Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 23
< October 22 | October 24 > |
---|
User talk:Sandbox for user warnings[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as wrong location. Discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Sandbox for user warnings. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User talk:Sandbox for user warnings (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Sandbox for user warnings|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
User:Yousaf465 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just sandbox over pouring,.User:Yousaf465
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Roadents[edit]
- The Roadents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete Article/Stub reads like an advertisment. As do most of this users Articles... Imnotacoolguy (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of my articles are advertisements and it doesn't matter if it's a stub! Schuym1 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Non-trivial web presence indicates the show's got a following. The stub doesn't read like an advertisement to me, and mild irritation with a fellow editor's writing style - on a stub, no less! - is not a criterion for deletion. Let's not get itchy trigger fingers here. Fumoses (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not at all an advert. Perfectly acceptable stub and externals show notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I found another source. Schuym1 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another one. Schuym1 (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another one. Schuym1 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to view the LA Times link, do a google search for it. Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two comments from LA Times and Tilzy TV to the critical acclaim section. Schuym1 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to the LATimes article is broken. Could not find an LA Times article when searching with Google. Looks like this link was to a Blog anyway. What makes that a reliable source? Imnotacoolguy (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
- It is a reliable source because it is the LA Times blog. The link works because I viewed it today and added a quote to the article from it. You need to copy and paste the link into Google. It doesn't matter anyway, because that isn't the only link. Schuym1 (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- copied and pasted link - 'Not Found The requested URL /webscout/2008/03/sony-debuts-six.html/ was not found on this server.' the other sources you list do not indicate notability.. How do they? Imnotacoolguy (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The LA Times link does work. Here is the link: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/03/sony-debuts-six.html. I typed it in wrong. I bet that you think that it doesn't show notability also. Schuym1 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- copied and pasted link - 'Not Found The requested URL /webscout/2008/03/sony-debuts-six.html/ was not found on this server.' the other sources you list do not indicate notability.. How do they? Imnotacoolguy (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a reliable source because it is the LA Times blog. The link works because I viewed it today and added a quote to the article from it. You need to copy and paste the link into Google. It doesn't matter anyway, because that isn't the only link. Schuym1 (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to the LATimes article is broken. Could not find an LA Times article when searching with Google. Looks like this link was to a Blog anyway. What makes that a reliable source? Imnotacoolguy (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
- I added two comments from LA Times and Tilzy TV to the critical acclaim section. Schuym1 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another one. Schuym1 (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sourcing indicates notability. Phrasing is a little off, but requires a bit of a copyedit, not deletion. WilyD 10:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; It needs a bit of cleanup and expansion, but otherwise notable. RockManQ (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW Redirect. Schuym1 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Country Demos[edit]
- Country Demos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable demo EP, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: Non-notable EP. Redirect to Bret Michaels. Schuym1 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bret Michaels. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirct agree. ^^^ EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Is this even a legit release? All I find in searches are links to warez, torrent and bootleg sites. I found one "listing" that said it was on "Poorboy Records". Fails WP:NALBUMS as a demo and a possible bootleg. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - It exists as it is listed on Bret Michaels site, but there's no reliable surces writing about it. -- Whpq (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names used to describe the Subprime Mortgage Crisis[edit]
- Names used to describe the Subprime Mortgage Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia isn't a thesaurus to be used for different names of the same thing. (contested prod removed by IP for no reason) Tavix (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Such an idea isn't necessarily a problem (see Names of Jerusalem or Names of the Levant), but this isn't anywhere near those articles. As this little article is reasonably sourced, it could easily be placed in an appropriate part of Subprime mortgage crisis. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge selectively to subprime mortgage crisis. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list is meaningless, it just catalogues the expression some journalist used some day on some article as replacement to Subprime mortgage crisis simply because that term is overused and repeated everywhere. Hundreds of names have being used to describe and qualify this crisis. This article is purely an indiscriminate collection of information. EconomistBR 03:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per EconomistBR. Mission Fleg (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the topic is significant, but the various names used to describe it in the press are not. -- Whpq (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is nothing here that justifies an article to itself. JodyB talk 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to amateur radio operator. (non-admin closure) the skomorokh 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Silent key[edit]
- Silent key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a dictionary definition, and I can't see any scope for encyclopedic expansion - how is a dead amateur radio operator any more notable than a dead follower of any other hobby? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom or possibly merge to Amateur radio operator,Nrswanson (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the one is simply a name for a particular sort of the other, a merger — of duplicate articles discussing the same thing by different titles — is the obvious answer. One doesn't need AFD for this. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Amateur radio operator or similar article. It is significant within the amateur community but not readers at large. JodyB talk 00:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simmonberry[edit]
- Simmonberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neologism with no assertion of usage. This article has been recreated a few hours after being deleted as an expired prod. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mentioned once in a contest during an ESPN podcast. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not covered by any independent sources. Created by people trying to get into an ESPN promotional fantasy basketball league. I'd recommend salting for a week or so. Wickethewok (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google betrays no worthwhile sources on this term. Lu Ta 07:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thomasine Church (Gnostic)[edit]
- Thomasine Church (Gnostic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
From the little context provided this seems to be about a modern organisation. I can find no indication of any notability for such an organisation - see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. the few Google Books hits for the phrase "Thomasine Church" refer to ancient churches. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep To avoid cultural bias, I support articles on any religious movement that can be shown to have real existence. Though all that is relevant are blog postings, there seems enough to be real I'd be much more comfortable with some 3rd party references, even in passing. DGG (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator may be aware of this, but just to make sure...there are Gnostics today, so it's possible that such a church exists. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm pretty sure it's these guys, and not the former Syrian (or still Current but separate Syrians?), but I'm marginally convinced. DGG is probably about balance. WilyD 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice until and unless an independent and/or reliable source is provided. A single website is just not sufficient to meet WP:V, with all due respect to DGG's position--which I substantially share--on real religous movements. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable third party sources that establish notability. RMHED (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice due to the lack of reliable third party sources to support notability. JBsupreme (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. — neuro(talk) 19:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leif Höegh & Co[edit]
- Leif Höegh & Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is this an article or is it advertising? LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs serious work, but based on the references I added, I think that the company is notable. More information may be available from Norwegian sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep but needs work. I've started removing the inappropriate material. DGG (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability is established. Cut down whatever does work, if it bothers you. WilyD 10:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article about notable company. Jll (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but despam please. Others can find sources - in a trip to google I did see some that look like significant mentions in major publications. It's a $1.4B per year public company,[1] and one of the largest shipping companies in a seafaring nation (Norway) so it's definitely "worth noting" to anyone who wants to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the shipping industry. Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Laidlaw[edit]
- Frank Laidlaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Outside of a one-line mention in Sunday Herald, and a one-line passing mention in A Portrait of Scottish Rugby, the subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I looked in several different research database archives in attempts to find significant discussion of this subject in independent secondary sources - all in vain. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - [2] + Entry in this book convince me he's notable as a rugby player. WilyD 10:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:ATHLETE as playing at the top level of an amateur sport (as rugby union was when he played). Phil Bridger (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - full international in a major sport - no problem. - fchd (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beth Levin[edit]
- Beth Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I removed the PROD because the person seems notable based on a cursory glance at Google and Google News. The PROD reason was "subject requests article no longer appear". DCEdwards1966 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as the article is now wiki's. The review in the New York Times is itself quite indicative of notability. I have tagged to article for sourcing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the subject seems notable enough. Fumoses (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the PROD seems to have been initiated for private reasons. Notability has clearly been established. The sourcing issue seems to have been resolved, too. User:greavill —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - the PROD was not initiated by the subject. Per my communication with her, Beth Levin wants the article to appear. User:greavill 11:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.197.253 (talk) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxley Vale Attunga[edit]
- Oxley Vale Attunga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable football club, playing in an amateur regional competition Mattinbgn\talk 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Here's a reference: http://tamworth.yourguide.com.au/news/local/sport/general/best-of-times-for-mushies/1278298.aspx -- Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So an article in the Northern Daily Leader (circulation 8,292[3]) is now suitable to establish notability? I look forward to the rash of articles on "notable" Tamworth identities based on the notability established by publication in this source. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable local amateur team. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Amateur club playing a number of rungs below highest level. Murtoa (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 . AngelOfSadness talk 22:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel burski[edit]
- Daniel burski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Straightforward non-notable bio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is this a CSD A7 candidate? I don't see any assertion of notability at all. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable autobiography. Only external reference is Myspace. The boys' club doesn't count; maybe the CCM is in a "fully professional league" per WP:BIO#Athletes, but their team is listed below and he isn't in it. JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for non-notability. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failure of WP:N. It's only source provided is a myspace profile. Beano (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (A7) — No assertion of notability whatsoever. Also a blatant conflict of interest, which suggests self-promotion. MuZemike (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia's articles are not userpages. Not reliable sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As the article now stands, it's not eligible for speedy deletion under A7 because an assertion of notability (professional) has been added.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 The claim to professional status is a untruth. Daniel Burski does not play for the Central Coast Mariners. (I assume that this is what "CCM" stands for) and Sombo Boys FC is a self-described indoor soccer team, no doubt playing in a small time amateur social competition—there is no professional indoor football competition in Australia. Thus, the claims to notability are not just arguable but entirely bogus. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete CSD-G7 - blanked by author [4][5] --Rumping (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much More (song)[edit]
- Much More (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't seem to be a notable song. Didn't chart, no sources. Was tagged as A7 but clearly not an A7; also not an A9 since there is a claim of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: to Tom Jones. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom.Fails WP:Music Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn Looks like it's improved enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took the soup[edit]
- Took the soup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dicdef. Tagged as A1 but I think there's enough context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the proper name of the subject, for which a quick Google Books search will garner you copious sources, is souperism. Naming the article on this subject using an associated phrase which isn't even a noun, is rather bizarre. Someone hasn't read our Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I suggest that you speedily rename the article, tag it for a rewrite, and add some citations as further reading. Start with these two:
- Susan Campbell Bartoletti (2005). Black Potatoes. HMCo Children's Books. pp. 78–80. ISBN 9780618548835.
- Melissa Fegan (2002). Literature and the Irish Famine, 1845–1919. Oxford University Press. pp. 217–225. ISBN 9780199254644.
- The latter has an extensive bibliography of its own, with yet more sources to look at. The practitioners, reviled by the Catholics, were called soupers, so you'll need a redirect, too.
Yes, it's ironic that souper, which actually contained a reasonable, although slightly confused on one point, start to such an article, got deleted for being a "personal attack", even though it explicitly mentioned the historical context. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge Subject is notable, with many reliable sources (see Google book search), but I'm wondering if it should be merged into the article on the great Irish famine. Jeremiah (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything but delete. If it's not notable enough to stand on its own, merge to Great Famine (Ireland).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. And clean-up per wp:afd - if an article can be cleaned up through regular editing it is not a good candidate for deletion. Took the soup has a few books hits, Soupers has several thousand - I'm sure some could be ghits for other items but certainly not all; and Souperism gets over 400 hits. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Late Imperial China[edit]
- Late Imperial China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Too short, not notable. Needs lots of copy pasting. FixmanPraise me 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable because historians write about it in the journal Late Imperial China (journal). Also note the claim in the article: "The use of early/mid and late Imperial China is preferred by many economic, cultural, and social historians over the standard dynastic periodization..." -- Eastmain (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if its subject to soo much study it needs a whole journal, it's notable. WilyD 21:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. The article itself may be a stub, but the subject seems pretty obviously notable - it describes a substantial and distinct period of time in China's history. Fumoses (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, per Eastmain. --Banime (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand - Late Imperial China is a standard academic term used by economic historians who consider the Early/Mid/Late categorization more useful than the dynastic periodzation Roadrunner (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- WE have a general article on the History of China, which deals with this period much more fully than this article. Its length is not excessive, so that contnetn hardly needs to be forked out of it (yet). If expanded it might provide a useful article. Alternatively, it might be converted to a disambiguation page pointing to pages on the particular dynasties. No vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Affective tutoring systems[edit]
- Affective tutoring systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Essay-like, original research. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--right, this is OR, an essay, and not a very good one. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:ESSAY and tl;dr. MuZemike (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per every above + WP:NOTMANUAL. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Living Word Fellowship[edit]
- The Living Word Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominating for deletion due to the following points:
- The very inception of the article appears to be based on some sort of personal grudge by the creator of the article, who in the first AFD discussion admitted himself that the subject was not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
- An accurate article cannot be written on the Living Word Fellowship without conducting original research. The creator wrote in the AFD discussion: “It is nearly impossible to ascertain the beliefs of this church without attending regularly.” The subject’s official website says that the founder “had authored more than 11,000 recorded sermons and hundreds of written messages.” After exhaustive research, I can find no third-party source that has performed enough research to produce a reliable source on this subject.
- “Another Gospel”, cannot be considered reliable when even reviewers on Amazon are noting glaring errors (please see debbieannconway’s review at: http://www.amazon.com/Another-Gospel-Ruth-Tucker/dp/0310404401). The book also cannot be considered neutral enough to be the foundation of an entire article as it is clear in its attempt to critique religions according to orthodox Christian beliefs and comes to conclusions based on a pre-existing agenda. LikesPoodles (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC) — LikesPoodles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strong keep - There are plenty of nontrivial third-party sources describing this religious organization, including (but not limited to) the book Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, the People magazine article about Tony Cox's report of his experiences, and Tony Cox's documentary film. The fact that these sources are not a sufficient basis for writing the complete and definitive story of this organization does not change the fact that the topic is notable. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This ticket is the subject of OTRS ticket #2008091810047725. Please do NOT close this debate without allowing it to run the full length. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that process for process' sake? We know the subject is notable, and this is the second afd in a week by a SPA. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The nominator being a single-purpose account who's nominated this article for the second time in eight days sould be grounds for a Procedural Keep, but the article can stand on it's own with multiple independant sources cited. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Easily meets notability criteria, per reasons put forward by Orlady and others in the previous two AfD discussions. Attempts to resolve content questions of the IDONTLIKEIT variety through AfD shouldn't be encouraged. John Nevard (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, the text of this AfD nomination is exactly the same as the previous one. What's changed? Surely this only works if you're a left-wing activist paranoid about the CIA. John Nevard (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not the issue. Rather, all references are to a primary source, contrary to the policies of Wikipedia. There simply are no third-party sources that can be found. The 22 year old People Magazine article is actually about Tony Cox and contains quotes from Mr. Cox about his personal experiences with the organization, but contains no third-party research. Likewise, Mr. Cox's film about his life is clearly a primary source. The book Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, besides being unreliable, again is made up of references the Cox film. BTW, this is the second nomination, because the first was closed by an administrator prior to any discussion. LikesPoodles (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep LikesPoodles, you're not supposed to "vote" multiple times in an AFD. This article has several reliable sources, and as such is notable. Even if the one book is considered insufficiently reliable (and I can't see why one average online person's arguments make it unreliable), the others are good. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry - was just trying to comment, not to vote again. The organization may well be notable; I am not arguing that one way or another. The problem is one of reliability and verifiability. There are NOT several reliable sources. If you actually look at them, all three that are cited are based on ONE person's opinions/experiences, and are clearly primary sources. Further, with regard to the book, Amazon book reviews show that there is controversy over its reliability. LikesPoodles (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the content covered in the reliable sources is factual, the fact that it was covered makes the organisation notable. John Nevard (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the policy of Wikipedia was to NOT use primary sources? If no third-party sources/research exist, then the matter does not belong in Wikipedia. In other words, I may be extremely notable, but Wikipedia is going to wait until someone writes my biography, rather than quoting from my web page. All three sources referred to as being "reliable" quote ONE former congregant, who is clearly a primary source. They cannot be considered to be more reliable than representations made by the organization itself, which is also a primary source. LikesPoodles (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're secondary sources from third parties. They may be based partially off the work of a ex-member, but this doesn't make them any less reliable or primary sources. John Nevard (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it has 100 congregations, it's notable, and that's supported by a reference. What was the substance of the OTRS ticket? a request to remove, or a complaint of inaccuracy? DGG (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The organization's website lists 11 congregations, not 100. I am not sure that the 100 figure was ever correct; however, the reference is from a book that is 20 years old. LikesPoodles (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia covers a number of once-significant organisations. While this organisation may not be historical as such, that 100 congregations existed at one point is another claim on notability. John Nevard (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks like a solid article to me--well sourced, etc. Historical? even better!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I think the real issue here is not notability, per se, but the reliability of the sources. The Living Word Fellowship had erroneous statements made about it in the 70s, and the majority of the people who made those original false have since realized how they were wrong in their criticism (as one example, Walter Martin's book on cults used to contain info on the subject, but in recent editions, it is no longer even mentioned). However, the misinformation persists because it was put in print and disseminated further by authors who didn't know any better (such as Tucker's Another Gospel). The real problem in this particular case is that while the subject is notable, it is not really notable enough for reliable articles or books to have been written recently. All the sources currently being used in The Living Word Fellowship article are certainly permissable, but only if we are not looking deeper at their reliability. I don't think we can trust a People magazine article that is basically a primary source (it's mostly a transcript of an interview with Cox, with obviously little outside research). The main sourcing (and content) of Another Gospel is Anthony Cox's self-made documentary which also contains little research beyond his own opinions. What this amounts to are biased primary sources that seem reliable but create an inaccurate article. This is nearly the equivalent of arguing that it's fine for anyone who has ever attended a service at a church in The Living Word Fellowship post their original research on the subject. If even the creator of the article is saying that original research is necessary to write a Wikipedia-worthy article, I don't know why this should be kept; reliable coverage has not been significant enough for this subject. Jeremiah (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FTR, "Another Gospel" is not currently readable online, so I can't access it to check sources, but I recall that the sourcing appeared to be fairly extensive. I don't claim to know the agendas of the various people who are committed to attacking this article and the book "Another Gospel," but I do note that this review of the book, in a Christian journal, called it "in several respects, the best general textbook on the cults", said it was "more respectful of the cults than any other such textbook," and criticized it primarily for "lacking in biblical critiques of the cults" and not citing the journal in which the review appeared. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a copy of Another Gospel and Tucker cites five sources: the Anthony Cox documentary, Walter Martin's 1980 edition of The New Cults (which, as I've said before, he's taken out all references to The Living Word in subsequent editions), and three messages by John Robert Stevens. While her research on other subjects in the book is certainly extensive, her sourcing is fairly limited for The Living Word Fellowship, especially considering the fact that John Robert Stevens authored more than 10,000 messages in his lifetime. Jeremiah (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FTR, "Another Gospel" is not currently readable online, so I can't access it to check sources, but I recall that the sourcing appeared to be fairly extensive. I don't claim to know the agendas of the various people who are committed to attacking this article and the book "Another Gospel," but I do note that this review of the book, in a Christian journal, called it "in several respects, the best general textbook on the cults", said it was "more respectful of the cults than any other such textbook," and criticized it primarily for "lacking in biblical critiques of the cults" and not citing the journal in which the review appeared. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a pretty small article, but the sourcing is commensurate with the claims. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- seems a legitimate articel to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Lots of agendas here, but the article has WP:RS for notability and should be kept. Springnuts (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is not in question here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. the article appears to only have one reliable secondary source. no one has provided any evidence of notability other than this source, which is insufficient. as very few people have access to this sole source the number of keep votes here are surprising. all the other references are either unreliable or primary. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted (G1). Alexf(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christina Potamousis[edit]
- Christina Potamousis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I cannot find any references to a feral child of this name. I found a match for some of the obvious search words on the picture caption at [6], but nothing there confirms the feral child stuff — and in any case the name is slightly different. Jll (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: hoax. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. hoaxlicious. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the feral child stuff is a hoax; I wonder if this is a rather silly attack page? JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete — complete and utter WP:BOLLOCKS. Would not object to anyone G1ing the article. MuZemike (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, G1. Tagged as such. Tavix (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca Worthley[edit]
- Rebecca Worthley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lots of name dropping, but no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may even qualify as a borderline G11 speedy. Might be salvageable if all the promotional words are removed and someone finds some sources for any of these claims, but, as it stands, comes nowhere near pass notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having seen the the references presented, I'm changing my vote to Neutral. Mentions in the local press still isn't that good claim to notability, but the Radio 2 airtime might count in her favour. Most definitely needs all the peacock terms removing though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete;(changed !vote, see below) I agree with both of you. That's easy! But especially all that name-dropping, that's just not good. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]Delete per nom.coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I've added several sources just now. There are non-trivial mentions of her in the newspapers Express & Echo, The Herald, and Western Morning News, enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - concerns seem to have been addressed. WilyD 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as sourcing had been addresed. Still needs to have some peacock removed, but definitely salvagable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Fails WP:N. Beano (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changed vote from delete. Sources now prove notability and the reason this was nominated is addressed. Beano (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--yeah, I'm changing my mind also. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have withdrawn my delete !vote but am still not entirely sure this rises to the level of notability we expect of biographies. (Still thinking about it.) coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep. I think it establishes clear notability; it's sourced very well. I think she's not very well known yet, that's all. Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórasimowixerafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo Bjornovič 09:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.37.47 (talk) [reply]
- Note - just for an informational note, the above entry was made by a blocked sockpuppet account. — CactusWriter | needles 07:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object detection and tracking in compressed domain[edit]
- Object detection and tracking in compressed domain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is pure Original Research from a thesis, with no Notability yet. It proposes techniques that have yet to be shown in applications or as the subject of further research. Author has copied his own thesis into wiki, raising Conflict of interest issues. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G12. Copyright infringement of http://lovebridge.org/wsyou/favorite.html. The creator had removed the speedy deletion tag. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but assertion on the talk page that he's the author and releasing into the public domain. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then it is still a delete as original research, and conflict of interest, since it appears to be the creator's own website. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the G12 as it no longer applies. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but assertion on the talk page that he's the author and releasing into the public domain. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — if the user admits to being the copyright holder of the article, then the user has consequently admitted to having a conflict of interest with the subject. MuZemike (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Looking at the content as it is right now (looking past the copyvio issue), it violates WP:ESSAY. There is also an obvious conflict of interest with the article's creator as stated above. MuZemike (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a Copyright or COI, either one works. Tavix (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Apparently the text has been released under a GFDL compatible license, so it's not a copyright issue. Conflict of interest does not necessarily require deletion. But the original text is original research, apparently proposing a method for detecting moving objects in compressed video streams. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR (COI is not in and of itself sufficient to delete, only a call for cleanup). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Death and Adjustment Hypotheses[edit]
- Death and Adjustment Hypotheses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
vanity text for single book lacking evidence of notability Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- self-published book, not notable, article was largely written by the book's author. Looie496 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yep, pretty blatant advertising of OR and book. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone else. No hard evidence of notability. Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indeed as not noted by the scientific community, and hardly outside of it. Fram (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Verify and keep/delete -- Why not verify it from the journal Death Studies, whether it is really reviewed positively as a scientific work. In fact, one review is complete and another is under process. Robert Neimeyer, The Editor can tell best!Shoovrow (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Shoovrow is the author of the book. We shouldn't use a review that hasn't yet been published, regardless of anything the editor of the journal might say.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Get Right. History not retained as none of the info was sourced. Cirt (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ride (song)[edit]
- Ride (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This song is not notable. It was not released, it was not on any album and it never charted anywhere. Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 18:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverifiable, no sources, fails WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Wouldn't be a good redirect considering there're over 9000 songs with this title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It was only nominated in order for the album to become a FT at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Confessions (Usher album). Zginder 2008-10-23T21:18Z (UTC)
- Comment I only found the article because it was mentioned at the nom. Please judge the article on its own merits. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - but if deleted replace this with a dab page linking to the various albums which have songs called "Ride" (such as Perspex Island and Whitechocolatespaceegg). Grutness...wha? 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Get Right#Song information. All the relevant "controversy" about the song is already there. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ride - a dab page - where there's already a listing of several songs called "Ride" by several artists. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to "Get Right". Although its still unsourced there, it would be good to redirect this one, which apparently fails to comply guidelines in creating pages, specifically music-related. --Efe (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Line of succession to Henry VIII[edit]
- Line of succession to Henry VIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Too trivial and obscure a matter for an encyclopedic article, why single out this specific point in English history? PatGallacher (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because historians do, and they write about it in detail. See the books cited in the Further reading section of the article. (And that's only some of them.) The succession was an important piece of manoeuvring on Henry's part, and our article on the subject is currently lacking. But there are clearly sources from which expansion (and correction) can be done. An editor's subjective estimation, of how trivial and obscure something is, is irrelevant. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With respects to Uncle G, it might make an intersting and speculative essay. However, the article itself begins "Assuming regular male-preference primogeniture (as is in place today), and assuming that each of his marriages was considered legitimate, the below would be the beginnings of the line of succession to the throne of Henry VIII upon his death on 29 January 1547:", giving two "assumptions" as the preface for the list of the article... thus speculation... a "what-if" article. Since Wiki is not about assumtions or speculative collections of lists, but encyclopedia based upon verification, the text appears then as original research and really should go. However, I would hope that a rewrite might be in order to the address the "speculations" in such a manner to show the cited or historical significance of these asserted "assumptions". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One doesn't have to delete the article in order to correct a sentence, nor to employ the {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag (or, indeed, the cleanup tag that is already on the article saying that it presents things in a way that is not how sources present them). See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. If you don't like that sentence, take any of the books cited in the article in hand and correct it. Deletion won't achieve that. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one of the critical points, where succession was a complex and fought over matter. Of course keep includes merge and redirect possibilities. The fact that there are assumptions is fine if they are the assumptions used by historians or protagonists. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47 23 October 2008 (UTC).
- Delete, original research. Decent essay, but outwith the scope of WP. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though historians and constitutional experts cover the subject? Why do you think that Wikipedia's scope does not include a matter that many secondary sources analyze? Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The let's change the title to Speculative line of succession to Henry VIII and precede the first sentence with "Scholars and historians have speculated, that assuming regular male-preference...", to underscore that it is opinion and conjecture... quite educated conjecture, yes... but conjecture, none-the-less. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though historians and constitutional experts cover the subject? Why do you think that Wikipedia's scope does not include a matter that many secondary sources analyze? Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep though it duplicates material in the individual bios and histories, it is none the less a convenient article; consider a merge, probably with H. VIII. DGG (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Actually (in response to DGG above) this article does not duplicate other articles, it disagrees with them (and they are right and it is wrong). By Act of Parliament in 1544, H. VIII's will was recognized as determining succession. Thus, a line of succession as understood by today's standards was not in effect at all, and it doesn't matter what it would have been. This is sort of like an article about what would have happened if Robert E. Lee had had the atomic bomb. Chick Bowen 05:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While historians certainly do discuss these issues, they also discuss the line of succession at various points during his reign, not just the end. Why not have an article on the line of succession every year in English history, or every time it changed significantly? Also, I think there was a law that the English throne could not be inherited by a foreigner, so it's not clear that some Scots should be in this list. Also, in the light of later developments, should Frances Brandon be ahead of her daughter Lady Jane Grey? PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Henry 8. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Merge should not be an option, because it will clutter up the article on Henry VIII. As the article says its content was overtaken by a 1543 or 1544 Act regulating the succession to the crown, which makes the article pointless speculation. This resolved various questions: e.g. was Elizabeth illegitimate? The English crwon had passed through the male line for several hundred years, except that Henry IV, Edward IV and Henry VII succeeded by right of conquest, coup d'etat. Succession by a woman was thus a novel concept. The article is WP:OR. Counterfactual arguements have theri place in historians' writings, but hardly in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like alternative history to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While references are cited, they appear to be references from which the OR was performed. I don't recall any serious historian presenting such a list of alternative succession. Even if there is such a list somewhere, it certainly would not represent mainstream historical thought, which tends to focus on the actual succession established by Henry, not some modern rendition of what rules that never existed at the time would have made it had it not been what it really was.Agricolae (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Freeman (Half-Life Character)[edit]
- John Freeman (Half-Life Character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unimportant Internet fad. No sources. --- RockMFR 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fanfic characters (and characters created for mods qualify) are generally not notable and there's nothing to suggest this one is. If Valve decides to work him into HL2 Episode 3 or something, then let's talk. 23skidoo (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fanfic-only and no references. VG ☎ 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete The first sentence asserts the character's non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gordan has a brother?. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Zombie Goasts Leave This Place! And then the administrator deleted faster! SashaNein (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fanfic/unofficial character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have been unable to find reliable independent, and secondary sources offering non-trivial coverage of John Freeman. As a result, I believe this article fails WP:N. OpenSeven (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is an utter verifiability and consequently notability failure. Wikipedia isn't here for plot summaries. -- Sabre (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - ouch, terrible. Agree with others concerning notability and verifiability. SynergyBlades (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:HEY, near-unanimity of respondents. Non-admin closure by the skomorokh 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Computers[edit]
- Happy Computers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. Written by an an associate who interviewed the founder with the express purpose of getting material for a Wikipedia article. While the company may have had a couple of niche products, no in depth third-party sources to pass WP:Corp. The footnotes are completely unreliable as a blog and a personal web page of a fan.
Related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Adams (inventor)
Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to utter lack of any kind of reliable sources to verify notability to the standards required by WP:ORG, oh and it's WP:OR - which is all a long-winded way of saying "per nom" :) Nancy talk 17:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom's concerns have been addressed. Author's interests are irrelevent as it is now wiki's. Company was crucial to advancement in technologies that increased user friendliness of pre-IBM / pre-Bill Gates home computers. Some of the sources being questioned are technical forums are not blogs... not at all the same thing. Further, the article is well sourced to articles and reviews in magazines archived from that era... magazines which easily pass WP:RS as being widely respected experts in their field. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable. This article was a pleasent find. Glad the AfD brought it to me attention. Back in 1986 I myself bought drive enhancement software and hardware from this company to speed up the the information transfer on my old Atari floppy drives. 22 years later the hardware and software still function. Yes, I still have my old Atari 800... with 4 drives that had been "Happied", a pile of old 5-1/4 inch floppys for the drives... and it all stills works as well as when new. There were a number of computer magazines on the store shelves back then... covering Atari, Commodore, early Apples, etc... and the product was well reviewed. I will do a search to see if any have been archived someplace. This company existed at a turbulent time in home computer history as the in-fighting was beginning for the public's comuter dollar. I recall being at a gaming convention in 1982 or 83 where a Happy Computer representitive pitted an enhanced Atari 800 against an Apple 2e... and actually held its own for data transfer, if not graphics. The history is out there somewhere, and this little bit of computer history would be a welcome addition to Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- with respects to the nom, it must be noted that an online techincal forum is not the same as a blog. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: In terms of establishing WP:Notability an online techincal forum absolutely is in the same - unacceptable - category as a blog. This is policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources and stop making assertions like this that contravene policy. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment directed at ME In terms on notability, please do not accuse me of violating WP:POLICY when I properly use WP:GUIDELINE... specifically the guideline you shared at WP:SPS from which I may now quote "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". In that the technical forum archives being referred to predate wikipedia by almost 2 decades and were of a time in the web when "established experts on the topic of the article" exchanged informations in an online forum. However, in further addressing your blanket assertion that all technical forums are blogs and as such cannot be used (this in contravention to the guideline you youself referenced above), I will put this question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. They may feel as you do that a 1980's techincial forum is as unreliable as a 21st century blog. In that case, WP:SPS will have to be changed to remove the sentence I quoted. ALL THAT ASIDE, the archived era magazines being sourced are enough to overwhelmingly establish notability. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Antic Magazine external links will serve well for citing and sourcing, as for their time, and for that subject, they are extremely reliable sources (remember.. sources must be considered in context to what is being asserted). You won't find a write-up in the New York Post, but will in those sources whose writers were at that time expert in the field and whose opinions were well respected at thattime and for that field. I will use such, and what other sources I find, to source the article. This article improves wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: The references (old print magazines, now reproduced on the web) seem okay to me. The only debatable issue is whether the company merits an article, because the reference are mostly about the products; but the article is mainly about the products. There are some WP:OR-like claims towards the end of the article, but most of it is supported by sources. VG ☎ 20:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And more coming... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I still have an Atari 800 too - happy days indeed. The company was evidently notable and the nomination fails WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Nostalgia of Atari owners shouldn't influence passing WP:Corp. WP:BITE has nothing to do with the company's WP:Notability. You should know this by now. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I would think you could assume good faith in my statement above that it was the name of the company and its support of the early home computers that caught my attention. Sure, I bought and actually still own an Atari, but since I was a reader of those magazines at the times when they were new, that might give me a bit of perspective when discusssing the reliability of these 20+ year-old archived sources... and I again stress that sources called "blogs" were in this case nothing of the kind. I myself am assuming good faith that this is not a case of WP:UGH. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Stop stressing incorrect knowledge of policy - see correction note above. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? I have pointed out (See correction of the correction note above) that it is not I who is showing incorrect knowledge, as proper use of WP:GUIDELINE is not incorrect knowledge of WP:POLICY, and I will disregard the slightly bitey comments made toward me, my "nostalgia", and my reasons for keep, and continue to assume good faith that the tenacity with which you wish this article deleted is not WP:UGH. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Stop stressing incorrect knowledge of policy - see correction note above. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I would think you could assume good faith in my statement above that it was the name of the company and its support of the early home computers that caught my attention. Sure, I bought and actually still own an Atari, but since I was a reader of those magazines at the times when they were new, that might give me a bit of perspective when discusssing the reliability of these 20+ year-old archived sources... and I again stress that sources called "blogs" were in this case nothing of the kind. I myself am assuming good faith that this is not a case of WP:UGH. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable based on the encyclopedic value of its contents. Also for a technology topic the sources are adequate. The nomination not only fails WP:BITE, but also the Administrator who made this AFD nomination may have retaliated against Colonel Warden. (At any rate the admin who made this AFD nomination did make a suspiciously-timed and completely false claim against Colonel Warden; see here [7]). So much for WP:AGF with this AFD. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sports Club/LA[edit]
- Sports Club/LA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article promotes a commercial establishment, and there is no significant content about the club. The three cited secondary sources only refer to trivialities, not anything about the subject of the article itself. Cbdorsett (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep as creator. Obviously notable. Use google. Nearly 500 hits in New York Times alone,[8] six in wall street journal,[9] 42 in LA Times[10] 131 in USA Today,[11] 368 in SF Crhonicle[12] 6 in Time Magazine.[13] Many are entire articles dedicated to the chain or one of its locations or activities. The article is brand new - the silly tags appeared within 1 hour of creation, so of course it's not a complete article yet. But a discussion of the club's founding, founders, number and geographic distribution of outlets, and early history, and a description of the genre of the club is obviously not spam. These are the things that define a fitness club, and that you need to know for an encyclopedic understanding. What else is the nominator looking for? Gross income? Color of carpet? Square footage? Lists of celebrity members? Nom seems to be sour grapes over my IAR removal of a bogus db-spam; needs to learn WP:CORP and be more careful on new article patrol.Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is one of the most notable fitness clubs in the entire United States. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you thinking of LA Fitness? There's only eleven of these "Sports Club/LA", per the article. Tan | 39 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm neutral (Wikidemon invited me here), but Wikidemon shouldn't have needed to remove the db-spam tag — I had already declined the speedy deletion, and it wasn't correct for Cbdorsett to restore it. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, meeting WP:CORP. The first !vote by the creator is almost completely irrelevant - Google hits are not a good indicator of notability; the lifespan of the article is irrelevant, etc. I also agree the article is a bit spammy - that first paragraph could be fat-trimmed a bit. Overall, however, notability is present. Tan | 39 19:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (trimmed complaint about AfD nominations) Regarding the importance of using google or your other favorite search engine, see WT:AFD#Searching before nominating, WT:AFD#WP:BEFORE, and WP:BEFORE. Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is established by reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Definitely notable, with plenty of third-party sources. --Aude (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posera Software[edit]
- Posera Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Also Posera. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Queried speedy delete: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Posera. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep. - I Checked the references/citations and I feel that the only sources that can be used are the Deloitte Fastest growing companies and the htmagazine magazine article. Based on these sources it passes WP:N and WP:V. Due to this, I feel that the article will need to be rewritten to reflect these sources and remove all the spammy stuff.
1. http://www.sagesoftware.com/pdf/accp/ss/ac_Posera_ss.pdf (Product ad)
2. http://www.htmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitles&mid=3E19674330734FF1BBDA3D67B50C82F1&tier=4&id=81D59938B81942229638501C681FA9F3 (No mention of Posera)
3. http://www.vector.co.uk/archive/index.asp?page=article&catno=0050056000 (Press Release)
4. http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/Business-and-Industry/108268197 (Online Store)
5. http://www.scanningla.com/maitred-mealzone-software.htm (Online Store)
7. https://solutionfinder.microsoft.com/SDK/Partners/PartnerDetailsView.aspx?partnerid=0d5e5debe0524139bf1bce36fb99771b (Microsoft Partners list)
8. http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_tmt_Technology%20Fast%20500%20Article_102307.pdf (List of “Fastest Growing Companies 2007)
9. http://www.htmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitles&mid=3E19674330734FF1BBDA3D67B50C82F1&tier=4&id=6E4B91C667144DB782FE0B0FF19D62A0 (Magazine article)
10. http://www.maitredpos.com/products/ (Online Store) --Pmedema (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. This information belongs to company website. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment of no opinion: disambiguated Posera to Posera Software until this closes so discussion is linked. – Zedla (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom and sources belong to company website.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was RESULT was move to Tofy Mussivand and keep (nom withdrawn).--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Toffy Musivand[edit]
Can't find a single reliable reference to the only notable claim that he invented the Artificial Cardiac Pump. Most google search references seem to originate from Wikipedia. Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 15:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, this patent application for an Artificial Cardiac Pump lists a completely different set of people. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, believe it or not. If you search under Tofy Mussivand he seems to be more notable than first appears. So much so that there appears to have been an episode of a TV series about Canada, solely about him. The claim to have invented the artificial cardiac pump is a bit shakey, but he did appear to be prominent in the team behind the first Canadian implant of such a device and does hold a patent for a similar device. Adding to this a fairfew papers and roles as chairman and speaker at various forums, not to mention him winning the 2001 Innovation in Canada Award nor being a member of the Royal Society of Canada, I'd say he just clears the bar. The article needs some serious work (especially as it seems to turn into a recipe book at the end), but I think the notability of the subject holds up. onebravemonkey 16:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we should move the article to Tofy Mussivand if that is the generally accepted spelling. Still very little in the way of secondary sources (a newspaper article would be nice - I guess I'm old fashioned!) but I'll withdraw the deletion nomination.--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to KDE. MBisanz talk 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon Player[edit]
- Dragon Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable software product. The article includes only primary sources and doesn't establish notability. Mikeblas (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge/redirect could probably merge into KDE article. --neon white talk 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge/redirect Plenty of mentions [14]. Should likely be in the KDE article or some spinout that covers the various similar tools. Hobit (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12. Pedro : Chat 20:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Visual MODFLOW 3D-Builder[edit]
- Visual MODFLOW 3D-Builder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.. Delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Blatant advertisment. Tagged as such. --Pmedema (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uliks Emra[edit]
- Uliks Emra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable source he is a footballer, and question on the notability of Kosovar Superliga Matthew_hk tc 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Even if he plays internationally for Kosovo, they are not affiliated to either FIFA or UEFA. GiantSnowman 14:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:NB cf38talk 16:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He has yet to appear at a fully professional level and therefore doesn't meet AP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr!) 15:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:FRINGE l'aquatique || talk 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind[edit]
- Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Talk page says the text is copied from http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com with permission. This may be original research. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge instinct (2nd nomination) this appears to be a one-man theory with very little independent support.
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:
McWomble (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at least partial merge parts of Logic and the mind with psychology of reasoning. At least parts of this article could perhaps be profitably merged into our too brief stub on the psychology of reasoning. In fact, I might be tempted to prefer this title over "psychology of reasoning" for the content there, although perhaps logic and psychology might be the best title. The interface between formal logic and actual human reasoning processes is a vital philosophical subject, and our coverage seems scattershot. The historical account given here seems reasonably mainstream, accurate, and valuable to me.
Neural modeling fields seems to rely much more strongly on Leonid Perlovsky's own thought, and frankly I found it much rougher going. Dr. Perlovsky does seem to be a respected academic, though, and there doesn't seem to be any commercial conflict of interest going on, so I say weak keep to that one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merging would require expert input from WikiProject Psychology. Since the source text is known, it would be better to add any relevant content to existing articles and cite the source directly. Bearing in mind that the source text may be self-published. McWomble (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is an OTRS ticket on the talk page. VG ☎ 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Basically this article contains a short history of logic, which is nice, but (mostly) covered at History of logic. Beyond that, this article is just vague speculation from a single source. Even from that narrow POV, this article doesn't say what exactly is the relationship between logic and the mind. So it just leaves the reader hanging. (I have no opinion on Neural modeling fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yet.) VG ☎ 21:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unlike the history of logic, this article emphasizes the idea that the mind does not follow formal logic, contrary to popular belief.Romanilin (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whose popular belief? Original research to overturn a vulgar error which the vulgus don't actually hold serves no encyclopedic purpose I can see. Make into blog entry and delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unlike the history of logic, this article emphasizes the idea that the mind does not follow formal logic, contrary to popular belief.Romanilin (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to be part of an attempt to promote a fringe "dynamic logic" theory. See also Neural modeling fields, Computational intelligence since the 1950s: Complexity and logic, and Leonid Perlovsky, all created by Romanilin (talk · contribs). Unless we find some cites to this theory that aren't by Perlovsky, it's not suitable for Wikipedia under the tertiary-source rule. --John Nagle (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative weak keep and possibly rename The article's topic seems narrower than what its title suggests. It seems to attempt to report on one theory proposed to answer the question suggested by the title. The article should be rewritten to be more like a Wikipedia article (e.g. maybe starting with "Leonid Perlovsky's theory of the relationship between logic and the mind attempts to explain blah blah blah..." etc.) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That might well be a useful article; but it's not this one, which jumps from Aristotle to Boole to Russell and strands itself in 1931. Perlovsky or his acolytes may well be attempting to reconstruct a usable past, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete first of all, it OUP that probably owns the copyright. Second, parts of an academic work excerpted separately are not WP articles. We could pull out individual pages from any significant out of copyright book and make articles out of them, but that's for wiksource, not wikipedia To the extent its clearer than the discussion in the article on him, some of the text can be used as quotations. To the extent his theory his notable it would normally be covered in his article. We don't make every idea of a notable person into a separate article. DGG (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that questions about whether the mind follows formal logic should be addressed at Mechanism_(philosophy)#Anthropic_mechanism, rather than in a new article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on NMF. Regardless of what happens with the Logic and the mind, I would like to make sure that the Neural modeling fields article can be kept. I have changed it by removing more controversial claims. Basically, this article is about the mathematics behind the dynamic logic theory, which is a machine learning technique, used by AI researchers, there are many publications, and it definitely deserves to be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need some references to "neural modeling fields" that aren't from Perlovsky. Also, the phrase is a neologism. This seems to be a multi-stage neural net, an idea that dates back to the 1960s, (see Perceptron) but by using nonstandard terminology, it's made to look like a new idea from Perlovsky.--John Nagle (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will provide the references, give me till tomorrow don't have time today to work on this.Romanilin (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I updated the references to include several not by Perlovsky. This theory has been referred to by several names, which I added to introduction. In the book by Perlovsky (2001) where he describes the NMF, he calls it Modeling Fields Theory. Regardless, this is a valid NEW idea, that has been used by researchers, and it is NOT the same as multi-stage neural network. Romanilin (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we ought to have an explanation of how they differ - sourced, and preferably not from Perlovsky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking at the new references. Deming is associated with Perlovsky; they've co-authored papers, so he's not an independent source. I did find a thesis that referenced MLANS [16], but only to reject that approach. Perlovsky is also associated with Nichols Research, referenced in the "MDA Technologies" reference. [17]. After a few mergers and spinoffs, the company "Torch Concepts" emerged with the technology.[18] They were later involved with the JetBlue data mining privacy scandal.[19], but that seems to be unrelated to MLANS. I'm still not seeing anything by an unaffiliated third party. I did find a mention of MLANS and Torch Concepts [20], but it credits Prof. Keinosuke Fukunaga of Purdue University with the technology. At best, MLANS seems to deserve a minor mention in some article on neural nets or a related article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, Torch does not say that Dr. Burdick came up with MLANS, it says he directed several projects for ARPA and NASA involving the application of MLANS. Now, the name and the idea for this theory do come from Perlovsky, there is not much we can do about it. I thought all we needed was proof that this is used by other researchers. I have been to conferences where people presented on this. True a lot of them are somehow associated with Perlovsky, but how can they not be, the theory is only 20 years old, Perlovsky is still doing active research.Romanilin (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking at the new references. Deming is associated with Perlovsky; they've co-authored papers, so he's not an independent source. I did find a thesis that referenced MLANS [16], but only to reject that approach. Perlovsky is also associated with Nichols Research, referenced in the "MDA Technologies" reference. [17]. After a few mergers and spinoffs, the company "Torch Concepts" emerged with the technology.[18] They were later involved with the JetBlue data mining privacy scandal.[19], but that seems to be unrelated to MLANS. I'm still not seeing anything by an unaffiliated third party. I did find a mention of MLANS and Torch Concepts [20], but it credits Prof. Keinosuke Fukunaga of Purdue University with the technology. At best, MLANS seems to deserve a minor mention in some article on neural nets or a related article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we ought to have an explanation of how they differ - sourced, and preferably not from Perlovsky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What this subject really seems to deserve is a brief entry in Neural network#Learning algorithms. That's where the various algorithms for training neural nets are covered, and that's where Perlovsky's scheme fits into Wikipedia, if anywhere. It's being presented here as a standalone theory, with few ties to existing work and claims that it's a significant breakthrough, which makes it look WP:FRINGE. As Neural network puts it, "There are many algorithms for training neural networks; most of them can be viewed as a straightforward application of optimization theory and statistical estimation." --John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is NOT a neural network, this IS a stand alone theory. Could we PLEASE ask an opinion of somebody who IS in the field of Computational Intelligence? This is a model based framework, and neural networks are NOT model based systems. Neural networks consist of neurons (simple processing elements) and weights. NMF system consists of parameterized models, arbitrarily complex. Yes it can be visualized as a neural network but it is not. However, even if it were, not all neural networks are located in one article. For example, Adaptive resonance theory is a neural network architecture that has its own entry. And it is just a type of Neural network. Romanilin (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just thought that the article could use a good illustration, I will add it and hopefully clarify the structure and the difference from the neural network.Romanilin (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I want to make it clear that I am only arguing about the Neural modeling fields article. The other article Logic and the mind is more controversial and since many people object I am OK with deleting it and reworking it later in a different form or as part of another entry as suggested.Romanilin (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the references even says it's a neural network approach: "The main component of the approach is the maximum likelihood adaptive neural system (MLANS), which is a model-based neural network combining the adaptivity of a neural network with the a priori knowledge of signal models. "[21]. "Computational intelligence" is what used to be called "neural networks" or "connectionism". I don't use that stuff much, but I do have a MSCS degree from Stanford, once took "Epistemological Problems in Artificial Intelligence" from McCarthy, hold some patents in the area, and ran a DARPA Grand Challenge team, so I'm reasonably familiar with the field. This stuff just isn't that novel. Model-based systems have been tried before, usually in the field of adaptive model-based control. Many, many schemes for tuning neural nets have been tried. It's hard to tell where this stuff fits, though, because of the nonstandard terminology, the lack of references to related work, and the general weirdness of the material. I'm thinking WP:FRINGE here. For an example of a similar fringe theory, see [22]. We need more on this subject written independently of Perlovsky. --John Nagle (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the author It looks like there are two major objections. Here is my response again to both.
1. "There is not enough support except from the author of the theory"
A. Perlovsky himself is a respected scientist. He wrote a book, many book chapters, hundreds of publications. He received a McLucas Basic Research Award from the US Air Force: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123071858
B. NMF theory is described in his 2001 book. The book has good reviews, see Amazon web site.
C. He wrote several book chapters on NMF
D. There are many publications that describe application of NMF. For example, this paper speaks of 20db (100 times) improvement of tracking in clutter. Ground moving target indication is a difficul problem and the improvement is simply huge. The paper is published in IEEE transactions on neural networks. http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com/perlovsky-TNN06-L487-final2.pdf
E. There are references on the internet to NMF as basis for grants, research proposals etc. For example:
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bneu.pdf
http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/soc/research/ABC/
http://spie.org/x648.xml?product_id=540989
I think this is hard to claim that there is no link to existing work. If people who use NMF know Perlovsky and co-author with him, that is because the neural networks community is not very big and it is a young field. People working with similar technologies usually collaborate. True, there is no separate book not written by Perlovsky on NMF, but this cannot be a criteria for deleting the page, given all the other references. I also don't think that the NMF article is trying to artificially inflate the importance of NMF, it simply describes what it is mathematically/algorithmically and gives the phycological interpretation.
2. "This is just a regular neural network disguised in different terminology"
Yes the word "neural network" is in the refences. However in order to claim that this is nothing new, simple word search is not enough. With all respect to John Nagle, his main area does not seem to be in neural networks. Romanilin (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q: Are you talking about Logic and the mind or Neural modeling fields? This page is for discussing the former. If we don't stick to that topic, it gets much harder for anyone else to follow the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. This is only about Neural modeling fields. Somebody nominated both pages on this discussion, but at this point I am only talking about the second one.
- Delete largely synthetic article on term of very restricted independent interest, inappropriate for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the same question, which of the two articles is this about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, McWomble (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This article is like an essay. Anyway merge whatever content can be salvaged into the artificial intelligence article or some other article. Delaszk (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We already have an article about the proponent of this theory: Leonid Perlovsky. That article is not being considered for deletion. The Logic and the mind article seems to be a WP:FRINGE essay, and I think we have consensus to delete that. The remaining problem is Neural modeling fields. This might deserve a mention in a neural network article. What we have here is a rather turgid technical paper. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Delete it merely because it's a fringe theory? There's a consensus to delete those??? I don't think that's what WP:FRINGE says: It says this:
- This guideline establishes which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how articles about them should approach their subjects.
- It says it's about which ones should be included. It's not about a guideline saying to delete them all. I think it's got to have something to do with notability. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirements are, in a nutshell.
- In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
- Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
- This seems reasonable; we should have articles on Velikovsky or on the New Chronology or on John Cleves Symmes. But I don't see that either of these is satisfied here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many other than Velikovsky and his associates have written about Velikovsky's fringe theories, but few other than Perlovsky and his associates have written about Perlovsky's fringe theories. That's the notability distinction. --John Nagle (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with John Nagle; I apologize for having been unclear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many other than Velikovsky and his associates have written about Velikovsky's fringe theories, but few other than Perlovsky and his associates have written about Perlovsky's fringe theories. That's the notability distinction. --John Nagle (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirements are, in a nutshell.
- Delete. No evidence that this theory is notable. All of the references are either to articles by the theory's originator or to historical writings -- none indicate that that the theory is considered notable by anyone other than Perlovsky. The whole article looks like OR, but if there's anything salvageable, it could be merged to the Leonid Perlovsky article. Klausness (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is NOT fringe. And not OR, the article Neural modeling fields is based on published work. Come on, this is getting ridiculous. Here is definition from wiki: "Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline. Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative or weakly confirmed". There is a book and many publications. Certainly Oxford monograph is sufficient to establish a mainstream. There are many publications in serious journals. US Air Force Basic Research Award is not given for fringe theories, International Neural Networks Society Gabor Award is not given for fringe theories. Look at Perlovsky web site. Not to mention that Computational intelligence is a young field of study, so what we are not going to put anything on the wiki until there is more than one book about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is fundamentally flawed and nothing could be done to make it okay. Statements like "Aristotle invented logic" where the ref is from Aristotle are deeply misleading. Does Perlovsky think Aristotle invented logic or does Aristotle think Aristotle invented logic? The article argues a point (rather feebly if you ask me) but that is not an encyclopedia entry's role. There is too much synthesis and original research here. And it couldn't be otherwise! xschm (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think lots and lots of people think Aristotle invented logic. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the relationship between the claim that Aristotle invented logic and Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind? This article gives a cursory (and wildly incomplete) history of theories of logic. But it doesn't relate them to the subject of the article. It seems like it aims to be an essay arguing that Perlovsky is the apotheosis of this grand tradition. It fails to make a convincing argument and such an argument has no place in an encyclopedia. If that argument exists elsewhere, it could be documented here, but it seems far from clear that is the case. xschm (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be a personal essay of the type described in WP:NOT. The contents are not *about* Perlovsky's theories and how they might have been received by reliable third parties, they *are* Perlovsky's theories. The map should not be the territory, but in this case it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xschm (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment he himself is notable, whether or not mainstream, on the basis of OUP publishing of one of his books. That does not make every one of his theories, or any of them, separately notable. One article is sufficient. most of the material here is unencyclopedic summary and argumentation, so I don't see how there's anything appropriate for merging. This is a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. DGG (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly that. Well said. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. We're not proposing to delete the Leonid Perlovsky article here, just the "spinoff articles". --John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly that. Well said. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Merge with Intelligence. TopGearFreak Talk 16:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think there's consensus for deleting Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind. That's just a badly written history of logic with a link to Perlovsky's stuff at the end. It's still not clear what to do about Neural modeling fields, which is more like a technical paper. If that's kept, it will need a major rewrite, which is going to be a tough job. Maybe trim it down to a brief note on what the subject is about, with a few links to papers, other work, and related neural net articles. --John Nagle (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jihadistan[edit]
- Jihadistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a neologism using descriptions and origins sourced to non-notable website. Article history shows it was nominated for deletion before, but the WP:PROD tag was removed per this talk page entry. Flowanda | Talk 22:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary Is a neologism but a google search shows this word is used so should be in Wiktionary. (Hypnosadist) 02:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, pov neologism. Notably The Patriot Post doesn't have a wikientry of its own. --Soman (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:Neologism. Not used widely enough, and used with different definitions. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Given that the one remaining delete vote was cast under a rationale that no longer applies, this AfD may be safely closed as keep. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McGill Street[edit]
- McGill Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominator's Rationale - This page should just be redirected to McGill Street (Montreal) or vice versa. I just don't see any point in having a disambiguation page with only one blue link. Parthian Scribe 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I have also nominated McGill Street (Montreal) for deletion. I don't believe that it is notable. Regardless of what happens with that, a dab is meant to give readers a choice of articles on ambiguous topics. If there is only one article, it isn't all that ambiguous. MOS:DABRL suggests that one blue link with all red links isn't desired. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Keep (see below) Being from Montreal, I am familiar with the one blue item in this dab page, McGill Street (Montreal) (not to be confused with nearby McGill College Avenue), and I can say that while it is one of the oldest streets in the city, it is not notable to outsiders. Crescent Street it ain't. Incidentally, the McGill Metro Station, the busiest in the whole city, was not named after this street. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. The link from this disambiguation page to McGill Street (Vancouver) is now blue. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Predicting AFD is not our job. For now there are 3 links - 2 ambiguous and 1 possible search term. 23skidoo (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor who nominated this article for deletion wishes to Withdraw the nomination.
Uninvolved editors are asked to review the debate and close it as Nomination Withdrawn.
The other articles, which were formerly red links, have been created. The page isn't completely useless anymore.--Parthian Scribe 03:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was bold redirect to The Sims 2. Nearly all versions of the article were pure vandalism, except the first one. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sims 2(PSP Game)[edit]
- The Sims 2(PSP Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is absolutely no need to have an article on a console variant of a computer video game as it is redundant. If anything, this should be a section of The Sims 2. That way, the information could receive coverage, but at the same time, not be redundant. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Computational intelligence since the 1950s: complexity and logic[edit]
- Computational intelligence since the 1950s: complexity and logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I tried to CSD G12 this but none of the templates would work. This appears to be a copy of one part of the article Toward physics of the mind: Concepts, emotions, consciousness, and symbols . See abstract and index of the article. McWomble (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a copyright permission from the author to publish this material, see OTRS note on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Comment. Probably not a copyvio. Unfortunately OTRS checks can only be done by a handful of Wikipedians, so we have to assume that the ticket is valid. If you think it's not, ask at AN/I for verification. VG ☎ 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked the OTRS ticket and it is in fact valid. Tiptoety talk 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The original source text asserts that copyright is held by Elsevier with all rights reserved. The article is a verbatim copy of a previously published paper. McWomble (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
I don't believe this is a copyvio of a Perlovsky paper.This article is quite poorly written, and everything I have seen by Perlovsky is much better. I am voting "delete" because I believe this is largely OR. At any rate, the writing is so incoherent that it is nearly impossible even for somebody with some expertise in the field to make sense of it. Looie496 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup -- on further investigation, the beginning and end of the article appear to be original, but several paragraphs in the middle are taken nearly verbatim from the Perlovsky paper in question. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looie made me actually read the article. It should be indeed deleted as WP:OR, and frankly it's a bunch of vague statements bordering nonsense. The middle part makes a little sense in that it seems to assert that model checking runs into computational complexity (which is true). But the article is a sequence non-sequitur statements, e.g.: "Combinatorial complexity of algorithms based on logic is related to Gödel theory (Gödel's incompleteness theorems): it is a manifestation of the inconsistency of logic in finite systems". I'm not familiar with Perlovsky's writings, but I see he has a book published by Oxford Univ. Press. No way he writes like this. VG ☎ 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --KurtRaschke (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is copyright permission from Perlovsky to use his work, on which this article is based. There is room for improving this article, as per comments above. However, this does not mean that the subject matter of CC in computational intelligence is not important enough to have an entry in wikipedia. Possibly we could keep it and improve it?Romanilin (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which work? No details were provided at AN/I so far, and the OTRS notice from the talk page links to the main page of his site, but that's a list of topics he worked on. If you think we can copy & paste all his papers or something like that, I have bad news for you: he transferred copyright to various publishers — a necessary evil in academia.
- In any case, since you created this article, can you explain what this article is supposed to be about? VG ☎ 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is really just a plug for dynamic logic (neural), which is a link to Leonid Perlovsky. It's effectively a POV fork. We already have Computational complexity theory, which is a much better article on the same general topic. Also see Bayesian inference, which is how many intractable problems in AI are addressed today. --John Nagle (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment on copyright Elsevier will give the author of an article they publish permission to use the article in a later publication of his. That they would interpret this as letting him make the article GFDL is about as unlikely as anything is ever likely to get in scientific publishing. DGG (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afrim Mziu[edit]
- Afrim Mziu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Played in Kosovar Superliga nor Swedish Division 3 (fifth level) cannot prove he is a professional footballer. Matthew_hk tc 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 14:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC) GiantSnowman 14:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per rationale provided.--ClubOranjeTalk 01:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Swedish Division 3 is not a fully professional league (only the Allsvenskan is), and I don't believe the Kosovo Superliga is neither. Therefore, he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr!)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nine Lives (NCIS)[edit]
- Nine Lives (NCIS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Composed entirely of plot summary and very poorly written at that. McWomble (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing notability per WP:PLOT. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and let someone interested rewrite it from scratch if its notable enough This, for once, is an article to which "in-universe" really applies. DGG (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep content is rewritten and links and references are being added. Wooter79 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It still consists entirely of plot summary. This is not encyclopedic. McWomble (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nor are any of the other written up episodes. Why not delete them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.14.150 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (G12) by Bkell. Blatant copyright infringement. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exchange of Futures for Swaps[edit]
- Exchange of Futures for Swaps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ghits suggests the subject is somewhat notable but this is a personal essay and howtolike. McWomble (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor who nominated this article for deletion wishes to Withdraw the nomination.
Uninvolved editors are asked to review the debate and close it as Nomination Withdrawn.
Renominated for speedy as blatant copyvio. Thanks, McWomble (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep. Nomination lacks any articulated substantial reason for deletion. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D.A.V. Public School, Thane[edit]
- D.A.V. Public School, Thane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable school. McWomble (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Without going into any discussion, how did you evaluate this school to be non-notable? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This nomination must surely be in error. The article was nominated for deletion within minutes of being created. A few quick Google searches establishes that this is a respected private school in India which caters for children of all ages from nursery right through to about age 18. Dahliarose (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The school is notable I believe, at the very least it teaches up to the high school level and high schools are generally notable. And this school does more than that and is overall well known. --Banime (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I should also like to hear from the nominator how the processes in WP:BEFORE were carried out in less than two minutes bearing in mind that that time also included preparing the AFD? Not only is this a notable school, that includes a grade 12 high school, but there are plenty of sources to meet WP:N and a clear claim to notability in hosting an international science fair. TerriersFan (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hangon: Don't delete articles that soon after creation if there's any reasonable chance of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an open and shut case and I hope some admin closes it early. Let's not waste any further resources debating on this because, clearly the nominator has erred this time by not giving a sufficient reason why this is non-notable. I'm still waiting for him/her to outline the reasons why it is not notable. Just for the record, the school is notable – I'll list the reasons should anyone yell "Not Notable". =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator of the article is a six-day old wikipedian.Salih (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. First edit was made in February this year. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese Guyanese[edit]
- Japanese Guyanese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A population of two individuals is not likely to be notable. (I also note with amusement that the article claims these two individuals follow three different religions.) Title is a neologism. I can google up no evidence that any scholars or journalists have written about this "group" of people, or for that matter either one of them individually, in a non-trivial fashion. Deprodded by creator without any attempt at improvement [23]. cab (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: article was missing AfD tag for roughly 40 hours due to vandalism by the creator. I have restored the tags. [24] cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't call it "vandalism" when people remove AfD tags from articles :( You should do that only when you are totally sure that they are doing it on bad faith. Many unexperienced editors don't know that they can't remove the tag. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I am no longer assuming good faith for this user, whose edits have repeatedly shown no respect for the basic, universal principle of an encyclopedia: that it should contain facts (not known falsehoods, inventions out of thin air, or other statements you can't possible know are true or not). Deliberate obstruction of efforts by legitimate editors to apply this principle is the precise definition of vandalism. cab (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't call it "vandalism" when people remove AfD tags from articles :( You should do that only when you are totally sure that they are doing it on bad faith. Many unexperienced editors don't know that they can't remove the tag. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: article was missing AfD tag for roughly 40 hours due to vandalism by the creator. I have restored the tags. [24] cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete and I bet you several others are space-filler cruft too. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, two persons is not a community. Note that the number two refers to Japanese citizens in Guyana, not necessarily permanent residents. Interestingly the creator of the article has listed three separate religions for these two individuals. --Soman (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Buddhism and Shintoism are not mutually exclusive to the Japanese, and one can be a practitioner of both at the same time, which would make one of the two individuals from the article a Roman Catholic, and the other a Buddhist/Shintoist. That aside, this article truly isn't very needed, and two people are hardly a diaspora.Delete. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or more likely, the creator of this article just made this up in order to have something to fill into the infobox, which breaks if you don't give it the "religions" parameter. For all we know, those two might actually be Mormons on their overseas mission trip, or married Guyanese Muslims and converted to Islam, or whatever. The source certainly doesn't mention any information about their religion, or where they live, or what languages they speak. cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as how the source says nothing of the two people's religion, any of the above could be the case, yes. I was just trying to show how you could fit the three religions onto two persons.TomorrowTime (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or more likely, the creator of this article just made this up in order to have something to fill into the infobox, which breaks if you don't give it the "religions" parameter. For all we know, those two might actually be Mormons on their overseas mission trip, or married Guyanese Muslims and converted to Islam, or whatever. The source certainly doesn't mention any information about their religion, or where they live, or what languages they speak. cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Buddhism and Shintoism are not mutually exclusive to the Japanese, and one can be a practitioner of both at the same time, which would make one of the two individuals from the article a Roman Catholic, and the other a Buddhist/Shintoist. That aside, this article truly isn't very needed, and two people are hardly a diaspora.Delete. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following thread segment has been copied to Talk:Japanese diaspora and Template talk:Japanese diaspora -- consensus clarification needed? --Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Unlike this article, the corollary articles focus on Issei, Nisei and Sansei whose citizenship has changed, e.g., Japanese Brazilians, Japanese Americans, Japanese Canadians, etc. Even if the number of Japanese expatriates in Guyana were larger, I'd guess that the rationale for for deleting this article and deleting it from Template:Japanese diaspora would seem credible and persuasive? --Tenmei (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not credible to me. Expatriates like Japanese people in Hong Kong or de:Japaner in Düsseldorf are notable article topics, regardless if they don't fit Japanese American/Japanese Brazilian-centric conceptions of what defines "Japanese diaspora". (And of course, no one calls them by ridiculous names like "Japanese Chinese" or "Japanese Germans" even if they take up local citizenship --- except Wikipedia users going around inventing titles to fill up templates, without bothering to do any actual reading or research on them.) cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had understood Nikkei as a congnate for Japanese diaspora; and I construed the differences found in Template:Japanese diaspora as mere anomalies. CaliforniaAliBaba's comment causes me to think that this minor issue may need consensus clarification? In WP:V terms, I note that this article' sole reference citation is a MOFA web page; and in that context, it becomes relevant that in the case of other countries, Nikkei are statistically described separately from Japanese citizens living and working abroad, e.g., Japanese and ethnic Japanese in Mexico. My view is partly informed by the approach MOFA adopted in parsing the data; but, of course, I recognize this may be disregarded in our context. The narrow issue at hand is Japanese Guyanese which may be re-introduced in future; but even in the fuzzy logic terms in which Japanese people in Hong Kong might be stretched to imply a future Japanese people in Guyana, the AfD consensus for today seems best. --Tenmei (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enchant of Hope[edit]
- Enchant of Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable online personality. Cited sources and the 4 Ghits are all primary and self published. McWomble (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, vanity article, fails WP:BIO. WWGB (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But HE IS THE VOICE OF GAY RIGHTS IN PAKISTAN and WE MUST KEEP THIS PERSON'S INFORMATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.190.142 (talk • contribs) 16:10 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: preceding comment moved • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anatomy Trains[edit]
- Anatomy Trains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Recreation of previously speedied article. Unsourced and near ureadable. McWomble (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - incomprehensible. Deb (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not quite patent nonsense; the idea seems to be very similar to the concept of meridians in fields like acupuncture. It is, however, non-notable and OR, so out with it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable neologism/quackery. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like self-promotion. This is one person's idea, not accepted in the wider AltMed community, and not adequately documented. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original take on acupuncture. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Graveside Tales[edit]
- Graveside Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Small publishing company, so far without notable book releases that I can find. No significant coverage, fails WP:CORP. Also has WP:COI issues. AmaltheaTalk 11:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Give it a few years and we'll see. Jeremiah (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article now has a reference with coverage of the publishing house. It also now says though that they have published a total of four books. --AmaltheaTalk 20:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G1 and WP:IAR. At best this lives in user space. Not that this is a reason to recreate it there. Pedro : Chat 12:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Loop Game[edit]
- The Loop Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This seems to have been made up by the users in question, the rules are hard to follow (I don't think they work - I've tried the "philosophy loop") and it seems most definitely non-notable. BananaFiend (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: made up. Not notable. Nobody else played that game. Alexius08 (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:MADEUP. McWomble (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Adams (inventor)[edit]
- Richard Adams (inventor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. Biography of an "inventor" written by an associate who interviewed the subject with the express purpose of getting material for a Wikipedia article. The claims of notability are not backed up by the cited sources, the first one for example does not even mention Richard, the second verifies that he did a student project but in no way supports the claim that he was the first "to build and publicly demonstrate" such a device, the third again does not mention him at all, the fourth is a trivial mention of the same student project, and the last is self-published. Independently I have been unable to locate any reliable sources to verify the claims which probably explains the paucity of references in the article. All adds up to an failure to meet the requirements of the notability guidelines for biographies. Nancy talk 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Computers
- Delete: Without hesitation as someone who proposed {{prod}} of this article for basically the same reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That issue has been addressed by a neutral 3rd party. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP
Mergeto the soon-to-be-sourced Happy Computers.as further notability has beed added and sourced. The man was a major part of a historical time in the development of home computer technologies. Because of he and his peers, we have home computers. And COI of the original author aside, the article now belongs to to wiki,and if it can be sourced and made encuclopdic,it would be welcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge and redirect to Happy Computers. He's only really covered in one reference, too weak for a separate article, but the other references will improve the article on Happy Computers (products). VG ☎ 20:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That issue has been addressed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is still early days for this article and there is lots of scope to improve it per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As an educated electrical engineer myself, to me, this person seems obviously notable. Also a COI Hazard is flag that makes one use a lot more scrutiny in the evalution process; I believe it alone cannot be a reason to delete. And in this particular case, I contend my belief holds. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am the originator of the page, and have done a major re-write to it. I have addressed the previous concerns in its talk page and would appreciate another evaluation. Eggzactly (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Naickamparambil[edit]
- Thomas Naickamparambil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to fail WP:PROF. VG ☎ 11:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF for the moment. A single published book (based on his dissertation) that is not particularly widely held by libraries[25] or widely reviewed. Nsk92 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:NOTE. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. GS search [26] shows no citations to his work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; unsourced but for one self-published biographical note. SunDragon34 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Non-notable. Springnuts (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep A professor at a theological school. one work mentioned, and it wuld be hard to verify if there are others. This is the sort of article which would obviously not be kept for a mainstream western academic. But given the problems of cultural bias, both with the very obscure Christian sect, and the nationality, and the lack of good sources for verifying Indian publications, I'd be prepared to stretch the tolerance. DGG (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PROF by a mile or so. RayAYang (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete unless further publicatons can be found. It is not clear to me whether the one listed is a book or merely a chapter in one; if only the latter, certainly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a book - 291pp and there is a preview on Google Books. The title makes it sound like a ref to a chapter in a book, but it is in fact a whole book - perhaps a bookified doctoral thesis. Springnuts (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pontifical Gregorian Univerity, the biggest Pontifical University publishes only very selected doctoral thesis of its students. Naickamparambil's thesis was published by the Univesity. The official website of the University gives an introduction to this work as follows, "This study outlines the process of personally appropriating the cognitional dynamism of human consciousness, inquires into the foundational character of this exercise in Lonergan and draws out its important implications for contemporary thought and life. The exercise of self-appropriation is shown to shape one's philosophical convictions, to provide the basic principles of one's personal authenticity and development and to equip the human subject with the basic directives for a creative, collaborative and methodical search for truth." [27].Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet there is no evidence (i.e. none provided so far) that his work has had an impact on other scholars. Have you even read WP:PROF? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inlite[edit]
- Inlite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable band. Only claim to notability is winning a minor competition. lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC ....unless the HSBC Arena Award is the new name for a Grammy? Nouse4aname (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Close, but no banana. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article have an importance. The music group too. I don't see serious reasons for deletion
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I admit, the page could have more sources, but it isn't really fair to call it unimportant, especially when you see some of the articles here. Dr.Kermit (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per this source. I am fine with one reliable source that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - they look to be an up and coming band, but the coverage at present puts them below the bar for notability -- Whpq (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (G3) by Pegasus for pure vandalism. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barabanit Cola[edit]
- Barabanit Cola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. No google hits. AlwaysOnion (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In cyrillic, it's probably барабанить Кола or something like that - I'm having a hard time tracking much down, not knowing Russian. WilyD 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can a little bit russian and Barabanit means rain. AlwaysOnion (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Deletion The user who have created the page is blocked as a vandalism-only account AlwaysOnion (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eugepae[edit]
- Eugepae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Proposed for deletion by me with the reason: "The word eugepae does exist in Latin [28], but there is no evidence that is used at the end of a proof. None of the sources mentions the word eugepae. The Latin interwiki link points to la:Vicipaedia:Ioci = Wikipedia:Jokes." (the interwiki link has since been removed).
Reviewed by User:Uncle G who wrote "It's a complete falsehood from beginning to end. The sources don't bear out the content in any way, and there are no sources to support this. The word is a Greek loanword into Latin, but the etymology given here is not supported by what the sources actually say, either. This is a hoax."
However, the prod template was removed by User:Canaryinthebathtub in his/her first and only edit, with the summary "I have deleted the deletion warning, as the contents of this page is completely accurate."
I don't think I need to add anything to this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now restored the link to the Latin Vicipaedia's joke page la:Vicipaedia:Ioci. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, you can read about this category of loanwords, and how Terence uses them far less frequently than Plautus, on page 22 of ISBN 0521458714. The source, as do several others, says that this comes from the Greek interjection ευ, not from Latin as the hoaxers who wrote, expanded, and defended this article would have us believe. (But don't think that such sources support having a discussion of Latin words of Greek origin under this title.) If you go back to the first version of this article, you'll see the claim that people "slowly acquired the knowledge of how to reproduce". The hoaxers want you to believe that at one point humans didn't know how to reproduce. This is a blatant hoax from top to bottom, and from its creation until now. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delenda est. Utter rubbish from beginning to end. None of the references given actually demonstrate this "common usage", of course. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax by kids with too much time on their hands. Deor (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Nicely done hoax, but any hoax is vandalism. I knew the Catullus reference was bogus on sight, and the other references do not check out either. FWIW, eugepae is a Latin borrowing of a Greek interjection, not a native Latin word. I am not sure the actual word is notable enough to support an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
George Karakunnel[edit]
- George Karakunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another entry in the walled garden that a few of us seem to have stumbled across that just keeps growing. Fails WP:NOTE, a run of the mill (no offense intended) priest/academic of the type we don't write articles about. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is shown through References. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was explained to you in another AFD - WP:NOTE is clear about this, notability would be shown by *other* people write about him NOT what he has written himself. You have not demonstrated notability in that article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Kuzhinapurath. VG ☎ 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, notability is not asserted, nor demonstrated, nor available in external sources.Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep notability is not perfectly demonstrated but seems to be appropriate. No problems, better to err on the side of caution. WilyD 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it demonstrated? notability is demonstrated by what other people write about you, not what you write yourself. What in that article demonstrates notability as outlined in WP:NOTE please be specific. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Deletewith a question. There is one footnote [this one] that appears to be a secondary source giving non-trivial coverage on this individual, but I'm unfamiliar with this particular source (i.e. widely read peer-reviewed vs blog or self-published website). Even if the former this article doesn't pass the "multiple" requirement of notability, but would at least give evidence that sources are perhaps out there. -Markeer 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hum - dunno is the answer - I *think* it's self-published but that's a guess on my part since most of the content is in a language I cannot speak or read. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is decided that this is not a self-published website, it ought to be clear that this is not even close to meeting the standard of WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hum - dunno is the answer - I *think* it's self-published but that's a guess on my part since most of the content is in a language I cannot speak or read. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fr. George Karakunnel is handling the Systematic Theology department of Syro-Malabar Church's Doctrine Commission. Ref. [29]Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WeakKeep at least for now, or until the source mentioned by Markeer is proved self-published. I'd say that along with the teaching position would be enough for a small claim to notability. --Banime (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I specifically linked that citation because it's a potential candidate, but please keep in mind that the teaching position announcement is NOT a viable argument for a notability keep. Every corporation and university in the world releases announcements about their staff changes to the press and some periodicals publish them, but those sort of reports are why notability guidelines refer to "non-trivial" coverage. The linked citation is an article specifically about the subject with some detail, so barring evidence of self-publishing it's viable, but it still only makes for one citation, and therefore fails notability.
- If we can see one more hard citation I'm willing to change my "vote" above, but until then I at least would still suggest a delete for the time being. -Markeer 17:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, I just would rather err on the side of caution especially with a teacher in India. That one source you mentioned could potentially be some good non-trivial coverage and I'd like to hope that that means more could be found. Unfortunately it's hard for us to determine how notable the subject is in India without knowing the language and so forth. I'd rather keep until all possibilities are exhausted for finding claims to notability. If that article proves self-published then perhaps I'll change though. --Banime (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can see one more hard citation I'm willing to change my "vote" above, but until then I at least would still suggest a delete for the time being. -Markeer 17:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think he doesn't quite pass WP:PROF. The somewhat remarkable achievements seem to be:- former membership in International Theological Commission in Vatican. The commission seems to have only 30 members, so it's quite selective.
But the only verification of this info (on the web) is related to the individual in question http://www.kothamangalamdiocese.org/php/parish_appointments_list.php?action=search&category=priest_reg_id&txt=208&sel=bio_data&name=Rev.+Fr.++Karakunnel+[Pulparambil]+George (sorry link has brackets). - the Bishop Jerome Award (0 ghist outside this article) and KCBC Media Award (5 ghits total) seem utterly obscure.
- former membership in International Theological Commission in Vatican. The commission seems to have only 30 members, so it's quite selective.
Overall, I'm still not convinced. VG ☎ 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The wayback machine verifies his former membership in the ITC.[30]. He is also a member of the Pontificia Accademia di Teologia [31].John Z (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per sources found by John Z, Karakunnel clearly passes WP:PROF as theologian. VG ☎ 19:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm surprised & pleased to find such sourcing--I wouldn't have had the patience. DGG (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Until VG zeroed in on the possibilities for notability in the article, it didn't look like a keeper to me, so thanks are due him.John Z (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- An academic theologian, perhaps only of minor notabillity, but not a nonentity. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep scrapes in for his membership up to six years ago of the ITC (under an alternative spelling of his name as Karakkunnel (not Karakunnel)). Springnuts (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. Per sources found by John Z. --Jacob.jose (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Street Fighter V[edit]
- Street Fighter V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, non-verifiable pirate game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, and unsourced, pirate game (if such a pirate game event exists). TJ Spyke 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pirate and fan-made games lacks notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notability as well as verifiable sources proving it. MuZemike (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone, really. JuJube (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the Street Fighter article. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Terminate Not notable.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pirate games are (at least in theory) a hair more notable than fangames, but still not usually notable enough for an article, nor are reliable sources likely to exist. Suggest a redirect to Street Fighter II V after deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:HEY, WP:GNG and near-unanimity among respondents. Non-admin closure by the skomorokh 16:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Military Institute[edit]
- Southern Military Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a proposed military academy that never got built. Proposals and fundraising began in 1997 and nothing has come of it yet. There were a few articles written about it in 2003 when it seemed like it might actually move forward, but there was also a suggestion that it was a front for raising money for the neo-confederate movement. This is the only reliable source still available and it's rather speculative, talking about plans that have never been implemented.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33793] I suggest that we delete the article until the school becomes more than just a pipe dream or a promotional tool. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball into the fantasy world in which the school was actually built. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references still exist in print, even though most may no longer be available on the Internet, so it passes the general notability guideline. Even if the institution never admits a student, the attempts to create it are themselves notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC) And there are plenty of other references in reliable sources available at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think its shown there was national interest in this. And there should be yet further sources--I remember it was widely discussed at the time in the relevant specialist publications. Once notable, always,and even a proposal can be notable. DGG (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One case where it doesn't matter if the school gets built or not; the circumstances around its origins and ongoing controversy are well sourced to NYT articles and others still available on a news search. Flowanda | Talk
- Keep This may not be notable as a school (because it isn't a school, at least not yet), but the sources establish its notability as a real or alleged racist, sexist, and/or neoconfederate initiative. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as there is nothing puny about this article's claim to notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of the heaviest people[edit]
- List of the heaviest people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Arbitrary list which has no encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, all of these people even have their own article. This list is a way of organising and navigating the wiki. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Reinoutr. How is this arbitrary? Even I, a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist, find nothing wrong with this. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; Despite the pitfall of WP:USEFUL, I'd say this is still a pretty useful list and don't find it arbitrary in the least; this is a good way of collecting those related biogs together. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you'd be able to navigate between them. If all the references were redlinks then there might be cause to doubt inclusion, but this is a well-sourced, informative collection. onebravemonkey 09:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Impossible to call it "arbitrary". Guiness Book o' World records prints up this list, for instance, so it's easy enough to source and show notability. WilyD 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep List standards mandate that lists have well-defined criteria for inclusion, that they be neutral in their subject matter, and that they not be obscure minglings of two ideas — no "List of people named Henry Bakersfield who have eaten ten eggs in two seconds", for example. While the people on this list might be unhappy that they are so heavy, the listing is neutral anyway; the criteria are quite obvious, and it's not at all a ridiculous merging of topics. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Renoutr. —BlackTerror (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How is this list any different than any other lists in Wikipedia? I believe there is a list of the North America's tallest structures, where I also believe that a television tower is included in that list. What makes that television tower notable above all the other television towers? It's height does, just like these people's weight makes them notable in the same perspective. I guess the one difference is that a person may lose weight and no longer be notable, but then towers and buildings collapse and are taken down, so they too can be removed from lists. However, those structures are generally footnoted in those lists (i.e. World Trade Centers) because their removal from those lists usually occur because of a notable event. Then too, those who have made this list and for some reason or another no longer meet the criteria to be included here, would have almost had a notable event happen in their lives such as extreme weight loss or death due to severe obesity related complications, both events that normally don't happen to the average individual. Is this a case of disgust because this list contains the names of morbidly obese individuals? 67.224.23.92 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) anonymous[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terry Marsden[edit]
- Terry Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability not established. No sources of any kind provided. Google turns up absolutely no hits regarding her. Only thing close is in the Pat Marsden Wikipedia article, which mentions widow "Terryanne" (no Google hits on that, either). Totally unable to independently verify this information. Marriage to Pat Marsden is insufficient by itself for notability. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can see why the speedy was declined, as the article does assert notability ("award-winning journalist"). But I can find no ghits, there's nothing on the CTV website about her, and she's not listed even in our own article CFTO-TV as a past presenter. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Karenjc 12:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Are we even sure this isn't a hoax? There's no hits at all for "Terry Marsden" +Toronto ...which is shocking as I can't imagine anyone hosting a show in a major metropolitan area like that and not have any web presence to speak of. The Terry Marsden with a Google presence is this one, an expert on rural development with numerous publications. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, we're not sure. I suspect a hoax, too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Egoboo (computer game)[edit]
- Egoboo (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article has failed to provide verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability of this game (see WP:VG/S). In addition, I do not believe that any of the sources provided are the least reliable in establishing said notability of this game. MuZemike (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There is one in-depth review already linked from the article [32]. I have certain doubts about the venue, but it's part of O'Reilly sites, and the author of the review [33] is not a blogger. Free games just don't get reviewed by Gamespot; there are no FOSS publishers to pay for the flashy adds... VG ☎ 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per VG's rationale. O'Reilly is an impeccable RS, and the coverage is clearly non-trivial. Article still needs cleanup, of course. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Initially it was to be delete as I was struggling to find another review, but this one already mentioned is by an experienced journalist, and this blog review is posted by a writer who contributes to Game Set Watch (Gamasutra), so that makes two reliable reviews, as well as some interviews for development info. Just needs the relevant pieces citing and the game database entries removing. Someoneanother 05:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Jclemens and Someone another. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per VG's explanation LegoKontribsTalkM 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Sounds good to me. Withdrawn. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Techniques of Shaman King[edit]
- Techniques of Shaman King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely unnotable fictional "combat techniques" used in the Shaman King series. Completely fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as being a manual for the game, as well as being written from an in universe because it is clearly not notable enough. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can this be a manual for a game when Shaman King is not a game? Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Shaman King has been adapted into a large number of games. That being said, a quick look over the article doesn't suggest to me that it's a game guide. —Dinoguy1000 21:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can this be a manual for a game when Shaman King is not a game? Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chile Hot 100[edit]
- Chile Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet another chart that appears to assert its own notability without showing it. Judging by the official page, it's basically all original research. Nowhere on the Wikipedia page does it show who considers it to be official. Judging by Google, no one does. "Chile Top Hot 100" and "Hot 100 Chile" show only pages that mirror Wikipedia, while searching for "Top 100 Chile" shows another chart (once hosted on Geocities) that, although having almost the same songs, has them in a different order, so there's an obvious conflict there. Violates WP:N, WP:V...who knows what else. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I forgot to mention, it's hosted on a blog, which is apparently the main/official site. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If, as the article says, it is considered (although, never announced) to be the Official Singles Chart in Chile, it isn't, really, sorry. Also doubtful that any organization would ever host such important information on Blogspot, ever. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails notability. Fails reliable sources. XF Law talk at me 06:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unofficial chart, fails RS test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Note how the chart is hosted on BlogSpot. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 18:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Robotech vehicles. MBisanz talk 03:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclone (Robotech)[edit]
- Cyclone (Robotech) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Exactly as TTN said this is plot summary and original research. The only references are from Robotech.com It's just a fictional item with no notability outside the Robotech world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/create to a list of Robotech vehicles 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per 70.55.200.131. Edward321 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And why such a list would be useful and notable? According to WP:WAF: Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into new list of Robotech Equipment/Mecha. The equipment/mecha of the series/manga Robotech do have significant third part coverage, and the cyclone in particular (http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=robotech+mecha&ie=UTF-8), and in general (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=robotech+mecha&ie=UTF-8), so I do recommend a complete list made, but not singular articles for each. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial merge. A lot of this stuff is too trivial/non-notable to be worth including anywhere in Wikipedia. That which is notable should be merged elsewhere as it certainly does not deserve its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) the skomorokh 16:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antoine Cassar[edit]
- Antoine Cassar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person; no good references. Appears to be just some guy. Brokethebank (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - his book of poems has been reviewed in several independent fora. Appears to meet notability requirements. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: His poems have been reviewed. In this case, notability is inherited per WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Oath (album)[edit]
- Blood Oath (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article in short, is a blatant crystal ball. A page that contains only information that easily (so far) could be included in the band's main article. That is all. Cannibaloki 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with nom. When this album is release, the article can be recreated. There is already mention of the album on the bands article but lacking further information, the album itself does not stand on its own for a separate article...yet WP:CRYSTAL. JavierMC 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL, no sources yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above: not enough for a separate article yet. Cliff smith talk 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. AlwaysOnion (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Keep. This group is well-known for rather many people, and it isn't necessary to delete and then recreate this article. --X093i (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NM, lacks substantial coverage. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThis album has been confirmed and is only missing information because not much is known about it. It's going to be an article in the future anyways so why bother deleting it? And this is NOT a 'crystal ball'. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)TheSickBehemoth[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theme from Punky Brewster (Every Time I Turn Around)[edit]
- Theme from Punky Brewster (Every Time I Turn Around) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod was removed by anonymous IP mass removing prod tags. Magioladitis (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clear-cut failure of WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Punky Brewster as the TV series article discusses the theme song. The song itself falls short of WP:SONG, but the title is a viable search term for a redirect. Shortened versions of the title should also be retargeted to the TV series article. B.Wind (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs I agree with Otto4711, no one in their right mind is going to type in that title. All that needs to be mentioned about the song is already in the Punky Brewster article. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, implausible redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. whether or not to move/merge is editorial, tehere is no consensus to delete here. TravellingCari 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lansing Family[edit]
- Lansing Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails any notability, it has not real world information, it's just a list of members of a fictional family. Orphan as well. Prod was rejected by anonymous IP account. Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For whoever closes this, I moved the page to Lansing family as I don't see a need for "familiy" to be capitalized.--Rockfang (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both versions to List of General Hospital characters#L.B.Wind (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article doesn't contain any information than just some names of fictional characters and fails notability as well. -- nips (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this is an excellent way to organize the characters from notable fictions. Organizational questions like this are not questions for afd--they'rejust questions of how to write up the material. I'd suggest taking the opportunity of having this, to merge in some of the characters. And then do likewqise more generally. DGG (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia, not a TV magazine, and I see not even 1 encyclopaedic sentence in the whole "article". Could you imagine it in Britannica? I'd also just leave a redirect to List of General Hospital characters#L.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - General hospital is a huge, notable subject. While the above talks about the need to be an encyclopaedia, let's not forget that The Soap Opera Encyclopedia is also an encyclopaedia; we strive to be the best encyclopaedia we can be, not merely a fairly useless general purpose encyclopaedia. WilyD 12:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see what's in here that's not already in List_of_General_Hospital_characters. This article is just a short sublist. VG ☎ 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per DGG and and Wily. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm all for fiction on Wikipedia, but there's so little context to be had here. Wizardman 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calamine (band)[edit]
- Calamine (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. I searched for information on Calamine, Calamine and Stepanek (the main singer), and Calamine and Sealab (claim to fame) and only found this. Their website lists no reliable sources. There is little written information on them that could be used in the article and there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources exist. I can't seem to verify that they did the theme to Sealab 2021 outside of 8 bazillion lyrics sites (why do those even turn up when I tell Google not to search for lyrics?). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the information is questionalbe and I cannot find it anywhere else except for the fact that the band did the Sealab theme song. It is in the show's credits as well as talked about in the commentaryCleanYEAH (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like another unsigned band of thousands, with nothing to confer notability. No sources.Brokethebank (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits. MBisanz talk 17:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GGF-001 Phoenix Gundam[edit]
- GGF-001 Phoenix Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable outside the series, no 3rd party refs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series. --Farix (Talk) 13:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Farix. Edward321 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one of the 3 lists from Category:Gundam_Mobile_Suits. I'm not familiar with this topic enough to say into which list precisely. VG ☎ 14:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo Leonardo Returns and Dante Has an Important Decision to Make[edit]
- Leonardo Leonardo Returns and Dante Has an Important Decision to Make (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
These episodes do not assert any sort of notability independent of the series. They have some very trivial production notes from DVD commentary, but those have nothing to do with establishing notability independent from the series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, there is no reason to have details on them outside of the main article. TTN (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages:
- A Dissertation on the American Justice System by People Who Have Never Been Inside a Courtroom, Let Alone Know Anything About the Law, but Have Seen Way Too Many Legal Thrillers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Clerks: The Animated Series episode five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Leonardo Is Caught in the Grip of an Outbreak of Randal's Imagination and Patrick Swayze Either Does or Doesn't Work in the New Pet Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Clipshow Wherein Dante and Randal Are Locked in the Freezer and Remember Some of the Great Moments in Their Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Last Episode Ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete Ever see Scanners? That's how my head feels after reading these.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 22:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The series was fairly low-level, don't think having each episode getting it's own article is in any way required. treelo radda 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Destroy them all! — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete maybe redirect to a List of Clerks episodes... maybe? My brain hurts. JuJube (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the sourced commentary production notes of "The Last Episode Ever" and "A Dissertation on the American Justice System..." to the main article, delete/merge/redirect the other articles for lack of demonstrated notability. – sgeureka t•c 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and/or merge to Clerks: The Animated Series, like the WP:EPISODE guideline tells us we should do. Why are editors ignoring that guideline's admonition to "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research"? The fact that these episodes are all available on DVD with commentary shows that information in these articles is not "completely unverifiable", even if all the "original research" is trimmed out. DHowell (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything referenced, per above. Delete others, but allow creation of reidrects for those that are viable.Yobmod (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Clerks: The Animated Series. Goes for all episodes of the series as far as I am concerned. Please realize that merge and delete variations are not possible due to GFDL compliance with attributing authorship. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These wouldn't be useful redirects at all (considering that the episode titles are very, very long and are unlikely search terms. the show is certainly notable, however everything that can be said about each episode is already in the episode list table in the article for the show. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom and find that redirects will not be useful.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Mara Salvatrucha. MBisanz talk 17:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brenda Paz[edit]
- Brenda Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
fails WP:BIO, notable for only a single event Otto4711 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Mara Salvatrucha. Though the article is referenced by two news sources, person does not appear notable beyond the fact that she was murdered by MS-13. Per WP:ONEEVENT, she does not warrant her own article.--Boffob (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Mara Salvatrucha. Agree, this is one-event. Brokethebank (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, barely notable for a single event. JBsupreme (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Mara Salvatrucha per Boffob as BIO1E. RS attention comes from her murder. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wut U Talkin Bout[edit]
- Wut U Talkin Bout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable single, hasn't charted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete strong lack of notability Ijanderson (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Social interaction in MMORPGs[edit]
- Social interaction in MMORPGs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I have attempted to cleanup the article, however it seems most of it may be plagarism from a variety of sources. I removed a section entiled "Bibliography" because it was a copy and paste of executive summaries from articles. There are many quotes, and language which appears without citations. About 90% of the article was created in 1 edit, I think it might an assignment for a class. I am not sure if ALL the article is plagiarized because a few of the sources require an account to view. However a few sections, for example the "Anonymity" part, is plagiarized from Lisa Nakamura. Not sure how much is worth saving, but the 'History section' if original should be merged to the relevant article. Fixed, 5 June 2024
Article was nominated for AFD before -- $user log (Talk) @ 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Weak keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Reads like an essay, and bad one too. The references aren't about the main topic, and despite the previous AfD, I don't see a significant improvement since the initial version (besides some formatting). If it's not plagiarized, then it's definitely WP:OR. If the source(s) of the plagiarism can be identified, the articles should be rewritten, but in user space. We cannot allow copyvios to stand in article space for months. VG ☎ 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, please keep for a few days rather than speedy, to give me a chance to clean it up.:) There are a lot of refs, some academic, mentioned. I think it could be worth its own article. Sticky Parkin 21:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to copyvio. Certainly, making a new article on the subject is reasonable, but we cannot keep copyvio. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, somewhat rewritten and problematic content removed- all checked for copyvio etc and I don't think any remains. In fact I think the charts etc which were from a blog, were from a blog by the article's creator himself- the epitome of WP:OR. So not really plagiarism as it was all his own work:) Anyway, all fixed now and it only remains to improve the article even more:) It looks a bit bare for having had stuff removed, but should soon be ok. Sticky Parkin 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as improved (and sourced for that matter). Hobit (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Sticky Parkin's work. -- Banjeboi 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment note that the nominator wishes to withdraw his nom, but like most of us, doesn't know how:) [34] Sticky Parkin 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY (I've always wanted to have a chance to cite that essay...). References have been provided, and the concerns about original research seem to have been addressed; while there will always be room for expansion and/or cleanup, this article as it is meets all our inclusion guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely worth keeping as it meets our core standards, but you may want to consider merging this to Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game#Social_Interaction just as a matter of organization. It would certainly fit nicely, and meet our WP:SIZE guidelines. Randomran (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's better addressed as a separate article and gone into in more depth, as there've been hundreds of scholarly studies, [35] news stories, [36] and books [37] that mention it or are about it. It just remains for people to invest some time working on it. I really should get round to it, not that I've ever played a self-confessed MMORPG, but I've heard wikipedia is a MMORPG.:) Sticky Parkin 03:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was AfD withdrawn Shii (tock) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5[edit]
- The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As far as I can tell this is a fansite that, according to another uncredentialed fansite, was once mentioned by the object of the fandom on USENET twelve years ago. Mysterious "further reading" articles suggest that this website might be used by fans; there is no claim in this article that it is useful for non-fans, nor any sort of information that is relevant to non-fans. Shii (tock) 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: Google searches suggest a week keep in my view: SciFi Network review, linked right below the Wikipedia entry on Google Directories , used as a source in the Wikipedia article, plus has some apparent reliable sources in the article here. Probably meets criteria one of Wikipedia:Notability_(web) is met. Points listed under the legacy also suggest notability in my mind, but they're unsourced. Nominator, however, has some valid concerns. Fraud talk to me 02:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that Babylon 5 fans will find this website very useful; maybe we could link it at the bottom of the Babylon 5 article, just like how we link fallacyfiles.org at the bottom of the Fallacy article. For it to merit its own article, though, it needs more general references than the B5 pages on SciFi.com and DMOZ. Shii (tock) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has them. This subject is covered in books. It's glaringly apparent from your nomination that you haven't looked at even one of the books cited, because what you claim they say is nowhere near what the books actually say. One of them takes several pages to analyze this specific web site, comparing it against and constrasting it with the show's official web site. Books are not "mysterious". They are there for you to read. You even have the page numbers to start reading at. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that Babylon 5 fans will find this website very useful; maybe we could link it at the bottom of the Babylon 5 article, just like how we link fallacyfiles.org at the bottom of the Fallacy article. For it to merit its own article, though, it needs more general references than the B5 pages on SciFi.com and DMOZ. Shii (tock) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a general guide, well-established major fansites for really major fan communities are likely to be notable. The sources may be unorthodox, but that's the nature of the subject. DGG (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I concur with User:DGG in that well-established fansites for large fanbases can be notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 12:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 12:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes notability bar for websites. 23skidoo (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is the subject of significant third-party coverage and meets the notability standards. - Dravecky (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Uncle G. --Masamage ♫ 17:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per books added by Uncle G before the AfD was initiated. Uncle G is understandably irked here. He removed the prod (added by the nom) and added the book references. After that, the nominator started this AfD. I'm not going to use any epithets here, you can judge for yourselves. VG ☎ 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and UncleG. The Lurker's Guide easily meets notability standards. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as a likely WP:POINT nomination. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Einstein[edit]
- Thomas Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability is not inherited, and there's no indication of any notability here other than his famous great-grandpa. Several other articles in Category:Einstein Family probably need looking at here for similar reasons. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article does not imply any notability for the subject other than being a relative of someone notable. A Google search brings up no promising leads that the subject's notability can be verified by reliable sources. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither article, nor sources, nor google return anything particularly notable about this person beyond his ancestry. Grandmartin11 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - also can't find anything notable other than that he does his job. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not asserting notability in his profession. As above; notability is not inherited. onebravemonkey 10:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Being related to someone notable does not make a person notable. Schuym1 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- UnDelete: The reason why I created this article was because I thought people might be interested in tracking descendants of Albert Einstein. The article does come under the Category:Einstein Familycategory. If Einsten's son (s) and sister can qualify to have their own articles why not the great grandson? However if the majority decides to delete it, I won't have any problems with that. p.s. The article is a stub.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahak library (talk • contribs)
- Please note my comment on nomination that several of the other articles in this category also need examining for possible deletion - none of these pages indicates much in the way of independent notability. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for keeping a page. Even if it was, a great-grandson is significantly further removed than a son or a sister. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not asserted apart from having decended from an Einstein. JFW | T@lk 06:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A special case of the "notability is not inherited" rule, applied very literally. It's possible that a single article on Einstein's family could meet the notability guidelines, but most of the individuals will not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick P. Smith[edit]
- Frederick P. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparently non-notable professor. None of the awards are major, no chair or named professorship, does not appear to satisfy any of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 01:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Fulbright award prestigious? I know it's recognized internationally. XF Law talk at me 06:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think it would be a good idea to have biographies for all 279,500 Fulbright Scholars, U.S. Fulbright Scholar Program = 800 a year, Visiting Fulbright Scholar Program = 800 a year, not immediately obvious what the "Fulbright research scholar award" referred to in the article is referring to [38].Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article is mostly a copyvio of [39].John Z (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am unsure about this one in terms of notability. As an elected fellow of American Academy of Forensic Sciences, he might pass criterion 3 of WP:PROF. On the other hand, when I tried to do various requisite searches (googlebooks, googlescholar,googlenews, scopus), I did not find much. Also, as John Z noted, the current text of the article is almost entirely a copyvio of [40]. So unless somebody can quickly and completely rewrite it, this qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G12. Nsk92 (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked up the AAFS website and it appears, based on the rules specified there, that being a fellow of AAFS is not a sign of distinction comparable to other academies, but is mostly based on satisfying several formal service/publication requirements that do not appear to be particularly stringent, see: [41]. So being a fellow of AAFS probably does not satisfy criterion 3 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- note googling "Frederick P. Smith" for evidence of coverage in secondary sources turns up (non-WP:RS) biographical data for Frederick P. Smith, the Vermont State Senator [42], and Frederick P. Smith the Special Forces soldier in the first two pages of hits. There's NY Times coverage of a diverce [sic] case between a Frederick P. Smith & Josephine S. Smit[43]... Most mentions of Frederick P. Smith, MD seem to be of the Maryland Oncologist, although they are pretty parenthetical also, e.g. [44]. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I see no evidence of extensive coverage of him as a subject in reliable secondary sources (fails WP:BIO), and no evidence that his work has had a notable effect on scholarly research (fails WP:PROF). Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Pete Hurd and my comments above. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain this is an applied field,and professional work in the subject can count as highly towards notability as academic publications (he does have one book, found in about 180 libraries & some journal articles). I am not sure how to judge the importance of the work. Has anyone made a proper search for court proceedings in which he might have figured? DGG (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: I just don't know but leaning towards a weak keep. This textbook with this publication, along with this lead me to believe he is important in his field. Smith, who is one of the nation's leading experts on hair, skin, and skin secretions analysis - a quote from this
scholarly journalmailbox filler that reinforces my little gut that if I were in forensics, I'd be able to help establish his notability. XF Law talk at me 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I wouldn't give too much weight to a publishers blurb. And, the 'scholarly journal' appears to be neither scholarly nor a journal but rather an University of Alabama magazine (the kind that universities give to alumni).--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tynisha Keli[edit]
- Tynisha Keli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Classic non-notable rapper's page. No nontrivial coverage, no charting--just the usual collection of Myspace, YouTube and official artist site. Blueboy96 03:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No sign that she meets any of the elements of WP:MUSIC. RGTraynor 14:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: From what I can find her debut album is being released by Warner Bros in January 2009 (Last Fm) so there may be more information forthcoming once her music gets out there more. She seems to have been signed by Kara DioGuardi (Award-winning songwriter Kara DioGuardi's new A&R gig ← Brief mention of Tynisha Keli), who is the 4th judge on the new season of American Idol ( Kara DioGuardi Announced As Fourth Judge) so there may be some television exposure forthcoming because of that. The other issue is this page may be a product of her marketing team. Compare the Wikipedia article and her official marketing bio - Think Tank Marketing. (Matter of fact I see there is already an article for the album which I haave added to AFD discussions - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chronicles of TK Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which may be true, of course, but that doesn't mean she passes WP:MUSIC now. There's no reason an article can't be created for her if and when she does. RGTraynor 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Correct, that is why I say I am neutral on the issue right now. I have a bigger issue if the article was created by her marketing team however. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to have been; the article was created over two years ago and has been edited by many folks. The creator has a number of edits and certainly isn't a SPA; I'd say it was created in good faith. RGTraynor 16:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I didn't go back enough, sorry. I saw Jclopino and their history shows mainly work on TK related things. So yeah, the original was created, most likely, in good faith. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it appears to fail WP:MUSIC Ijanderson (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The comments above indicate that fairly thorough search for sources has been performed, but nothing substantial turned up. No objection to recreating the article if she becomes more notable per WP:MUSIC. VG ☎ 12:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go Dda Gareth[edit]
- Go Dda Gareth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability test. Closest that it can come to is use in schools, and no evidence or citation to demonstrate that. billinghurst (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article does cite a BBC review of the book so it's not a clearly non-notable. The article hasn't been tagged for references so it would seem to make more sense to give it time for improvement first. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I tagged it for references. I also note that the review is in Welsh, so I am not sure that it can demonstrate significant notability for English Wikipedia. The article is less than a stub as the reference is as long as the article, has progressed nowhere and there is no connection to an author page. There has been no response here by the initial contributor. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for the reasons mentioned in my nomination. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no need to state delete again. That's a given as you are the nominator and aren't doing this on procedural grounds. -- Whpq (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability, the coverage in the BBC review is not enough to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak keep widely used textbooks are notable; but i cannot read the review, so I cannot tell if there is evidence for it. DGG (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Can someone give us a summary of the review in English? The BBC review is in Welsh (me thinks). VG ☎ 12:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- cy Wikipedia article doesn't have much more than the current en article.
- Amazon UK sells the book, but doesn't have any reviews in English. [45]. VG ☎ 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The BBC review review really takes it past WP:N; if only by the skin of its teeth. I see no reason to not follow the usual standards in this case. WilyD 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy Helsby (author)[edit]
- Wendy Helsby (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Helsby is published, but there appears to be little available in terms of reliable sources to create a verifiable biography or to assert that her work is notable enough to meet WP:PROF. Google doesn't help much... — Scientizzle 01:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VeryWeak Keep google of "understanding reputation" Helsby takes patience. result 43 shows it it being used as a text at Berkeley, no. 52 shows it being used as a text at Minnesota; Impt use as a textbook is one of the standards for notability; normally we'd want more than 2 universities, but the google coverage of these is erratic, and they are both very important universities in the subject. DGG (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete her book Understanding Reputation may be notable, but there's no evidence the author is. RMHED (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep per WP:Creative as her numerous books are used in education throughout the US and UK. The article is now sourced and {slightly) expanded. And if RMHED grants that her book is notable, how can that not be her notability as its author?? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of her other books being used anywhere, and I consider all of the sources essentially booksellers blogs. I continue to think it borderline. What would be needed is to show that her books are used as the standard texts, more than other books, and I know of no really convenient sources for that; they may exist--possibly one of the publications in the field has done a llist or a survey. DGG (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a "google textbook" as there is a google scholar? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These seem to show her books as being used in a few places, anyway... Understanding RepresentationTeaching TV Quiz ShowsLanguage PuzzlesTeaching TV Advertising Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a "google textbook" as there is a google scholar? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of her other books being used anywhere, and I consider all of the sources essentially booksellers blogs. I continue to think it borderline. What would be needed is to show that her books are used as the standard texts, more than other books, and I know of no really convenient sources for that; they may exist--possibly one of the publications in the field has done a llist or a survey. DGG (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The notability of a book is not inherited. If there are no reliable third party sources about this subject, a living person biography, then delete it. JBsupreme (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McGill Street (Montreal)[edit]
- McGill Street (Montreal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability is not clear. Appears to fail WP:N in that no source (other than a local history) is likely to address the subject directly and in detail. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with added references. McGill Street is a nationally known street on par with Granville St in Vancouver. 23skidoo (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per references added by Eastmain: if he hadn't added these, I would have voted "delete". Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per refs, though since I live here and didn't know where it was, maybe that should be a weak keep! (I've added where the street is to the article now, though). I'm not sure it's on a par with Granville street, to be honest. MadScot (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable and verifiable sources establish notability of major street in major city. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets the usual requirements of WP:N; i see no reason to make an exception here. WilyD 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator per WP:ATHLETE. ZimZalaBim talk 17:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abdalla Ahmed[edit]
- Abdalla Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Simply being an Olympic athlete does not make one notable. ZimZalaBim talk 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - An Olympic athlete is important.... He's also won gold medals at African Championships! What about Matt Barkley, a high school football player who has an article? --Smuckers It has to be good 01:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the article makes not mention of any medals (which might not necessarily ensure notability, btw). Second, did you notice the 11 citations from reliable sources in Mr. Barkely's article? Or the fact he has won numerous major awards? There is no notability question for him. Your argument that "an Olympic athlete is important" is your opinion, but clearly not each of the 10,500 athletes who competed are notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahmed has a polish Wikipedia article, that I didn't create, and it shows his medals. The article might not be long, but it's because I can't find anything on him, even though I looked & looked. The reason I brought up Barkley is because, Ahmed is a gold medal winning athlete who went to the Olympics and you said it wasn't notable, so I brought up a high school athlete, who even though he's won awards, I don't think he is more notable than an Olympic athlete from a different country. Someone requested a few months ago when the Olympics were on that people create articles for the Egyptian athletes, so I did the volleyball players. --Smuckers It has to be good 02:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you "can't find anything on him, even though I looked & looked" should tip you off that we have a notability concern, since the basic notability criteria calls for the person having been "the subject of published secondary source material..." --ZimZalaBim talk 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Touche, but I don't think that makes him unnotable, I think its because the U.S. doesn't care to write about Egyptian volleyball players, since volleyball isn't as popular as basketball and football, even though it is growing in popularity year by year. I'm sure he's a star in Egypt.--Smuckers It has to be good 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahmed has a polish Wikipedia article, that I didn't create, and it shows his medals. The article might not be long, but it's because I can't find anything on him, even though I looked & looked. The reason I brought up Barkley is because, Ahmed is a gold medal winning athlete who went to the Olympics and you said it wasn't notable, so I brought up a high school athlete, who even though he's won awards, I don't think he is more notable than an Olympic athlete from a different country. Someone requested a few months ago when the Olympics were on that people create articles for the Egyptian athletes, so I did the volleyball players. --Smuckers It has to be good 02:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This FIVB report refers to him as a "Egyptian star" so it looks like he's at least recognised by the international federation as worthy of note. http://www.vbworldcup.jp/2007/en/archives/41 MadScot (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And USA today saw fit to run with a picture of him http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/item.aspx?&type=photo&photo_id=04zd8g84rPgn1&pn=3&tid=000000000 - even the Americans know he exists! MadScot (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a trivial mention. There are thousands of pool photos taken at international sporting events, each of which identifies who is in the image. This is just one of them. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And this Olympics qualifying report (note Egypt did qualify) refers to him as follows: "Man of the match Abdalla Ahmed inspired the North Africans" http://en.beijing2008.cn/news/sports/headlines/volleyball/2007volleyballcup-m/s214200358/n214207287.shtml MadScot (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And THIS report names him to the "all tournament" team for the "World Grand Champions Cup" http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.sport.volleyball/2005-11/msg00046.html which I think is basically the off-Olympic world championship for volleyball. MadScot (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And finally, for now, this report from the 2007 African Volleyball Cup http://www.cavb.org/2007/09/top.html which specifically mentions him as a key part in Egypt winning the final: "The architect of “Operation Fight –Back” for Egypt was their mercurial playmaker, 'Abdalla Ahmed' whose magical fingers became the launching pad for his attack force."MadScot (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And THIS report names him to the "all tournament" team for the "World Grand Champions Cup" http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.sport.volleyball/2005-11/msg00046.html which I think is basically the off-Olympic world championship for volleyball. MadScot (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And USA today saw fit to run with a picture of him http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/item.aspx?&type=photo&photo_id=04zd8g84rPgn1&pn=3&tid=000000000 - even the Americans know he exists! MadScot (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep In other words, if we're going to have thousands of American college sports nobodies listed, we could at least have someone who competes as a major player at the international level in an Olympic sport. MadScot (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC) (Apologies I forgot to sign my !vote)[reply]
- Send me the links to the "thousands of American college sports nobodies" and I'll start the deletion process if they fail WP:BIO. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can start Intercollegiate athletics in the United States here ;-). More seriously, though that was hyperbole, when people are arguing that a Div III or NAIA player or coach for a year is notable, yet an international gold medallist struggles for notability .... it makes you wonder. MadScot (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Hells bells, how does one link to a category anyway?MadScot (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, especially considering the fact that the article in question fails to note any international gold medal. Regarding categories, you can link to them with this syntax (the preceding ":" prevents this page from actually joining that category): [[:Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States]] --ZimZalaBim talk 04:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can start Intercollegiate athletics in the United States here ;-). More seriously, though that was hyperbole, when people are arguing that a Div III or NAIA player or coach for a year is notable, yet an international gold medallist struggles for notability .... it makes you wonder. MadScot (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Hells bells, how does one link to a category anyway?MadScot (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Send me the links to the "thousands of American college sports nobodies" and I'll start the deletion process if they fail WP:BIO. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actually being an Olympic athlete does make one notable. Competing at the Olympics is the very definition of competing at the highest level of any chosen sport and that's the bar for notability in sport on Wikipedia. Nick mallory (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how participation in the Olympics grants one automatic notability. First, that doesn't necessarily mean you are competing at the "highest level" of a sport. For example, many Olympic basketball players would never make the NBA, showing that just being in the Olympics doesn't mean you're at the top. Second, host cities often get additional waivers into certain sports, ensuring they have a good "home" representation of atheletes. Such exemptions don't fit your rule. While I'm not saying that's the case here, your blanket notability seems flawed. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Athlete that has played his sport at the highest level. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An athlete that has represented his country at the highest level is notable. Someone actually tried to speedy-delete this article a couple of weeks ago, would you believe? --Michig (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Aside from the longstanding consensus that all Olympians are notable (even those who didn't win medals), it should be rather easy to find sources: just this summer, I created John Kamyuka and was able to find several sources on him with only a few minutes of work. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of this "longstanding consensus" - where is it stated? --ZimZalaBim talk 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE says this, except in the rare cases where an olympic sport is also a professional sport - but for Volleyball - Olympics appears to be the highest level of competetion. WilyD 13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, even if it was professional, the Olympics would still count, as it is the highest amateur level for the sport. --Smashvilletalk 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE says this, except in the rare cases where an olympic sport is also a professional sport - but for Volleyball - Olympics appears to be the highest level of competetion. WilyD 13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of this "longstanding consensus" - where is it stated? --ZimZalaBim talk 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being the subject of a body of independent, nontrivial coverage does make one notable, though. WilyD 12:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep According to the notability guidelines for sports figures, "simply" being an Olympic athlete -does- make one notable. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Li Congke[edit]
- Li Congke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It might not quite be unsalvageably incoherent, but it is close. Looks like a bad machine translation. Can't identify enough key facts to determine notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Perhaps this could be cleaned up. It appears that this is a minor Chinese Emperor. But going through the process here is worthwhile. The decision here can likely be applied to Li Conghou. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable per Google books search, e.g. [46]; article is in hopeless shape though. JJL (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stub it Subject definitely seems to meet WP:N, but the article is nigh incomprehensible and seems to rely on a whole bunch of missing/deleted templates. It looks to me like someone ran an older version of the Chinese wikipedia article on this guy through babelfish or some other auto-translator and pasted in in here without checking anything. Grandmartin11 (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just stubbed it and dealt with most of the templates. I don't know how to deal with the emperorcn template, so have left it. Hopefully this form will be OK. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Jesus H. Christ, the guy was an emporer - I'm not sure how else to discuss notability. 12:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The man was emperor of China, so he is obviously notable, and the article has several sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. A Google Books search confirms that he was an emperor, showing obvious notability. I wish people would spend a few seconds doing basic searches before wasting everyone's time by nominating articles such as this for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thermoplan AG[edit]
- Thermoplan AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am unable to decide whether this company is notable enough for an article. It has been tagged as unreferenced and deficient for several months and the author has not contributed for a long time, so there is little hope that he will come back and improve it. The company does exist and the claim that it supplies Starbucks seems to be true. It also holds patents related to coffee machines. It does not seem to be listed on any major stock exchange. Obviously, the article would need to be rewritten if it was kept. The purpose of the AfD is to determine whether this is worth doing. I am neutral on this. DanielRigal (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt's not a notable enough company... maybe if they supply the majority of coffee machines in the U.S. or something, but this is a definite "not notable" imho atm. JasonDUIUC (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep , but needs a rewrite, and a few more sources. The current sources that were recently added are both major national newspapers, and are a year apart, which seems pretty notability-establishing to me. Moreover, if the firm truly is the LONE supplier of Starbucks, and is the home of the Brazilian national team in the "off" season, that's enough in my book to make them more than a one-hit wonder. At this point, I feel confident that the article could improve to the level of an average wiki article on a smaller company. My .02. Cheers!JasonDUIUC (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references which I think are enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak keep. Normally,a manufacturing company with 125 employees. wouldnot be notable; but it seems from the article that it might possibly be the leader in a significant niche of integrated coffee shop machinery.
- Keep - notability is established, I see no reason to deviate from the usual standards here. WilyD 12:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sixguns over tombstone[edit]
- Sixguns over tombstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. While the article does link to references, the collective amount of information in those references do not justify an independent article on the topic. There is little other written information on them that could be used in the article and there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 16:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsigned, home made demos, almost speedy delete as db-band. I fixed the bad wikilinks, which means every link is now a redlink. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Xbox developers[edit]
- List of Xbox developers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Incomplete, no references, and even if it were complete and had references, would then be listcruft. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this list appears to be based off List of Nintendo developers. My initial impression is to redirect the Xbox list to List of Xbox games as redundant and at the very least kill off the "not exclusive" section of the Nintendo list, which would most logically contain every single company that ever made a game for a Nintendo system. Nifboy (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To followup, I'm not sure what value the Nintendo list has over Template:Nintendo developers. Nifboy (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep though I am not sure in what format. an article listing every notable company that made a game for a very notable system would be a perfectly valid list article. DGG (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — the list would eventually be indiscriminate as a result. Mind that none of this does any good if no verifiable sources are present, either. MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:LIST, also wikipedia is not a geek paradise and there are no sources. Ijanderson (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It seems to just be a list of any developer that has made a agme for Xbox (and maybe Xbox 360). TJ Spyke 14:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as indiscriminate. Tavix (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Martha Speaks merchandise[edit]
- Martha Speaks merchandise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
If "there isn't any merchandise yet" then there should not be an article about merchandise. WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Something that does not exist is not notable. Originally PRODed by Gladys j cortez (talk · contribs). Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Why was this even written? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator of the article (and many, many more) claims to be an elementary-school girl who loves the show. She's also making templates for other PBS cartoons, their characters, the voice actors that play those characters, and a bunch of other stuff that is totally going to get deleted. I don't wanna bite the poor kid's head off, nor deter her from contributing, but this is the cruftiest cruft that ever crufted and it's gotta go. Gladys J Cortez 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Offtopic trying to expand Emily Elizabeth Howard to at least a readable article, maybe to a A class but it's hard to find good reliable sources, especially that she does not appear in newspapers, magazines and other sources. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator of the article (and many, many more) claims to be an elementary-school girl who loves the show. She's also making templates for other PBS cartoons, their characters, the voice actors that play those characters, and a bunch of other stuff that is totally going to get deleted. I don't wanna bite the poor kid's head off, nor deter her from contributing, but this is the cruftiest cruft that ever crufted and it's gotta go. Gladys J Cortez 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only crystal, but complete PBScruft (I don't see a Sesame Street merchandise article here, for instance). Why, oh, why do some editors write articles about every little detail about a kids channel and their programming? Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At first glance, is blatant WP:CRYSTAL. Can always re-create if anything is released, but right now, article doesn't serve any use in my view. Fraud talk to me 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for being the cruftiest crystal cruft. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as rumour. If/when the product is released, it may gain a notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The particular irony of this AfD is that the alleged "merchandise" came from a spoof advertisement played during a "Martha Speaks" episode. There is not, has not been, will not ever be, any album called "Martha's Songs of Toil". This is analogous to writing articles about the products depicted on those "Wacky Packages" stickers from years ago--like creating an article for "Hellogg's Frosted Snakes". So it's not only cruft, it's SPURIOUS cruft.Gladys J Cortez 09:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is something that can be (and is) mentioned on the Martha Speaks article and really doesn't warrant its own article. Pinkadelica Say it... 09:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I suggest that we merge this article to Martha Speaks and make it a section on the article. Because it will be released on iTunes and DVD. But the songs of toil DVD is fake. It was a spoof ad. Elbutler (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do we really need to? As I said above, there is no Sesame Street merchandise article (besides that vibrating red monster doll that will not die), nor do any other PBS, Nick, or Cartoon Network shows. Let's nip this in the bud before anyone gets the idea that it's acceptable to create seperate lists of merchandise for every show. We're not here to be a free ad space for Playskool, Mattel or anyone else with a kids show trinket. Nate • (chatter) 00:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No merchandise yet. Schuym1 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since the article comes right out and says there is no merchandise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete news release per WP:NOT. B.Wind (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Leeker[edit]
- Joe Leeker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Can find no references to support this BLP(?). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources, and seems to fail WP:BIO. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--No notability proven, and none found. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. JBsupreme (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources Ijanderson (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The Mail Archive was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep
The Mail Archive[edit]
Possible spam. Delete. P Ingerson 16:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- keep I looked at the website, a lot of notable mailing lists are archived there. What looks like all of Debian, all of Cygwin, Book Crossing, cypherpunks, php, perl, python, you name it. Users only have to subscribe the archive to their favorite list as a passive user, which is pretty neat viral propagation. RSS and RDF feeds. Why didn't I think of this? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I guess it just shows that notability is relative. I've never even heard of those "notable mailing lists" you listed. Are they really that notable outside their own membership? P Ingerson 18:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not subscribed to any of them but the only one I didn't know of was Book Crossing. I'd say notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ironically BookCrossing is the only non-geek list I named. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I guess it just shows that notability is relative. I've never even heard of those "notable mailing lists" you listed. Are they really that notable outside their own membership? P Ingerson 18:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, notable enough, I took out the PoV. Wyss 16:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, kind of notable, good work on the cleanup guys. --fvw* 18:18, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
- Keep, though the rush to keep this (in spite of Wikipedia! not! being! a! web guide!) suggests a bit of a computer geek systemic bias. Samaritan 19:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's notable enough, and free enough. Besides, I already find Wiki to be hopelessly biased towards objectivity and verifiability. Wyss 21:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GPS navigation in India[edit]
- GPS navigation in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not encyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--at best, this is an essay for a freshman comp class. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing in here that isn't covered in the main GPS articles Introduction to the Global Positioning System and Global Positioning System. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Cullman City Board of Education. kurykh 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Logan Middle School[edit]
- Logan Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
High schools pass the notability grade here, but middle schools don't -- and this NN institution has little encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cullman City Board of Education. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- so we merge and redirect to Cullman City Board of Education; why are we here? TerriersFan (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know there was an article on the Cullman City Board of Education, that's why. Not the worst thing, though -- it's good to see these fun people together in one discussion. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cullman City Board of Education JavierMC 04:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cullman City Board of Education. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cullman City Board of Education per above. JBsupreme (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Bachelor's degree. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BBIM[edit]
- BBIM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced Dicdef. A degree variant offered by one university is hardly notable. Information could be included in an article on University degrees conferred in New Zealand if any such thing exists. dramatic (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
- Delete, this appears just to be a double-major option which is relatively unusual. It is not of sufficient importance that I would expect it to be given even a mention in the main University of Auckland article.-gadfium 00:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Bachelor's degree, which has a long list of similar acronyms. Three year degree according to this. XLerate (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Delete as per XLerate. This double-major was available at University of Otago in the 80s and 90s (and may still be), but it was called a BComm. In other words, there is nothing particularly notable about this particular degree. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Merge and delete; thank you. --NE2 07:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't see why this needs its own article. There must be thousands of degree acronyms in the world; they don't need a separate entry each.NZ forever (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete the useful content from this article appears to have been merged into Acquired Brain Injury. Since this isn't a term people will use to search for Acquired Brain Injury, I don't see a need to keep the title as a redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Survivor Acquired Brain Injury[edit]
- Survivor Acquired Brain Injury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Looks like a neologism; the term only appears to be in use on the two sites linked from the article. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - what could such an article contain, that would not properly be included in the article Acquired brain injury? - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - based on google search, highly probable that it is a WP:neologism. Richard Cavell raises an excellent point. Fraud talk to me 02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in use also on facebook, myspace, yahoo health groups, amazon, acronymfinder, veterans, free dictionary, msn groups, etc.; ABI in use at World Health Organization--Sabisue (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Regarding the argument that this topic could be covered under the category "acquired brain injury", Wikipedia has an article on cancer, but it also has an article on cancer survivor separate from the cancer article. This is the same kind of thing. Also, Wikipedia has an article on the psychiatric survivor movement that is not listed under the topic of psychiatric disorders. There is a difference between discussing conditions and people with conditions. Thank you for considering. --Sabisue (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote twice. --Itub (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sabisue, I acknowledge that there is medical and other doctrine on the issue of those who identify themselves as a 'cancer survivor' or 'psychiatric therapy survivor'. In the former case, I claim that the need to separate 'cancer survivor' into a different article is because cancer is a huge, huge subject. It is unfeasible to have all the encyclopedic information on cancer survivors in the same article as cancer. However, any good oncology textbook will have a chapter on what patients go through, and so being a cancer survivor is part of oncology doctrine. As to being a psychiatry survivor - this idea is contrary to mainstream medicine, and is at least partly overlapping with certain religious and social movements (such as Scientology) that are a separate subject to mainstream psychiatry. The doctrine that surrounds 'psychiatry survivor' is removed from what one would find in a psychiatry textbook. That is why it has a separate article - because it's on a different subject to 'psychiatry', and is at least partly in conflict with it. I do not doubt that there ought to be information on wikipedia as to what an acquired brain injury patient goes through - but I distinguish the examples you've given, and claim that the subject of this AfD does not need a separate article. - (Doctor) Richard Cavell (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero hits in Google scholar and Google books. Being used in Facebook, Yahoo Groups, etc. is not sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements. --Itub (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I went to Google Scholar also, and there are 4,670 hits for Survivor Acquired Brain Injury. --Sabisue (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction You only get that if you count any article that contains the individual words "survivor" and "acquired" and "brain" and "injury" in any place in the document, including a sentence like "If that guy on the television show Survivor had actually used his brain, he would not have acquired that injury to his foot." If you look for the complete phrase "survivor acquired brain injury" (must use double quotes in the search), then there are zero matches. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I went to Google Scholar also, and there are 4,670 hits for Survivor Acquired Brain Injury. --Sabisue (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Acquired brain injury. I suppose a short sentence there explaning the term would suffice. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid some people do not understand. This is not about being a patient, or medical terminology per say. This is about surviving an acquired brain injury. This is about living afterwards. Community reintegration. Public policy for us. You are limiting the scope by only acknowledging the medical, which would be (one side of) the professional perspective, of it. Referring to us as merely "patients" is completely inappropriate. This shows a bias here on Wikipedia, at least from the people who have commented so far. Cancer is a vast subject, but so is acquired brain injury. What is this business about showing boldness on Wikipedia? Not so with this abundance of naysayers. Whether you think our terminology is notable is important in analysis done here on Wikipedia, but it must remain unimportant to us. We do not want researchers to write a book about us. We are living with this condition and do not want scientists and researchers to co-opt this term and what we are doing for ourselves with collective self-advocacy, thus taking over our debate. That has been the problem up until now so we are marginalized in society as "patients" or "clients" or "brain damaged people", not human beings. This is about a vast group of people that used to be "normal", but are now relegated to second class status because of cognitive and other challenges generated by ABI. This is about human and civil rights. Everyone chooses to speak for us, and we have not been allowed to organize and speak for ourselves, collectively, until recently. This is a critical subset of society that has trouble thinking and processing information and also articulating position statements and thus is entitled to a special status as a separate category from "brain injury" or "acquired brain injury", because these topics are quite scientific in nature, do not address the non-scientific aspects of being a survivor of acquired brain injury and also are beyond the ability of many people with acquired brain injuries to comprehend or utilize. It will not matter if Wikipedia does not accept us. We will add Wikipedia to the majority of society, which are intolerant and ignorant as to our presence, except as potential patients and clients. As a matter of fact, we will add the example of rejection by Wikipedia in our on-going commentary as another rejection of our status as equal partners with other human beings in the world as another trauma we have to bear. We will turn any rejection by Wikipedia or its editors to a positive for us in some way, because that is how we move on from adversity, and turn the negative, which we have had to endure in abundance, to a positive. By the way, it is likely that at least one reader here will become a survivor of acquired brain injury someday, and if and when you come out of the daze you may see this whole subject differently. If at that point you can remember about us, we will try to be of help to you. --Sabisue (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 15:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Until I'd waded through the above discussion, I hadn't realised that the intended subject of the article was survivor, and not the injury, as implied by the word order in the title. I've no opinion on notability, but if it continues to fail WP:V, I don't see how the article can be sustained. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In the section on "reliable sources" --Itub , it says, "Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials."--Sabisue (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You have hit upon an important point, --[[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]. This was listed first under the topic of survivor. Over there there is a horse named Survivor listed, and if a horse can get listed I would think people who are Survivors of ABI should be able to get listed. There is a reason why we use "survivor acquired brain injury", in that order. We are respecting the long-term convention in the Disability Rights Movement entitled "People First". We list the person first and the label second. This is so the person is not identified by a label, for example, "blind person". Under "People First" Philosophy the politically correct identification is "person with a visual impairment", or along those lines. Therefore, it is "Survivor (of) Acquired Brain Injury". --Sabisue (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'of' is important. If this article is kept, could I propose that it's moved to Survivor of acquired brain injury, please? As it is, the title suggests a brain injury acquired by a survivor. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are right. Most people are going to want to see it with the "of" in there. We are used to saying "SABI" and we know what we mean, but I think many people would be confused without the "of". Using "of" would make it clearer, and we are interested in clarity for everyone. Thank you. I didn't think to look to see if there was a section already entitled "Survivor of Acquired Brain Injury"? I will go look. --Sabisue (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Regarding WP:V, would citation to the Brain Injury Network be indicative of reliability? The BIN is a national survivor non-profit that has been in operation for more than a few years. It is listed in DMOZ. It is listed in Google, Yahoo and Alltheweb in the field of acquired brain injury public policy. If this were listed as a citation instead of a link, would that meet the standard? Another group, which I tried to list as a link, but which was for some reason automatically deleted, also establishes the reliability of the article. It was http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/survivoracquiredbraininjury. I would also argue that in the modern day on-line news entities have accepted and reported survivoracquiredbraininjury as a reliable and notable term by their use of the term. --Sabisue (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I guess I am not allowed to make some adjustments to the article while it is in this "article for deletion" status? What is the time-frame for resubmission of a better article with more references? A month? A year? Five years? --Sabisue (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are strongly encouraged to make adjustments; a major benefit of deletion discussions is that articles very frequently get vastly improved. At the worst this should survive as a redirect to the ABI article, which could use some work. The main thing is creating good content, and providing sources for it. Where it goes is secondary. As is obvious, there has been a lot of confusion because of the title, so the article should at the least be renamed, as the current name for this notable topic is not immediately understandable English and not widespread enough to be immediately recognizable. The main thing for keeping an article is providing good sources that substantially treat the article's topic. There are of course many sources appropriate to the topic of surviving brain injury e.g. Brain Injury Survivor's Guide: Welcome to Our World ISBN 1432716204 or more medical oriented sources. Regards,John Z (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pardon me, but for the purposes of this AfD Debate, how did Survivor Acquired Brain Injury get listed in the Category of Science and Technology? It belongs in something more akin to "Society Topics", I do believe, because, while, as I said earlier, the medical side is a part of being a "Survivor of Acquired Brain Injury" there are many additional facets that deal with human rights, self-empowerment, self-advocacy, day-to-day living, public policy, community integration, flat out survival, stigma, law, legal rights and protections, and a host of other non-scientific and technological topics. --Sabisue (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that this is the right category. I suppose semantically 'society' would be a better category, but the medical articles all end up in 'science and technology', and the kind of editor who takes an interest in S&T AfDs is likely to be the kind of editor who would take an interest in your article. The society topics tend to dwell on party politics, philosophy, and so on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - May I play devil's advocate here? I note that there are advocacy groups for those who have certain medical conditions - for example, 'little people' (dwarfism). For that matter, concepts like affirmative action, black power and nigger don't belong in the negro article. Is the author postulating that 'Survivor ABI' represents a social movement that is sufficiently separated from the concept of acquired brain injury that it cannot be said to be on the same topic? I can prove that affirmative action, black power and nigger are concepts that have had volumes of books published on them and websites devoted to them. Is 'Survivor ABI' in a similar category? The burden of proof should go on the author here, and I guess WP:V is the appropriate policy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am indeed saying that there is a social movement sufficiently separated from the concept of ABI, Mr. Cavell. I see that the burden of proof is to prove that with citation and such. Not an easy task, since our movement is just now coalescing, but it is there. I still may not be able to prove our case to some of the people here; I can see that. Am I able to refine the article already during this stage? --Sabisue (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I went to Google Scholar also, and there are 4,670 hits for Survivor Acquired Brain Injury. This matter is very confusing, because many terms are in use including brain injury survivor, head trauma survivor, tbi survivor, abi survivor, abi/tbi survivor, tbi/abi survivor, stroke survivor, aneurysm survivor, brain cancer survivor, locked-in syndrome survivor, meningitis survivor, and many more. There are books, forums, scientific studies, news articles, blogs, etc. using all of these various tags. However, the one term that encapsulates all of these is the larger category "acquired brain injury" and therefore we use Acquired Brain Injury Survivor. And, with a nod to the People First, Independent Living, and Disability Rights Movements, we have placed the word Survivor in front of the label ABI, not behind it. The term "brain injury survivor" is too broad, because medically "brain injury" includes some categories that fall outside of ABI, such neurodegenerative brain disorders and congenital brain injuries (evident at or from birth). The other tags listed above are too narrow for a catchall term. The one term that represents all of the ABI's is ABI itself, of course, and so we associate our primary word "survivor" with the term ABI. But first and foremost we are survivors. That is why we listed initially under the "Survivor" article in Wikipedia. Anyway, Survivor Acquired Brain Injury says who we are and is used in our movement. Yes, we have a political and social agenda past the medical term (acquired) brain injury, and yes, our movement is ordered enough to be a separate topic from ABI. So say we at the Brain Injury Network, the one national survivor of ABI non-profit "self and collective" advocacy and public policy agency that is actually operated by survivor consumers with ABI here in the U.S.A. Our Board of Directors is all survivors, SABI's, and we would like to see an article about the Survivor of Acquired Brain Injury movement here on Wikipedia. However perhaps encyclopedias want material that is settled, not dynamic in nature? And, about this idea that we be in the news, or on the lecture circuit about it or whatever. Please, we are a lot of people with disabilities, some can't travel, or read, or do basic math, or think, and some live in nursing homes and under bridges and most have few resources. So don't expect the moon from us. We just would like our perspective on things to be acknowledged. --Sabisue (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't realize until just now that there were some statements entered under earlier comments. I had already written the above material and will let it stand. I appreciate the additional comments that I have just now read. Yes, there are plenty of books to deal with surviving a brain injury written by survivors. There were plenty of books even five and ten and more years ago (before Brain Injury Survivor's Guide) That one is on the new side and gets plenty of advertising, but there are so many others. But, again, using the term "brain injury survivor" doesn't quite match up with the medical community's terminology. Because, as I said, a brain injury can mean many things besides an acquired brain injury. But, basically, a lot of these consumer written books are talking about one thing, surviving an ABI of some sort, whether it be a tbi, a stroke, a tumor, etc; although usually it appear the books in which consumers speak about "surviving a brain injury" are quite often the tbi related books. The use of "Acquired Brain Injury" (ABI) is here to stay. There are thousands of cites in Google Scholar for ABI. (And there are also thousands for brain injury and traumatic brain injury, etc.) ABI is more a term used in the rest of the world, but it is catching on in the USA and the newer medical research articles, also. Now the newest thing, if you really want to know, that is going on is the phrase "tbi/abi" (lumping them together) is being used, and it is confusing the dickens out of lots of survivors (and a lot of others, too). There are people insisting they have had a tbi, because the term is so prevelant in the community, when in fact the person has had a stroke or SAH or something else, some other kind of ABI, not TBI. And there are even some universities using a TBI definition under the topic of "ABI" instead of using an ABI definition. TBI is just a sub-category of ABI, but people don't get that. Very confusing. We need to clean this up. Some people don't even now have the straight scoop on their own diagnosis. And they need to. So, we would like to clarify the usage of these terms, and this is part of our public policy mandate. We say that since there is the larger category "Acquired Brain Injury" in use about us medically (and it does indeed describe the lot of us with more accuracy than any other term in use), in conjunction with that we are "Survivors of Acquired Brain Injury". --Sabisue (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see why it was listed in the Science and Technology section now, thanks. --Sabisue (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Acquired Brain Injury as a new section, and develop both medical and social content of that article appropriately. Split later, if necessary, once the article is much longer. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neologism, zero hits on google scholar. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a relatively new term used by a small special interest group as a way of differentiating themselves from groups that support people with acquired brain injuries. While survivors of TBIs have many issues, there is absolutely no need for this "brand name" for that issue to get its own special article on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are incorrect, sir, to refer to we all as survivors of tbi. At least one half of the people associated with our organization do not have tbi's. They have other forms of abi's, if you know what that means. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Oh, we don't particularily care if we get our own special article in Wikipedia. We just want to be listed someplace in here. Now this thing about "brand name" is really ludicrious. That implies some kind of a commercial enterprise, which we are not. Serving people with ABI'? What do you mean? We are the people with ABI's. We ourselves. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Everyone needs a "movement" now to represent their interests? Merge whatever is salveageble into acquired brain injury but with care. JFW | T@lk 06:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not totally opposed to this suggestion about merger. Thank you. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, we have a movement. Look at the public policy we have deliniated, if you are truly interested, and you will see. Thank you. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I knew it would cause a problem if this were placed under the "medical" category discussion, and it is causing a problem, but only a little one, really. This topic should be moved to Society, because we are dealing with issues vastly beyond the medical community, and really do not appreciate the negative views about who and what we are, as if it were the business of anyone in particular in the medical community. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no idea how to merge in Wikipedia anyway. I really didn't know much about Wikipedia, and obviously didn't know how and who plays the game here. So far I am finding it to be on the negative side. My votes are Keep the positive people here who are offering some constructive ideas. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My position on the updating of the "acquired brain injury" article is that someone with special medical professional credentials, such as a neurologist or neurosurgeon, for example, should do the updating. That is not me. Are any of you commenting actually neurologists or neurosurgeons? I am able to speak with authority only on the societal aspects of survivors of acquired brain injury. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I tried to merge but there is virtually no useful content; some of the psychosocial repercussions and actual concerns of these patients can certainly be added to the acquired brain injury article. However, the article we are discussing is merely about a movement. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not supposed to an article about brain injury patients. We aren't just patients. I am just not getting what the big deal is about us having our own social and human rights agenda. We are thinking beyond the medical box. I fail to see why we can't do that. It must be my brain injury. --Sabisue (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. kurykh 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of tallest athletes by sport[edit]
- List of tallest athletes by sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another hodgepodge, randomly assembled list -- this time, consisting of a mere 10 sports, with no references to back up these claims. This type of trivia is better for the Guinness Book of World Records Ecoleetage (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--I couldn't agree more. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely arbitrary list borders upon trivial. JBsupreme (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There seems to be a similar list here. MvjsTalking 07:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per above. Lady★Galaxy 17:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge info per Mvjs and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.