker calls Deir ez-Zor "a vast and horrific open-air concentration camp".[Armenia: The Survival of a Nation, by Christopher J. Walker, second edition, 1990, p. 205]
- Survivors were sent from there to the death camps of Der-el-Zor and thereabouts in the deserts of Mesopotamia. ["Starving Armenians": America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After, by Merrill D. Peterson - 2004, p. 41]
- Refers to the Der el Zor desert, which became synonymous with death camps during the Armenian genocide. [Girlhood: Redefining the Limits, by Yasmin Jiwani, Candis Steenbergen, Claudia Mitchell, 2006, p. 33]
- The former were sent to Aleppo, where there was a possibility of meager survival; the others were dispatched to the death camp at Deir ez,Zor. [The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. by Richard G. Hovannisian - Armenians - 2004 Page 267]Gazifikator (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, [37] [38] [39] [40] verify this article's subject. Brilliant research, Gazifikator :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Do these sources presented with these searches (five in total) satisfy "sources of sufficient depth?" It seems the word was used in a single sentence and/or in a single page. It seems the authors used the word as a rhetorical tool. Such as "depths of hell" is a rhetorical tool to express the sufferings of people. I'm asking these questions to remind that it seems there is some expert knowledge needed. I do not see these links giving much support to existence of Camps. Is there any proof that we are not adapting "a rhetorical" tool as a fact. Is there an analysis regarding these camps? The article states that there are multiple camps. But these searches do not point to multiple camps. The links are not giving clear answers to major questions. All these sources mention refugees in the region, but establishment of a refugee camp is another issue. I do not find references in these sources about establishment of these camps. Also, the article does not present sufficient proof regarding these camps. A camp has an establishment and/or demolition date. A camp has a size; How many people? How long they lived in this place? What is the survival rate? If there is a camp, there is a responsible person for that camp. Who were the managers of these camps? A camp is an institution. Where is institutional information? I just looked at Auschwitz concentration camp. I do not see any resemblance with this article. Some of these searches you have presented points to "A Crime of Silence: The Armenian Genocide". Does this source fulfill the "independent sources" requirement. I could not find the use of this term by the "independent sources." Given the non-existence of basic details, the article became a "slanted content." It doesn't sound balanced, there is not any third party source to fix this article, assuming there were camps. By the way, existence of refugee (I believe there were refugees in the region) does not require existence of a camp. Is there any way to answer these questions? — Cemil Yilburak (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- You opened this AFD by claiming that the article's subject was a figment of the author's imagination, and was completely unverified by any of the sources provided. But we've shown that sources do use the term, and use it in a way that seems, to me at least, to be descriptive, not "as a rhetorical tool". It's true that each source may describe the Deir ez-Zor Camps only tersely, while hundreds of thousands of pages have been published about Auschwitz concentration camp. This is probably because some crimes against humanity have been better studied than others, which certainly limits the depth of our coverage, but shouldn't imply that a site at which a mass murder was perpetrated is "non-notable". If you wish to assail the reliability of the sources, then you cannot simply quote what appears to be a non-neutral title - many books about the Holocaust likewise express shock and revulsion at the horrors they describe. Your claim
is handily rebutted by the fact that per WP:VAlso, the article does not present sufficient proof regarding these camps. A camp has an establishment and/or demolition date. A camp has a size; How many people? How long they lived in this place? What is the survival rate? If there is a camp, there is a responsible person for that camp. Who were the managers of these camps? A camp is an institution. Where is institutional information?
So, if third-party RS verify the existence of this article's subject - and it seems that quite a few RS do - then based on what the sources describe happening at the Deir ez-Zor Camps meeting any sensible standard of notability, this article should be kept. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
- I don't know how much of the information presented in the article is factually true or not, but I must say that it is not really clear to me that any of the books mentioned can be considered reliable and based on scholarly research. Most of it seems to come directly or indirectly from the Armenian diaspora camp, not always noted for impartial and careful research concerning the Armenian genocide. Wikipedia should be extra careful here not to become a propaganda tool. :wimdw: 01:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimdw (talk • contribs)
- You opened this AFD by claiming that the article's subject was a figment of the author's imagination, and was completely unverified by any of the sources provided. But we've shown that sources do use the term, and use it in a way that seems, to me at least, to be descriptive, not "as a rhetorical tool". It's true that each source may describe the Deir ez-Zor Camps only tersely, while hundreds of thousands of pages have been published about Auschwitz concentration camp. This is probably because some crimes against humanity have been better studied than others, which certainly limits the depth of our coverage, but shouldn't imply that a site at which a mass murder was perpetrated is "non-notable". If you wish to assail the reliability of the sources, then you cannot simply quote what appears to be a non-neutral title - many books about the Holocaust likewise express shock and revulsion at the horrors they describe. Your claim
- Do these sources presented with these searches (five in total) satisfy "sources of sufficient depth?" It seems the word was used in a single sentence and/or in a single page. It seems the authors used the word as a rhetorical tool. Such as "depths of hell" is a rhetorical tool to express the sufferings of people. I'm asking these questions to remind that it seems there is some expert knowledge needed. I do not see these links giving much support to existence of Camps. Is there any proof that we are not adapting "a rhetorical" tool as a fact. Is there an analysis regarding these camps? The article states that there are multiple camps. But these searches do not point to multiple camps. The links are not giving clear answers to major questions. All these sources mention refugees in the region, but establishment of a refugee camp is another issue. I do not find references in these sources about establishment of these camps. Also, the article does not present sufficient proof regarding these camps. A camp has an establishment and/or demolition date. A camp has a size; How many people? How long they lived in this place? What is the survival rate? If there is a camp, there is a responsible person for that camp. Who were the managers of these camps? A camp is an institution. Where is institutional information? I just looked at Auschwitz concentration camp. I do not see any resemblance with this article. Some of these searches you have presented points to "A Crime of Silence: The Armenian Genocide". Does this source fulfill the "independent sources" requirement. I could not find the use of this term by the "independent sources." Given the non-existence of basic details, the article became a "slanted content." It doesn't sound balanced, there is not any third party source to fix this article, assuming there were camps. By the way, existence of refugee (I believe there were refugees in the region) does not require existence of a camp. Is there any way to answer these questions? — Cemil Yilburak (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Google books search gives 2,080 on Armenian genocide. "Armenian refuges in Syria" gives 924. Armenian genocide is the second most studied genocide in the world (Article itself claims it). If you search scholarly: there is book with a cheaper on Armenian Refugees in Syria. If you are interested. I'm not so sure if this wiki editor is knowledgeable person or not, but this concept is an extreme view. The rethoric and structure of the article is clearly do not support the idea that he is citing the available information correctly. It surely do not fall into "any independent sources of sufficient depth." Thank you for your interest into this subject, but I sincerely believe, use of "Camps" a seriously problematic concept; though not the refugees and their sufferings. — Cemil Yilburak (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong and Speedy Keep The numerous sources listed by Gazifikator and Kristen Eriksen show the nomination is incorrect on every point. Edward321 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep sufficient good sourcing. Some of the sources are from reliable non-controversial publishers. . DGG (talk) 03:38, 21 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 00:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Tomislav Curnović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No source he exist, possibly a hoax like FK ŽAK Sombor Matthew_hk tc 01:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - No sources that I could find verify that he is a real footballer, notability aside (Google News). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Verifiability is an absolute requirement for articles; this one provides none. Kevin McE (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Unverified or unverifiable. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Fully active squad member for FK ŽAK Sombor (which doesn't even appear on List of football clubs in Serbia and not to be confused with FK Radnički Sombor). FK Železnicki Amaterski Klub Sombor play in the Podrucna Liga Sombor at Stadion ŽAK, Sombor with a ground capacity of 500. Completely non-notable. --ClubOranjeTalk 08:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment you quote the echo of deleted wikipedia article. Matthew_hk tc 08:33, 23 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 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using: |
- Ufo Phil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO Phil . Tagged for speedy deletion as a repost, but this does have sources, so it is different. There are Google hits, but I'm not convinced this meets WP:BIO. Dlohcierekim 01:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep He probably doesn't meet WP:BIO to the letter; besides the sources in the article, all I can find is stuff like this. However, I think his association with two cult classic radio shows should count for something, so I'll throw in a Keep vote. We can verify that's he's been on those two programs, so the article technically doesn't violate any policies. Zagalejo^^^ 07:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - of the two "classic radio shows", there is only evidence that Dr Demento played something by him once four years ago (check the reference provided), and on Coast to Coast he is not a regular participant, he is a frequent caller. I'm not convinced personally, this guy does not meet WP:BIO imo. -- roleplayer 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Here's a more complete listing of his Dr. Demento appearances. It's not a bad showing. If I'm reading correctly, he's been in the Funny Five a few times. Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep As a regular listener of Coast to Coast on the Premiere Radio Network, I can tell you he is more than just a caller to the show. You can see evidence of his live in-studio appearance on the program here. Also, UFO Phil is the singer of the song Listening to Coast to Coast, which is one of the official theme songs of the program, as evidenced here. The song is played like clockwork and should definitely count for something. Phil was on the Dr Demento Show many times and I personally watched him as he appeared live on Tom Green's show. I am obviously a bit biased, but the facts remain. He is noteworthy. Forgive any format errors on my part - I am new to Wikipedia.Edit: I just found an IMDb entry for UFO Phil here, as well as a reference here to the UFO Phil movie being shown at a cinema in California. Coffeebean1234^^^ Coffeebean1234 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding undated comment was added at 01:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[]
- No prior edits Dlohcierekim 01:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep I agree with Dlohcierekim. Phil Hill or rather UFO Phil as he is more commonly known is more than just a caller On Coast to Coast and was on the Dr Demento Show many times and I also watched him on Tom Green's show. I mean he has a show on stickam, a Channel on you tube, a MySpacepage and a moviecurrently out. What more does it take to have a listing on Wiki? How about some alien dna? Would that push him over the top? Ill see if Keanu Reeves can spare some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docthegaffer (talk • contribs) 08:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- No prior edits Dlohcierekim 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Actually I nommed for deletion. Did not !vote keep. Just indicated the status of the commentor. Watching someone does not make then notable, though any cited sources help. And myspace is not a reliable source. Having movie out does not ensure notability. Coverage still looks trivial to me. For those not experienced with AFD, AFD is not a vote. It is a consensus seeking discussion. Also, do please sign your comments by placing 4 ~'s at the end. Dlohcierekim 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - Non-notable and does not meet WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareesa Tofa (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Diogenes in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a POV essay which exists solely to promote a viewpoint which is controversial. It is also an orphan article suspiciously not linked from any other articles on the subject. On cursory inspection, nothing in the articles on Jesus, Jesus in Islam, Al-Ghazali or Diogenes of Sinope suggests that this viewpoint is widely held. The references are of mixed quality and I am not sure if they really support the argument or not. I must admit to not reading them all in detail. If this viewpoint does have significant traction then a more neutral article on it may be justified or it could just be covered in other articles. DanielRigal (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Undue weight given to a minority viewpoint, along with a strong essay-style wording. Original research, particulary on the third and fourth sections.--Darius (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete not encyclopedic; what each religion's views of people not associated with it would be a POV muddle of unencyclopedic OR. Ready for George Bush in Discordianism? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- To be fair to the author, I think he is alleging an association, albeit a very strange one. Assuming I understand his strange phrasing and terminology correctly, he is claiming that the Islamic prophet Isa is actually Diogenes not Jesus. That would be very notable if the connection made any sense, could be proved or gained mainstream acceptance. Of course, this is where it falls down. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's difficult to discern what is being alleged in the article, but if there were some (minority but notable theory) linking of Diogenes with Isa, isn't Isa the place where it belongs? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Either that and/or Diogenes of Sinope, yes. It would need to be a reasonably large and well researched subject before it got its own article. As it stands I am not even convinced it deserves a mention anywhere. I wasn't defending the article, just making sure that when we delete it we do so for the right reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- It's difficult to discern what is being alleged in the article, but if there were some (minority but notable theory) linking of Diogenes with Isa, isn't Isa the place where it belongs? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- To be fair to the author, I think he is alleging an association, albeit a very strange one. Assuming I understand his strange phrasing and terminology correctly, he is claiming that the Islamic prophet Isa is actually Diogenes not Jesus. That would be very notable if the connection made any sense, could be proved or gained mainstream acceptance. Of course, this is where it falls down. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 18 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 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:NOR, since the references cited do not discuss the asserted connection between Diogenes of Sinope and Al-Ghazali. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 01:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete It appears to be original research. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as original research. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 20 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. (Non-admin closure) LittleMountain5 00:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Articles for deletion/List of record labels
- Articles for deletion/List of record labels (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of record labels (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of record labels Morgana King recorded with
- Articles for deletion/List of record labels starting with a non-letter
- List of record labels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of record labels: A-H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of record labels: I-Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of record labels: R-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Better suited as a category, considering the first line of the page "This is a list of notable record labels." Kwsn (Ni!) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. As noted in previous discussions, you can't put redlinks into a category. I would however suggest that these lists should be expanded into tables to include things like style of music and location for each label - something that categories cannot do. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep- As I keep having to say, being redundant to a category is NOT a reason for deletion. And Grutness's ideas for improvement have merit. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - AGAIN! For reasons previously stated - categories can't hold redlinks. The top level category of Category:Record labels is sub-divided by country, genre, etc, making it impossible for anyone to easily get a list of all record labels in one place. As per Grutness, these lists can be expanded into a table format to include things such as country, genre, year founded, etc, etc. 08:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep According to WP:CLN lists and categories should coexist, especially if they can fulfill functions that complement each other. Grutness' idea therefore has merit. - Mgm|(talk) 13:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep as per above and previous discussion. Please note that the previous AfD nomination was made just last month. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Lists serve a different purpose to categories.--Michig (talk) 22:21, 20 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Local live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject appears to be a non-notable compilation album of some assorted music tracks. I was unable to come up with any sources that verify this compilation even exists, let alone ones that show it meets the notability criteria for albums[41][42]. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Hoax or fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: no 3rd party verification. JamesBurns (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:27, 20 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. The references provided in the article back up the claim he's an elected member of NAS and has won a prize for his work (notable per WP:ACADEMIC) Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Shinya Inoué (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Biophysicist. Negligible assertion of notability and no evidence of it. Sgroupace (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep, [43] [44] establish notability per WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong keep. In earnest? Not a very considered nomination. Look a little deeper and withdraw the nom. MURGH disc. 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Very Strong Keep: per this Google News search, this Google Scholar search, this book, this book, these four books,this article,this article, and this article. Schuym1 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy Keep Membership in the United States National Academy of Sciences is easily checkable and a claim of notability that is invariably decisive.John Z (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy keep and admonish the nominator to understand better what passes for an assertion of notability among academics before being so free with the {{nn-bio}} tag. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy keep. Member of the NAS... This is a joke, right? Lot's of snow to shovel today.... --Crusio (talk) 08:31, 20 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 01:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- IQor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This previously spam-y, now spam-y and slam-y article, describes a company whose press seems limited to press releases plus a tiny amount of very local coverage in the area where it operates. The references provided do nothing to demonstrate the notability of the topic, and nobody with knowledge of the company seems interested in improving the article. Bongomatic 04:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Googling I find a bunch of articles that steer towards WP:N such as [45], [46]. Not major stuff, but enough for WP:N on a company I think. The article needs cleaning up surely, but I don't think deletion. FlyingToaster 05:27, 15 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) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. A non-consumer services business, a call center company, which they refer grandiosely and vaguely too as "business process" in the first sentence. The references provided by Flying Toaster reveal that one of the people in charge of the company sits on a museum board. That does not make the business notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep. I can understand that the web results include PR to most extent, but there are other sources as well. These include an award among others ([47], [48], [49], [50]). There's also some coverage on the company under its old name and a subsidiary. LeaveSleaves 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There's a word for "awards" given by software companies to their customers--advertising. The coverage you cited is mainly very local (i.e., not suitable for demonstrating notability), and the IBD article isn't about IQor, but about the founder. The search for the old name generates press releases. The subsidiary may actually be notable, but notability is not inherited. Bongomatic 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If you are willing to search through the results, there are articles present that aren't just press releases ([51], [52], [53]). And since when local coverage unacceptable? And how are sources 3 and 6 local? In the matter of inheritance, Allied Interstate is a subsidiary, hence part of the company and hence part of the notability. LeaveSleaves 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Local coverage (where "local" doesn't only mean geographic--IndUS is a perfect example of a non-geographic variety of local coverage) is widely viewed to be insufficient to establish notability. See footnote 5 of WP:N for some justification, but more generally read AfD discussions. What is reliable for sourcing facts is not necessarily demonstrative of notability. Bongomatic 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- If you are willing to search through the results, there are articles present that aren't just press releases ([51], [52], [53]). And since when local coverage unacceptable? And how are sources 3 and 6 local? In the matter of inheritance, Allied Interstate is a subsidiary, hence part of the company and hence part of the notability. LeaveSleaves 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- There's a word for "awards" given by software companies to their customers--advertising. The coverage you cited is mainly very local (i.e., not suitable for demonstrating notability), and the IBD article isn't about IQor, but about the founder. The search for the old name generates press releases. The subsidiary may actually be notable, but notability is not inherited. Bongomatic 00:00, 22 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Johan Boyden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per previous AfDs, merely running in an election does not mean notability. Being general secretary of the youth wing of a minor political party doesn't sway my opinion on that, nor does the fact that the only secondary sources available are wikinews and university papers. --fvw* 04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Previous page was speedy deleted, this is a partial copy. The previous speedy means G4 doesn't yet apply. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete Not enough sources or achievements to meet notability or wp:POLITICIAN. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:33, 17 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) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Keep Article is well sourced and meets all notability guidelines. It appears that the nominator has made any attempt to discuss the problems with this page before adding the Article for Deletion tag.
Per WP:PRESERVE ...Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to...(suggestions) Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Wikipedia:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:INTROTODELETE Remember that deletion is a last resort. WP:POTENTIAL In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort.
If not kept, page should be userfied so new user can expand and make this article better, lets not WP:BITE this new editor.Ikip (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[] - Note to closing administrator creator is a new user, who has made significant changes since the Article for deletion nomination. Since the creator has added significant information, would nominator agree to now close this AfD? Ikip (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- What's required of references is that they amount to substantial coverage of the topic, but except for an article in the Ryerson University Eyeopener almost all of the references here are either primary sources, such as an interview on Wikinews, or incidental coverage such as his name merely being mentioned on an election results table. That simply doesn't cut it in the notability sweepstakes — the only reference that actually constitutes coverage in a reliable source about the topic is that Eyeopener piece, and one single piece in a university newspaper doesn't fulfill the expectation of substantial coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Strong Delete agree completely with Bearcat. Some of the references don't even support the material. For example this source used to support the fact that "he represented students on the UNBC Board of Governors and was known for his 'lefty' views" simply mentions in derisive fashion that "Boyden presented a whole lot of drivel about historic dates and facts to show Santa really emerged in the 1700s as Saint Nicholas and later came into his own as a "corporate Claus" promoted by Coca Cola." If taking part in a student debate makes one notable then I hope Wikipedia has a very big server. While this one, used to support the fact that often he was "obtaining the largest number of the so-called 'protest votes' in the riding" doesn't say that at all, it mentions him in passing saying that "Even the Communist Party's Johan Boyden was more popular, securing 120 votes."
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Quinn Lemley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not at all clear that a one-night performance off-Broadway makes for notability, nor does an unsourced assertion of resemblance to a famous person. Article references long past events in the future tense, indicating no upkeep. bd2412 T 04:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete as the single reference provided does not establish notability. Boston (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - provided a couple of interview links on the talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- SarekOfVulcan, why did you add links to talk page rather than incorporating references into the article where they belong and can be considered in the debate? Boston (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Because I didn't have the time to do it properly. And nothing says that the sources actually have to be in the article to count for the debate: just that they have to be available.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: insufficient notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:04, 19 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) 00:02, 20 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. This is somewhat borderline, but after weighing the arguments presented by each side, I feel the editors in favor of keeping provided more evidence to support their claims –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Outstanding leadership theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is an unnecessary fork of content deemed unsuitable for the article Leadership. It documents a concept of questionable notability and POV. Synchronism (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Just to explain my point of view as the person who created this article: compared to other leadership theories, this one is not notable enough to be featured in the main Leadership article, so I forked it in respect to the person who originally wrote this text. Please refer to this links [54], [55] if you want more context about the fork. Editor br (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete If (per User:Editor br) it's not notable enough to merit a mention in Leadership, how could it be notable enough to merit its own standalone article? Baileypalblue (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep: just because the article does not deserve being mentioned in the leadership article, it does not mean it should be deleted. The theory should be evaluated for its notability by itself. Editor br (talk) 16:06, 18 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) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
DeleteWeak keep - a "theory" ought to turn up in some research databases;this one turned up not once across dozens of academic (and other) databases. Neologism at best.J L G 4 1 0 4 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Props to Coppertwig. I used a university-based comprehensive database, but forgot to check Google Scholar, which digs in further at times, esp, into the text of books. Changing my suggestion accordingly. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Weak keep: I looked in Google Scholar and found:
- "...Outstanding leadership theory is based heavily on the belief that stress (either individual or organizational) is a key to facilitating the leadership dynamics ..." (Google snippet from "Reframing leadership pedagogy through model and theory building" [56]
- "... Page 8. These theories have been grouped together under the label “outstanding leadership theory” (House & Podsakoff, 1994). ..." (Google snippet from "Profiles in Leadership: Enhancing Learning Through Model and Theory Building — " [57] (in Journal of Management Education)
- and from Google Books,
- A paragraph about it in the book Organizational Behavior I.: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership by John B. Miner; the publisher, M.E. Sharpe, describes itself as "award-winning publisher of reference books, textbooks, general interest books and journals".
- This books seems to mention it and talk quite a bit about "outstanding leaders": Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science by Jerald Greenberg; according to the Wikipedia page, the publisher of this book, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates seems to be a publisher of academic books, so I suppose that could be a reliable source.
- In reply to Bailypalblue: it often happens that something is not notable enough to include in an article on a more general topic, but is notable enough for a more specific article. See WP:SUMMARY. The question here is whether there is enough information in reliable sources that a good encyclopedia article can be written on the topic. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - Forked out for a reason, valid information. POV? Not getting where the POV comes into play for you. Hooper (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Sorry, but this reads like an unreadable tissue of peacock terms and glittering generalities. If someone can explain lucidly in plain English how this "leadership theory" differs from other such theories, I might be persuaded to change my mind. Right now, although there is a published book about it, it still looks to me like an article in search of a subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Even though my subjective side says this stuff sounds like so much b.s., the distinction I see being made (in Miner, e.g.), is that "outstanding" = charismatic, transformational, or visionary, none of which is a necessary criterion of otherwise sound leadership. If there was just this one example of the term, I'd figure, ok, that's one author's little neologism, but it does seem to turn up across several sources. Hence my 'weak keep' (weak, because it's still pretty thin-- includable, but thin, in my view) J L G 4 1 0 4 04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep - a moderately reasonable and citable piece of scholarship. I added a ref from an independent book. - 7-bubёn >t 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete - do not agree that 3 google books and 3 google scholar results establish notability. The article is useless collection of generalities. Renata (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- delete. Nothing but a summary of a single chapter of a non-notable book that appears to be claptrap. Robinh (talk) 13:23, 22 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 Metro Station (band). BOLD closure Mgm|(talk) 12:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Mason Musso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redirects to the band he belongs to Metro Station (band) being removed. (Equiv to deleted PROD). Known only because of notable band membership and relationship to notable person. All details in this article already in Metro Station (band) article. Suggest redirect to Metro Station (band) until independent notability established. NrDg 21:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete and redirect to Metro Station (band) (I believe this is what NrDg meant, as clicking his link leads to the article on actual train stations). All of the info on the page is already in the band's page and the person in question isn't notable for anything else. -Lamarcus (talk) 22:44, 17 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) 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Speedy delete and redirect He has no notability outside his role on Hannah Montana, so this should redirect to his bio there. I've speedied this per A7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Comment: I declined speedy deletion. Being signed by a major label and acting in a TV show assert enough importance to fail the narrow restrictions of A7. Regards SoWhy 11:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Keep.Redirect It is actually his brother who is cast in the Disney show. He himself is notable for being in a notable band.Normally such articles could be redirected, but if that is done, the link to his brother is lost and it would be inappropriate to include him in the band article.Changed my mind: The information in this article is nicely merged with the band page, so there's nothing warranting a separate entry. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, 20 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- GMB Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced article on Publishing company -- no articulation of notability Oo7565 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 23:36, 15 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) 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete: not notable, no value. Vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]- Weak keep based on improved article and DGG's investigation of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep some of the books have respectable holding in WorldCat: example, and it is therefore appropriate for there to be an article. I just now reduced the excessively spammy article. DGG (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. Although there is indication that the company has several publications (particularly a series based on business enviornment in different countries), I could not find any third-party sources indicating that the books/series is particularly notable. The company site lists reviews of its books. But it's hard to confirm the reviews, the ones that are notable among others. LeaveSleaves 19:08, 21 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 American Basketball Association (21st century). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ontario Red Wolves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a "non-team": It folded before it played any games! I fail to see how this merits notability. Tavix (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Keep Professional sports teams are notable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Note: They never were a team. The planned franchise folded before they could get a team together. Tavix (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Delete. If they had played even one game, they would have met notability, but as it is, "planned" equals "non-notable." Graymornings(talk) 00:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge into American Basketball Association (21st century) - it is a part of the ABA history as an announced expansion team that eventually was cancelled. If a source or two can be found, the story of the aborted franchise should be mentioned within the context of the league without giving it undue weight. B.Wind (talk) 05:31, 17 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) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Either merge to American Basketball Association (2000–) or delete. Franchises in the current ABA are constantly coming and going. The ones that never even make it onto the basketball court cannot be considered encyclopedic enough for their own articles. It is tough enough to keep track of the active franchises. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Merge and delete As long as the mention of the folding of this franchise doesn't get undue weight, merge it, but delete this page, since a stillborn franchise hardly is notable enough for an independent article. --Pstanton 07:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 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.