Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 2
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haircuts That Kill[edit]
- Haircuts That Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band that has been tagged since May 2008. Can't find any significant coverage in reliable, third party sources that would establish notability. Was boldly redirected to the only notable member per WP:MUSIC#C6, but the edit was undone. So I'm now putting it out to the community. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 23:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, doesn't seem notable at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ forever (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Land of Destiny[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Land of Destiny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Although the author has added some sources, which saves this from *speedy* deletion, I don't think any of the cited sources count as reliable for our purposes. This is a MMPORG which just began operations a couple of weeks ago. I don't think it meets WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the proposed-deletion of this article. The game, Land of Destiny, is not a MMPORG, it is a PBBG, also falling-under the categories of MMORPG and MMORTS, it allows gameplay in a "massively multiplayer" environment (currently 1540 play on the same map). The Wikipedia listing of multiplayer browser-based games uses similar submissions which required extensive sourcing to be listed (e.g. Kdice, NukeZone, Ogame, Utopia_(online_game), and Orion's_Belt_(game)). I do note the problem of many sources being dependent on the developers. Are the current references considered trivial due to their "brief summary of the nature of the content [of the site]"? While high-profile publications pertaining to Land of Destiny do verify the site's existence, I do not feel that a review on a website commonly associated with retail-reviews (such as Gamespot or PCGamer) would attract the game's target audience, as the more "high profile" the website, the better graphics readers are expecting. Yet a browser-based game is, by definition, a non-retail game which can be played without downloads. Exactly the genre that is considered "insignificant" by MMORPG-standards. This is likely why the game has received coverage and reviews on websites which promote free-to-play games, instead of high-profile websites promoting cutting-edge MMOGs. Diego Bank (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "newness" of the game, Land of Destiny has been in development since 2007, and Alpha-Testing began in April, 2008. There have been appproximately four rounds of Alpha Test (the more recent at accelerated gamespeeds), and of the last round, I found the gameplay similar (perhaps preferable) to the game's closest relatives - Travian (500,000+ users), Tribal Wars (500,000+ users), Ikariam (size unknown), and Damoria (100,000+ users). I find that the latter three are unlisted on Wikipedia. Perhaps due to their browser-based status? Is there a way to attach this article to the List_of_multiplayer_browser_games article? Diego Bank (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't object to an inclusion in the List article, providing that WP:V is still fulfilled (i.e. it is verified by independent, reliable sources), and that at least some indication of importance is shown. With regard to the other games you mentioned, Ikariam has been speedily deleted 8 times (and is now salted) and Tribal Wars was deleted after peer discussion (here if you're interested.) No-one's tried a Damoria article yet. Marasmusine (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As all the sources provided are either self-published or press releases, this game does not meet the notability threshold for inclusion. Marasmusine (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The game is notable and the sources are adequate for inclusion into Wikipedia. Obviously there are some self published sources, but a few of the others look legit to me. --Theblog (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sufficiently well sourced, which addresses notability. Not written in a promotional style, so NPOV is satisfied. A worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. Orpheus (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagreed about the POV, so I have now made some edits to remove some peacockism. [1] [2]. As far as I can tell, the only non-press release reference is the Galaxy-News interview. Marasmusine (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only coverage of significance is the intervew on Galaxy-net. There is one minor game summary on mpod, and the rest are all self-published sources. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - reposted press releases are not good sources. - MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — another MMORPG/MMORTS/MMOwhatever in which I cannot find any sources to establish notability, just like the other umpteen thousand similar MMOwhatever AFDs that have gone through here. As with those umpteen thousand other said AFDs, Wikipedia is not the place to promote said games, nor is it to be used as your own web host. MuZemike (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not have an educated response to MuZemike. He may or may not be right, but in the past I have found Wikipedia to be a good source for online games, or "keywords" to use for Google-searches. In fact, I often search Google for keywords which I find on Wikipedia. I am concerned with the lack of notability for non-retail games in general. One of the advantages of non-retail games is that there is no real need for "game-reviews" to exist, as readers need not determine whether or not they should make a "purchase". This may be a cause of low notability in general. Thank you for your feedback Marasmusine - it is much appreciated. Reading the Tribal Wars deletion discussions was very helpful for me, as both Tribal Wars and Land of Destiny are in the same genre. I find it hard to believe that the article has been created over 100 times, yet the lack of notability is a similar problem. Right now GalaxyNet is in fact the only website with a full review of Land of Destiny, and I will ask people to review this game on other websites. I want to thank Marasmusine and Wyatt Riot for teaching me what I need for creating an article, and how to construct it in order to avoid Speedy Deletion Wikipedia article (referring me to the style articles). I am moving the hyperlinks to the External Links section, and taking Land of Destiny off of the Massively_multiplayer_online_real-time_strategy_games category until further notice. Thank you for copyediting this article, Marasmusine. Diego Bank (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My rationale for deletion was based more on how the article has been presented for the encyclopedia (i.e. argument based on what Wikipedia is not which is echoed in the deletion policy) moreso than lack of notability, the latter in which I did not mention, but neither of which I didn't think meet, as I do agree with Whpq above in that Galaxy-net is not considered (at the very least in my view) a reliable source for establishment of notability. As far as how many times the article was recreated, I don't know, but all I know that it was only speedy deleted twice according to the logs. I surely do not call for a speedy delete nor any type of creation protection (salting) for this, as even admins can overlook some things from time to time, as well as the chance that new reliable sources can pop up, suddenly making the article worthy of inclusion here. (Patrolling articles up for speedy deletion cannot be easy, as literally thousands pop up every day.) Finally, thanks for the educated response, albeit indirectly, to my !vote (i.e. "not vote" as what the "!" represents). MuZemike (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. For rationale see talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stereotypes of Jews[edit]
- Stereotypes of Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely unverified article full of original research. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duh Sceptre (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Striking duplicate vote. 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep duh. There's an article on "Stereotypes of African Americans" that people seem to think has merit. Certainly, a similar article examining the stereotypes of Jews through the ages, in historical and sociological context, is useful. Currently the "article" is little more than a list -- a stub of sorts -- that requires expanding. But certainly not deletion. What's good for the goose.... deeceevoice (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete
duh, based on the Stereotypes of African Americans article, which is a model for this article, or maybe Merge to Antisemitism when this article is deleted, I think this should be redirected to Antisemitism, which already has several examples of Jewish stereotypes.Terrible POV magnet, causing much untold grief. Delete and salt. travb (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep, (edit conflict) but not based on the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument the others have put. At least the current version of the article which describes Jews as "venal, money-grubbing or thrifty, enterprising" can be verifiable but just not verified as of yet (I also claim some common sense in this case). One need not go far to find scholarly sources analyzing Jewish stereotypes Google Scholar, for instance. MuZemike (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot the customary "Duh". I changed my vote from keep to merge, everything that was written here, is better and more thoroughly written on the Antisemitism page. I encourage the creator to add sourced content there. travb (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your suggestion to merge. Yeah, I started the article as a list merely to get the ball rolling; it was totally stream-of-conscious and not intended to be an article. And, yes, I did it, in part, because "other crap exists." (Why the hell should Black folks be the only ones on Wikipedia with a separate article on stereotypes? I'm fed up with the disparity in treatment. Answer: They shouldn't.) Aside from that, the matter of Jewish stereotypes is certainly important enough to be treated at length in an article separate from one on anti-Semitism, which, although it may touch upon negative perceptions of Jews, is not the ideal venue for a thorough examination of the subject. One obvious reason to start a separate article is a practical one: article length. Some examination of these stereotypes/archetypes through the ages and how they have shaped public perception and impacted history could be fascinating, enlightening stuff -- if people are willing to do the work to produce a quality article. deeceevoice (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot the customary "Duh". I changed my vote from keep to merge, everything that was written here, is better and more thoroughly written on the Antisemitism page. I encourage the creator to add sourced content there. travb (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has since been edited and the litany of unverified attributes removed, and replaced with a fine stub. My main concern was the list, that was a terrible excuse for an article. Since we clearly have sources for expansion, and the list has been replaced with a stub, I've no problem withdrawing the AfD should someone wish to do so. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the article talk page. There's plenty of source material there for a good start on a decent article. (It was easy enough to come up with in just a few minutes by merely googling "Jewish stereotypes," "Jewish archetypes," "Satanic Jews," "Jewish stereotypes Nazi Germany," etc. Jeeze.) The subject is certainly worthy of a stand-alone piece.
Oh, yeah. Duh. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dee, wake up, he is willing to withdraw the AfD. Say thank you, tell him he is a great editor, and move on. I still think this article should be merged into antisemitism. travb (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the article talk page. There's plenty of source material there for a good start on a decent article. (It was easy enough to come up with in just a few minutes by merely googling "Jewish stereotypes," "Jewish archetypes," "Satanic Jews," "Jewish stereotypes Nazi Germany," etc. Jeeze.) The subject is certainly worthy of a stand-alone piece.
Keep There's probably a good article here, but what's on the page is rubbish. The article needs to be cited, and the citations need to be scholarly. As is stands, this reads like a really bad middle school essay. I would also just like to gently caution anyone about being overzealous in trying to save this article. Sensitivity is needed and sourcing needs to be done thoughtfully and carefully. Removing uncited assertions isn't censorship, it's being a good editor.` AniMatetalk 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It's censorship when it's removed from the article talk space -- which is why I restored it. Save your "editing" for the article. deeceevoice (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again Dee, I understand your frustration as a new editor having a page deleted. But you are making enemies here. Strike or remove your comment, and apologize. Not for the editor you are apologizing too, but for your own self interest. travb (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dee has been here since 2004. Badger Drink (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You gotta be kidding. Apologize for what? deeceevoice (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again Dee, I understand your frustration as a new editor having a page deleted. But you are making enemies here. Strike or remove your comment, and apologize. Not for the editor you are apologizing too, but for your own self interest. travb (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's censorship when it's removed from the article talk space -- which is why I restored it. Save your "editing" for the article. deeceevoice (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as contentless wiki-link farm. The article creator herself admits (in the article creation edit) to this being a case of WP:OTHERCRAP (and her choice of targets is bringing me back to 1984). To put it bluntly, I see nothing here worth saving. Perhaps a few of the wiki-links could be moved to the Antisemitism "see also". Regardless of whether or not this title could make for an encyclopedic article (and it may well make for one), I think we can all agree that this current "stub" is neither encyclopedic nor a critical "stepping-stone" foundation for a future encyclopedic article - so nothing of serious merit will be lost in its deletion. If the article is substantially re-written before close, I will happily re-visit my opinion. Badger Drink (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per POV, farming, non-encyclopedic. Yossiea (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From 3rd nomination[edit]
[See talk page for why these nominations are being merged] travb (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stereotypes of Jews[edit]
- Delete Unsourced and highly negative article. As the previous AFD was withdrawn, I don't think it's eligible to be kept because of a pre-existing consensus, especially seeing as the list is currently under scrutiny at ANI. Sceptre (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think it's a good topic for an article--it strikes me as highly encyclopaedic and I don't see this content as antisemitic.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)-- my view changed on reading the altered article, see later comment.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]Keep Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]Comment you need to say why.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 04:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]I would support a merge to anti-semitism, but a nomination within hours of the last one seems rather vexatious. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Nevermind, it would be best if this was deleted and a more serious attempt at coverage done elsewhere/some over time. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - any meaningful content (which there is none here) could be placed in Antisemitism or Ethnic stereotype, but I can see no use whatsoever for having a topic here. --B (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to say merge anything vaguely encyclopedic to either antisemitism or some form of cultural depiction section at Jew...but there is not text here. I hate seealso bits. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:POINTy exercise in WP:OTHERCRAP. There is potentially a good article about this subject waiting to be written, but considering its history this isn't going to be it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep The article has been much improved and should be kept. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in its present form it refers to sufficiently notable topics with wp articles--in essence, a disam page or a list article. I think its tolerable. DGG (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete The old version was an obvious delete, the current one... is sketchy. Take away all the bad stuff and what you're left with doesn't really say much. This could be a well-researched and interesting topic, but in its current incarnation just seems to be more trouble than it's worth. l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There could be an article on this topic, but it would need to be properly sourced and comply with WP:NPOV rather than a mere stream of consciousness as this article has been.Rlendog (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like a dicdef with another bit that would be more appropriate in another article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If someone wants to recreate this with actual sources they can. I can't help but feel any entry created from this would be tainted. AniMatetalk 07:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per Sceptre (!) and due to general lack of helpful content. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm sure a scholarly article could be written on the subject. This isn't it. --Carnildo (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourceable content beyond a definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep The above opinions generally fail to address the potential of the article, per our policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:BEFORE. In particular, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. The main article Jew seems to have little to say about this topic and is already over 100K which is too large per WP:SIZE. There are several notable stereotypes of Jews - the intellectual, mother, userer, etc. - and it took me all of 10 seconds to find a book which is dedicated solely to this topic: From Shylock to Svengali: Jewish Stereotypes in English Fiction. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Articles that could be strongly POV need strong sources from the start. If this is going to stay it can only stay with proper citations and sources. Bring up Stereotypes of African Americans is excellent - that is a well structured, properly sourced robust article. This stub (and its predecessors) is hopeless. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have expanded the article from the source mentioned above. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, inherently original research and POV. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We can do better than this. For almost any minority group you can find perfectly reasonable people asserting all manner of vective in their general direction. This doesn't make it encyclopedic and in a case like this actually harms the project and is a disservice tto all concerned; our editors, admins cleaning up one dramedy after the next and our readers who look to us for insightful sharing what reliable sources have reported - not a wp:coatrack of cultural slurs. -- Banjeboi 12:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica to address your comment that the topic is not encyclopedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Antisemitism is certainly encyclopedic and I think this actually is a POV fork of that article. Stereotype articles can be useful, enlightening, etc. but this one simply isn't in that league. Sometimes articles are more trouble than they're worth - this one looks to be a POV magnet. -- Banjeboi 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica to address your comment that the topic is not encyclopedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now has 3 sources which address the topic directly and in detail, and there are many more available. The article is fully cited to these sources, so concerns of original research and WP:COATRACKhood are unfounded. Currently it looks like a WP:LIST, which makes me uncomfortable but isn't grounds for deletion, and there are plenty of sources for discussing rather than merely listing stereotypes. Juzhong (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several strong sources on the article talk page as well. deeceevoice (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My current efforts have been to establish a good framework for the article. The job of hanging prose upon this skeleton is made difficult because of the hot-button nature of the topic which will require good citations for every sentence, I expect. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several strong sources on the article talk page as well. deeceevoice (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Topic sensitivity is no reason for censorship. deeceevoice (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, the reopening of this AfD is purely punitive in the wake of a disagreement over User:travb/User: Inclusionist's (same user) determination to improperly edit/hide from view my talk page contributions and a threat on my talk page. See my comments here[3] First, he supports the article, then withdraws his support when he doesn't get his way. What? So, suddenly the article no longer has merit? Hogwash!deeceevoice (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep (changed from weak keep above as a result of revisions to the article). First, I agree with Deeceevoice that topic sensitivity is not grounds for censorship. Second, I agree with DGG that it serves as a potentially useful counterpoint to anti-semitism. Third, I share Dance With The Devil's concern that the repeated nominations in AfD may be vexatious rather than substantive; this could be a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STONG KEEP I'm in Thailand where Thai Chinese—particularly the Hakka—are often compared compared to Jews, either as a compliment or in disparagement, depending upon the bias of lecturer or audience. (So similar are they that the Chinese Jews have had difficulty in retaining their ethnic identity.) I'd like to see the present article grow so that a Chinese article could be cloned from it. And Gypsies and Indians and Persians in diaspora, too. The common thread that I see is ancestral ties going back to time immemorial, and shared behaviors in how in- and out-groups react in very similar ways to the resulting strictures. This in contrast with ethnic stereotypes that don't maintain comparable lineage memes.Pawyilee (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; it'll take some hard work to pull this together, but it can happen. I did a quick review of the sources and things are looking good. WP:NOT reminds us that Wikipedia isn't censored; any view expressed here in AfD along the lines of "we shouldn't have an article like this" conflicts with that core policy. I also think that there is a difference between "antisemitism" (i.e. fear or hatred of Jews) and simple stereotypes (i.e. Jews are often known for having big noses), so a merge between this article and antisemitism is unwarranted. Warren -talk- 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If someone wants to put the hard work in they can do it. Until then, I don't think we should be keeping articles around based on their potential. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your view is contrary to policy. And, FWIW, some hard work has been done on this article today. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to
Weakkeep I was musing on this long and hard, and I conceivably could imagine an article which doesn't fall into antisemitism or the rather large jew article, if I think of such material as Leo Rosten's Joys of Yiddish and possibly some scholarly material on Shylock (Shakespeare) as well as some 20th century self-reflective material by jewish humorists and satirists themselves. As noted above, article quality is no reason for deleted, but it does need to be started from scratch. and has found some much-needed material - I'd delete uch of the seealso section though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] - --Creator of article Canvassed two people to participate in this AfD: [4]"Your opinion/action is solicited" [5] travb (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden. Edison (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is garbage. No, it's just plain crap. There is a scholarly manner to present this type of information, but this is like a list of insults. It's poorly sourced. It has no context. And it's just anti-Semitism in its current form. I'm appalled by some of the comments in even this discussion. Someone actually said Jews have big noses. I just had my family here, all Jews (going back so many generations, it's ridiculous), and no one has a big nose. I just am appalled. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're talking about me, aren't you? Look, stereotypes are "generalized perceptions of first impressions"; they don't automatically apply to everybody within a group. If you're really coming into an AfD discussion and saying, "I'm a Jew and I'm personally offended by this article, therefore it should be deleted", remember that WP:COI and WP:NPOV remind us to leave our personal biases at the door when we come to Wikipedia. If that's going to be difficult for you, please recuse. Let's make decisions about articles based on Wikipedia's policies regarding inclusion criteria, not "I'm offended". Warren -talk- 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite the contrary. There will always be someone who is offended by any piece of information, even if it's "Gas is expensive in Alaska". But when you have a large number of established and respected users coming out and saying, "this is offensive" that's a pretty good sign that there's a serious problem with neutrality. l'aquatique |✡| talk 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's not the contrary. Go back and read what Warren wrote and think long and hard, bearing what our policies actually are in mind. We do have to suppress personal biases in order to write neutrally. And whether an article's current content is non-neutral is not a criterion for deletion. Only whether it can be rendered non-neutral, by editing and expansion, is. The correct response to an article that is non-neutral because it is incomplete is to complete it. Several content-writing editors here opining to delete should take note of the good example given by Colonel Warden in this case, and consider themselves shamed by the one editor so far who has actually followed policy and attempted to transform a bad stub written purely with the intention to disrupt into a good stub that starts the treatment of an encyclopaedic and notable subject that has been specifically documented by scholars, with sources in hand. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite the contrary. There will always be someone who is offended by any piece of information, even if it's "Gas is expensive in Alaska". But when you have a large number of established and respected users coming out and saying, "this is offensive" that's a pretty good sign that there's a serious problem with neutrality. l'aquatique |✡| talk 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're talking about me, aren't you? Look, stereotypes are "generalized perceptions of first impressions"; they don't automatically apply to everybody within a group. If you're really coming into an AfD discussion and saying, "I'm a Jew and I'm personally offended by this article, therefore it should be deleted", remember that WP:COI and WP:NPOV remind us to leave our personal biases at the door when we come to Wikipedia. If that's going to be difficult for you, please recuse. Let's make decisions about articles based on Wikipedia's policies regarding inclusion criteria, not "I'm offended". Warren -talk- 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think this needs a comment. This is just not appropriate, period! I'm offended and I don't offend easily. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is notable. If we don't like the present form , we should find WP:RS's and edit it to bring it up to speed. WP:DONTLIKEIT not a good reason to delete an article.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, redirect and delete We already have Antisemitism for a scholarly treatment of such material. Merge the (tiny) amount of useful information into that article and redirect, much as Polish Jokes redirects to Anti-Polish sentiment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Antisemitism. The two subjects overlap to the point where this is pretty much a subset of Antisemitism. It makes sense to keep it all in one place. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All stereotypes are not antisemitic. How is being clever at business antisemitic, and where would "being clever business men" belong in an article about antisemitism ? Die4Dixie (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a way to reinforce a stereotype without being overtly insulting, like saying blacks have "natural rhythm." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have personally heard some African americans say whites can't dance/have no rythm, with the proud implication being that they indeed do. Where is the self hating insult (even occult if not "overt") that the Balcks are self directing?Die4Dixie (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your user name, I'm guessing that you have the racial sensitivity of an amoeba. Just how many whites were gassed at Treblinka because they couldn't dance. I'm shaking with anger at your boneheaded statement. OrangeMarlin Talk•Contributions 04:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note the personal attack. A quick glance at the article assures me that "shaking" is an unfortunate choice of words given the stereotype here [[6]]. Are you trying to say because of the unfortunate events at Treblinka, that there are no stereotypes of Jews that are notable?Die4Dixie (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the fuck are you talking about? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you two take it elsewhere? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Xe is talking about the fact that with your ad hominem argument based upon nothing but your own ideas of what xyr user name means, you have successfully de-railed what was until that point a quite civil discussion on a relevant point: whether the topic here can properly be considered to be a sub-topic of anti-semitism. The argument against that is quite convincing, not least because there are quite a lot of sources that note that not all generalizations of Jews are negative, and that indeed have studied and surveyed this. Although the subjects are closely interlinked, neither is in fact a proper sub-set of the other. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, who asked you? Not I. Old southern charm there went with some very caustic anti-Semitic, baiting remarks. The comparison between anti-Semitism and his inability to dance is so laughable as to make me wet myself. Your comments are pointed in the wrong fucking direction. I'll accept your apologies on my user talk page. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dude", the same person who asked you to start attacking me. Implying I'm an antisemite is over the top. You were never baited, you came into the discussion shaking, frothing at the mouth, and employing ad hominem attacks.. I hadn't directed a word to you on this project untill you personalized an academic discussion about antisemitism. If you can't discuss the subject in a civil manner, perhaps you should not be on pages that even touch on Jews. Just stop with the attacks already.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, who asked you? Not I. Old southern charm there went with some very caustic anti-Semitic, baiting remarks. The comparison between anti-Semitism and his inability to dance is so laughable as to make me wet myself. Your comments are pointed in the wrong fucking direction. I'll accept your apologies on my user talk page. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the fuck are you talking about? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note the personal attack. A quick glance at the article assures me that "shaking" is an unfortunate choice of words given the stereotype here [[6]]. Are you trying to say because of the unfortunate events at Treblinka, that there are no stereotypes of Jews that are notable?Die4Dixie (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your user name, I'm guessing that you have the racial sensitivity of an amoeba. Just how many whites were gassed at Treblinka because they couldn't dance. I'm shaking with anger at your boneheaded statement. OrangeMarlin Talk•Contributions 04:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have personally heard some African americans say whites can't dance/have no rythm, with the proud implication being that they indeed do. Where is the self hating insult (even occult if not "overt") that the Balcks are self directing?Die4Dixie (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a way to reinforce a stereotype without being overtly insulting, like saying blacks have "natural rhythm." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All stereotypes are not antisemitic. How is being clever at business antisemitic, and where would "being clever business men" belong in an article about antisemitism ? Die4Dixie (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or perhaps merge wit Antisemitism) Note: I am referring to this revision (most recent at time of commenting). We have antisemitism which could treat the subject within a wider context and examine "benign" and (whatever the opposite of benign is...malignant?) stereotypes. There is, additionally, no assertion of "stereotypes" -as separate from antisemitic stereotypes- being inherently notable. Since benign stereotypes can fall under the antisemitic umbrella: I see no reason for a separate article. Lastly, I fear this growing trend: first stereotypes of Jews, then: stereotypes of Sephardi Jews, then: stereotypes of Hasidism, and so on. I have seen the three "stereotypes of" (blacks, jews, white people) articles; none indicate to me any independent notability, freedom from NPOV, or dedication to sourcing from reliable, secondary sources. The subject should be treated witin the requisite parent articles. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: although the article has footnotes, I am unable to verify most of the information due to the lack of page numbers (specifically: Rosenberg and Goodman/Miyazawa). This is not a criteria for deletion, but hints at the difficulty at keeping the article as assidously verifiable and NPOV as possible. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't put page numbers for the Rosenberg source because it is used to verify multiple stereotypes and its structure is to have a chapter for each stereotype. Its contents page and introduction are adequate for the information currently in the article. More complex, multi-level citations might be used as the article develops. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see where you're going with that; generally, I would not have issue with this. In this case, however, I feel that the topic at hand (i.e. stereotypes) is in inherently controversial as to require direct citations. Further: I feel that the article should still be understood within the wider "antisemitism" paradigm. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't put page numbers for the Rosenberg source because it is used to verify multiple stereotypes and its structure is to have a chapter for each stereotype. Its contents page and introduction are adequate for the information currently in the article. More complex, multi-level citations might be used as the article develops. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: although the article has footnotes, I am unable to verify most of the information due to the lack of page numbers (specifically: Rosenberg and Goodman/Miyazawa). This is not a criteria for deletion, but hints at the difficulty at keeping the article as assidously verifiable and NPOV as possible. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic fork of antisemitism. Mathsci (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per
nomUser:Yossiea. Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep While the topic certainly makes us uncomfortable, this is a sourced list that provides links to a variety of different topics surrounding the issue. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete for the lot The entire string of Stereotypes of (whomever) articles bring discredit on the project, though this is a particularly bad example. They all boil down to "(group) has been characterized as (list of insults)" where the insults never are based in fact even if a WP:RS can be found to record that the insult has been used. Why promulgate this crap?LeadSongDog (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the subject does not boil down to that if one consults sources rather than one's own preconceptions. (One part of the neutral point of view is leaving one's prejudices at the door, and writing for the Enemy.) There's actually rather a lot of source material, written by psychologists, sociologists, historians, and other scholars dealing with this subject, much of it under this specific title even.
Expecting that to have been compiled and written up in 4 days by editors, who have simultaneously had to deal with the somewhat hysterical reactions of other editors on several discussion fora, including "I'm insulted by stereotypes!" and "Stereotypes are untrue!" (neither of which are relevant to whether a subject can be covered in an encyclopaedia), in addition to the disruptive tactics of the article's creator (who has explicitly stated the point that xe wants to make using disruption), is quite unrealistic.
Stubs are imperfect and almost by definition not comprehensive treatments of a subject. And this 4-day-old article is a stub. There's one aspect of this subject, for example, that is currently dealt with in this current article in a single sentence, that I know actually occupies an entire book, written by a professor of literature at the University of Illinois and a professor of history at a college in Kyoto. That one sentence alone has scope for massive expansion from reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the subject does not boil down to that if one consults sources rather than one's own preconceptions. (One part of the neutral point of view is leaving one's prejudices at the door, and writing for the Enemy.) There's actually rather a lot of source material, written by psychologists, sociologists, historians, and other scholars dealing with this subject, much of it under this specific title even.
- Delete - and probably the lot, as LeadSongDog says. We already have Antisemitism, we don't need a list of insults (even if there are some compliments). dougweller (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is certainly in bad shape, but giving editors some time to make improvements -- in response to criticisms made here -- seems justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is any serious consideration of merging as an option, rather than merging with the Antisemitism article (which is already very large), the Stereotype article might be the better choice, particularly since there is a Jewish stereotypes section [7]. I would be willing to support that as an option. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom Shot info (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a clearly notable and well-formed subject, distinct from related subjects (e.g. antisemitism, or actual non-stereotypical generalizations about Jews), easily passes notability guidelines given that there are entire books about the subject. The article is very rudimentary and sloppy, but as trimmed to eliminate original research it is simply a very early stub/start class article in need of expansion. Ther article has been a magnet for trolls and bigots, and may require continued monioring, but we can't let that dissuade us from creating an encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. "List of stereotypes of Jews" is a plausible article (which would have to be permanently protected, to prevent obvious vandalism), but this is not the start of such an article. Arbitrary list of stereotypes, mostly sourced to the references stating the stereotypes, rather than referring to their prevalence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Yes, the article needs a lot of work. But that is not by itself a reason to delete it. Given the massive history of stereotyping of Jews (with such prominent literary examples as Shakespeare and Charles Dickens) there's more than enough material to have a decent article on this topic. The fact that stereotypes exist is not antisemtic nor is it POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - this does not treat the subject in a scholarly or intelligent manner. Rather, it seems to start with a preconceived set of stereotypes then adds some hastily added citations from which there are no supporting commentary. Nothing in this article furthers the understanding of stereotypes or, in this case, anti-Semiticism and only serves to thinly veil bad jokes. It is offensive in form and presentation and content. Nothing that is presented here couldn't be covered in Anti-Semitism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and drastically improve. Yes, the article is ugly and embarrassing to the encyclopedia as it stands, but the subject is clearly notable and (sadly) it can be verified that these allegations have been made. Jews have been a minority people for most of their existance and as such its no suprize that stereotypes have popped up over time and these have been well recorded and written about. The subject easily passes WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that the closing administrator disregard all comments that support deletion per nom, since I'm the nom, and I already withdrew this nomination and therefore my argument above, as it no longer applies to this article. I nominated the article to get rid of the list that was the earliest incarnation of this article, which is what my nomination statement addresses. The list is gone, so I'm happy. It clearly can be made into a good article. I certainly won't, but we're allowed to keep a substandard article because someone might. So I support keeping the article. (And making sure that list doesn't come back.) seresin ( ¡? ) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, just because you withdrawl your arguement and don't support it anymore, doesn't actually mean that others don't have to follow. Personally I agree with your nomination for AfD and disagree with your withdrawl of the nomination. So for what it's worth you cannot strike a bunch of deletes in this manner. Shot info (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Worse than a POV fork, it's a POV garbage can; anything here is better covered in more general articles. In addition it is an embarrassing hate-magnet, and its creation seems to have been an act of retaliation for having another equally-offensive article somewhere else. Anyone capable of holding their nose that long could merge anything useful into the stereotype article (rather than burdening the antisemitism article with the additional load). Antandrus (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm back after a 24-hour block for insisting that a list I authored remain on the article talk page. It's back. And it's annotated -- as an aid to others who wish to actually write an article/flesh it out further. Those of you who who are voting for deletion because the article as it stands is sketchy should take note. The article was just begun yesterday. And the information in the article, the list of sources I presented earlier, plus the (despised), annotated list, and the sources added by User: Colonel Warden (I may be wrong, but he and I seem to be just about the only ones -- plus User: Juzhong, maybe -- who've actually been working at producing something encyclopedic) provide more than enough credible, scholarly sources to frame a useful article. And those of you who've charged me with "racism," or "anti-Semitism," or whatever other preposterous notion you can come up with -- hey, I couldn't care less what you think about me. The issue here is the project. The article has merit, is encyclopedic with more than enough material to merit a separate entry -- and it should stand. deeceevoice (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has no encyclopedic value. The research and presentation can charitably be called a mess. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a POV fork. If any of it is salvageable, it can be merged into Antisemitism. Enigma msg 06:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between antisemitism and jewish stereotypes. Merging the two articles is inappropriate because they cover two separate concepts. Read antisemitism and stereotype, give it some proper adult thinking time, then come on back and propose something more sensible. Warren -talk- 13:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: current version of Stereotypes of white people [8] . Juzhong (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly the beliefs detailed in the article exist. As do stereotypical beliefs about negroes, asiatics, muslims and many other ethnic/racial/religious groupings. But they are still baseless beliefs, are statements of points of view, and hence not appropriate for the encyclopedia. And gathering them together as one article merely makes the points raised POV once removed. But still POV. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to antisemitism and ethnic stereotype when reliable sources exist. The poor quality sources should be discarded, and are generally going to be racism anyway. The scholarly discussions are going to be reflections on the origins and current impacts, and could do with the broader context of the parent articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I can't understand why the sensitivity of a subject can be seriously considered grounds for censorship. A merge with Antisemitism would be wholly inappropriate as stereotypes are not necessarily negative in nature. As a Jewish Wikipedian I'm far more offended by the attempt at censorship than by anything in this article. Raitchison (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as part of the series of articles on ethnic stereotypes; see the infobox which has even been made for this series of articles:
{{Ethnic stereotypes}} --Wassermann (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi There Wasserman: Take a good look at the articles in this box of {{Ethnic stereotypes}} and you will that most of them are not about "stereotype" conjecturing as such, but are devoted to actual ethnicities and not so much how they are "stereotyped", and they may even be violations of WP:POVFORKING. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stereotypes can be encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - like most non-FA articles it could use improvement, but it is a notable topic for which we have some reliable sources, and for which there are numerous reliable sources that exist which could easily be added to the article if someone were interested in tackling the job. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this (1) inevitable violation of WP:POVFORKING (of Stereotype) that's also clearly a (2) POV magnet that will allow wildfires of POV warring, (notice how Stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans was already conveniently REDIRECTED to Stereotype rather than get into wars in great detail that they are viewed as they are "Fascists, Mafiosis and run drug cartels"). (3) Building articles around such nebulous, volatile and dangerous "themes" such as "stereotypes" pushes the limits of Jews and others "by profession or type" into ridiculus and very dangerous grounds, so that seemingly "encyclopedic" descriptions of Jews leads directly to to "encyclopedic" Der Stürmer-style content with stereotypes and caricturaizations demeaning Jews and (4) it opens up a pandora's box and cans of worms of thinly disguised racism and hate in violation of many other WP violations such as WP:NOTSOAPBOX; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND; WP:NPA of all Jews and Jewish editors on Wikipedia, WP:CIVILity. (5) Note that Stereotypes of African Americans is also justifiably up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of African Americans because (6) these types of articles topics are attempts to duplicate in negative terms of main articles like Jew and African American, and the material can easily be included in Antisemitism, Racism and the whole range of Discrimination articles as found in the Discrimination template. (7) If there are positive, or negative things to be said, in an obviously careful scholarly and truly significant manner, then they can go into the main articles about Jews or African Americans. (8) Are we now to have Stereotypes of Germans that they are "Jew-haters, racists, Nazis and mass murderers" ands so on and so forth? when these points can be made and included in a a much heaalthier way in other more mainstream articles and these kinds of trivial and demeaning "Stereotypes of ____" articles can be redirected to the relevant articles about each ethnic group and its history. Otherwise, choose a word and it can be added to "Jews" or "African Americans" etc and presto you have a series of lame exdcuses for "articles" about anything that is really nothing notable. IZAK (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your thoughtful response. And it has merit -- except that particularly in cases where the stereotypes are myriad, where they have played a major role in terms of the way they've affected the relevant group, and in the way they've affected human history -- as certainly has been the case with Jews and Blacks -- then I think separate articles are warranted so as to provide sufficient space and opportunity for thorough examination of the subject matter. Certainly, such articles can become troll magnets. But my experience with Wikipedia has been that any article on virtually any particularly despised/stereotyped group or controversial subject can become a troll magnet. Witness the article on Kwanzaa, for example. Speaking from personal experience, if we let the probability that an article would attract attention from racist or otherwise intolerant a**holes prevent its creation, then, speaking from personal experience, then there wouldn't be an article on anything even remotely related to African-Americans here on Wikipedia -- including an article on watermelon. (If you doubt me, check the edit history. Pretty appalling stuff.) That should not be a concern. deeceevoice (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Stereotypes or Anti-semitism. This is just another poorly-written load of prejudice... -- Olve Utne (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete and redirect to Stereotypes or Anti-semitism. I can't say it better than Olve Utne did. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do either of you not see the potential for a useful and informative/encyclopedic article on the subject as I've suggested above? Or, are you simply opposed to the notion of an article on Jewish stereotypes altogether? deeceevoice (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really. Either as Stereotypes of Jews or as Stereotyping of Jews, it's never going to be more than a subsection of Antisemitism. There is no potential for an informative/encyclopedic article specifically on the subject of Jewish stereotypes. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you do not understand that there is a rather large antisemitism template, with many articles therein. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jewish stereotypes aren't a form of antisemitism. It's extremely unlikely that when Lewis Black gets on a stage and cracks jokes about how his mother, adhering to a Jewish cliche, wanted him to be a doctor, is somehow an expression of, or derivation of antisemitism. It's not. Read the article on stereotype, and you'll see that it's a different concept altogether. Warren -talk- 14:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So do an article on Positive Stereotypes of Jews with a note saying "For negative stereotypes of Jews, see Antisemitism. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment after perusing the above, the most interesting factor to me is the huge disjunction between the treatment of "Stereotypes of African Americans" and that of " Stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans ". this is another case where lack of consensus on an overall policy has been allowed to fester, and crops up as problems elsewhere. the fate of the article in question here should not be addressed in isolation, rather as part of this bigger question, since there could potentially be an article about "stereotypes of X" where X is an infinite number of human characteristics. Gzuckier (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The content is encyclopedic in nature and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! Besides, there are tons of other articles pertaining to stereotypes, bigotry along with other types of prejudice both historical and contemporary. --yonkeltron (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Izak. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Rewrite Wiki articles are sometimes determined by the first editor rather than the merit of the article. The topic is a topic fitting for an encyclopedia and there is such an entry in many encyclopedias. However the version in encyclopedias are usually written as history dividing stereotypes based the history of antisemitism (a fork from an antisemtism article) or from a social science perspective on the history of discrimination and prejudice. Unfortunately, this article was started as a non-encyclopedia list with a sense of OR and likely to become a place for contemporary vandals to hang out. Instead of all this energy on 3 nominations for deletion, if someone would take a book like The Devil And The Jews by Joshua Trachtenberg or the Encyclopedia Judaica article on antisemitism, then there would be a good non OR article. If someone wants to do it from a social science point of view then start with these articles http://www.adl.org/antisemitism_survey/survey_ii.asp. As it stands this article has problems with OR and the section divisions and the tone. But as a group, instead of arguing we could probably make this into a useful article in a week. --Jayrav (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Trachtenberg piece sounds like a good source -- and one similar to one on my now improperly expunged (again) list. Please feel free to add these and other sources you deem useful to framing an encyclopedic article on the talk page. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- if you are going to rewrite it then also beware of OR:Synthesis. even if everything has a ref, if there are new conclusions or the reverse if there are only certain selected it is OR:Synthesis.if you are going the Devil and the Jews, then it should be a medieval section, separate than the information on late antiquity in Judeophobia by Princeton Scholar Peter Schaffer, and separate from the racial stereotypes of the 19th and early 20th century. There would also need to be sections for urbane ethnic humor- stereotypes. JAP jokes told by Jews are not explicitly part of Antisemitism. As someone said above stereotypes include humor, folklore, and prejudice. I will comment on the talk page once we decide to Keep or delete. --Jayrav (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you Google the name Sandor Gilman you will find lots of material, he is currently the expert on Jewish stereotypes. --Jayrav (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, guys. I've already listed a very good source (or two or three) about stereotypes of Jews as satanic consorts or demons, treating the Middle Ages in the context of Christianity) -- in the (despised, removed) list. I'm going to reinstate the list -- again -- at some point. If it's deleted again, I'll simply have to take the matter back here. It seems hardly worth all the hassle -- particularly since it's quite clear the list is neither OR nor uncited and its deletion is contrary to Wiki policy. (The ironic thing is it's not all negative, either.) When I do, I'll be sure to look up the sources you've cited and add them. I'm glad someone is being constructive to the framing of the article. And I'm already on the business of stereotypes perpetuated by Jews -- particularly in Jewish comedy. The JAP is one, then -- of course -- Jewish mothers and comedians like Jerry Jerry Lewis, Howie Mandell and Michael Richards who portray(ed) spazzes/nerds/geeks. My interest at Wikipedia is in subjects related to Black people, so I actually hadn't intended to write this thing -- just to address the issue of systemic bias. But I may end up working on it after all.... deeceevoice (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you Google the name Sandor Gilman you will find lots of material, he is currently the expert on Jewish stereotypes. --Jayrav (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- if you are going to rewrite it then also beware of OR:Synthesis. even if everything has a ref, if there are new conclusions or the reverse if there are only certain selected it is OR:Synthesis.if you are going the Devil and the Jews, then it should be a medieval section, separate than the information on late antiquity in Judeophobia by Princeton Scholar Peter Schaffer, and separate from the racial stereotypes of the 19th and early 20th century. There would also need to be sections for urbane ethnic humor- stereotypes. JAP jokes told by Jews are not explicitly part of Antisemitism. As someone said above stereotypes include humor, folklore, and prejudice. I will comment on the talk page once we decide to Keep or delete. --Jayrav (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Total crap. Doesn't even merit a comment--Gilabrand (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doomed. Integrate useful content with Antisemitism, bin the rest. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I really can't believe the amount of support for deletion. Are people really saying that that this is not a subject that has has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Of course it has - that has already been well demonstrated above. The inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is in no way an endorsement of the truth of the stereotypes described, but simply a description of them. Also this is not the same as anti-semitism. Many stereotypes are positive or neutral (the expert cooker of chicken soup; the studious intellectual...) rather than negative. Even if those stereotypes are not true they are notable as stereotypes, so should be included in Wikipedia, as long as they are described as stereotypes and not facts about Jews in general. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All ethnoracial stereotypes are false generalizations. Period. The only "fact" involved is that members of some group has been erroneously catagorized as homogenous. What encyclopedic value is added by listing them even if a RS has done so? Will they help the reader better understand members of the group? Or do you really think we should be telling readers that all Jews make better chicken soup than Vietnamese do, that all Moslems are teatotallers and that all Indians are vegans? Just saying its a stereotype doesn't remove the harm from the repetition. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak the truth, not the freedom to slander or libel without consequence. If we allow WP to become a repository of hate the goodwill the project has built up will be squandered.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Pretending that stereotypes don't exist won't help anyone. Nobody is saying that these stereotypes should be presented as the truth - the truth involved is that these are stereotypes that have been held. If the article was called Facts about Jews rather than Stereotypes of Jews then your criticism would be valid, but these are, in the article title, clearly presented as stereotypes (i.e., as you say, false generalisations), rather than facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert back a few days before it got pared down to nothing. This isn't notable? I'm going to say the same thing I said on the "Sterotypes of white people" AFD; are we going to delete all "Stereotypes of X" articles? Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do not redirect to "anti-semitism", because not all stereotypes are negative, and not everyone who believes or jokes about the stereotypes is an anti-Semite. They are separate concepts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Irish American actors[edit]
- List of Irish American actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This list lumps together individuals that potentially have no commonalities with one another besides an aspect of their genome. There is no selectivity presented here in choosing who should be considered "Irish American" and who shouldn't - as long as an ancestor is Irish, and this is mentioned, the person is automatically placed on the list --- and any implementation of a "criteria" is often met with immediate rejection by other parties. Three-way intersections of little or no relevant value are generally disallowed. One cannot say that someone of Irish birth of immediate Irish background has the same experience as someone with unknown Irish grandparents.
The following are reasons for "keep" I would expect to show up, so I included analysis of why they should no be taken seriously.
-keep: the list is sourced. why this isn't a good excuse: Yes, it's sourced. But something being sourcable isn't the only necessity to qualify it for inclusion in wikipedia. More importantly, it is sourced without a unifying criteria. As if a List of actors and a list of American actors and a list of Irish Americans and a List of American actors with an Irish-born parent and a List or Irish-born American actors all have the exact same thing in common. Ethnicity is not relevant when there is no unifying connection between the person's ethnic background and their acting career.
-keep: ethnicity is important why this isn't a good excuse: No one is saying it isn't important. This could be a valid argument if the list up for deletion was List of Irish Americans. However, this list does not provide any substance as to what type of relevancy there is between being an American actor and having some Irish background.
-keep: we have list of Italian actors why this isn't a good excuse: Doesn't matter. The same rationale can be applied to that list, and if this one goes, those will too.
A summary of the reasoning behind this AFD can be found in the following essay: WP:IIFL. Bulldog 23:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be a sub-list split off from Lists of Irish Americans. Juzhong (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- It's sourceable, and can be reasonably finite. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, biggest reason, the AfD nomintor protests (writes) too much. Also keep, because the list is sourced, ethnicity is important, and we have a list of Italian actors. The nominator just wrote my rebutal for me. :) There seems to be no policy reasons listed in the nomination to delete this article, except for the plentiful reasons the nominator gives to keep. travb (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I created this list by pulling it out of List of Irish Americans which was getting too large and thereby difficult to edit. Since the nominator says the List of Irish Americans is just fine, then this list should be just fine also. If not, it will just be copied back into the parent list, helping editors be damned. Arguments advanced for deletion are invalid and have nothing to do with the criteria for creating/keeping lists. Hmains (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I regularly use lists like this one for reference purposes, and find them very useful. I find the criterion for deletion unconvincing. Correlation doesn't imply cause, but I really don't think anyone is saying their ethnicity causes their acting, or whatever it is that so offends the Nom here. NZ forever (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful list, can be sourced reliably and verified. – Alex43223 T | C | E 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although I am not fond of lists. This sounds more like a content dispute problem and not a deletion issue. --Bejnar (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zayra Alvarez[edit]
- Zayra Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable musician. No bona fide third party sources. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Bongomatic 23:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per wp:notability. The L.A Times: She's determined to be heard, man. The Star Telegram: Dallas woman sings for stardom. Forth Worth Weekly: Zayra Is Pretty. More at Google News. --Jmundo (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As noted by Jmundo, there is information that appears to verify notability. --Stormbay (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Jmundo. Schuym1 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I'm closing this as "keep" but some consensus appears below to split and merge the contents of this into season articles. I won't do that myself and I won't dictate it through this close, but it seems like a good idea. Protonk (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of San Jose Earthquakes rosters[edit]
- List of San Jose Earthquakes rosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an unencyclopedic and trivial list of rosters. Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA. Tavix (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - lists of players who have played for a club are notable, as the above category poves. GiantSnowman 11:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - isn't this much easier just to convert into a list of players instead of doing an AfD for it? matt91486 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can see use for an article such as this, but I have no need for this. I might consider voting delete. Govvy (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split/Merge the content should be split up by season and then merged into the relevant seasonal articles. If no such articles exist, then I guess this article should be deleted. – PeeJay 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split each roster into the relevant club season article (e.g. San Jose Earthquakes season 2008), then delete this article. The information in this article IS useful, but certainly not in this format. Bettia (rawr!) 11:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge each section into the appropriate season articles, then redirect this article to the team article to preserve contribution history for GFDL. Note that this action did not require AFD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Histominaphobia[edit]
The result was Delete. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Histominaphobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Zero sources, zero Google hits, very likely a hoax. Sandstein 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but knowing nothing about the area I've left a note at WikiProject Medicine, who will probably know. Eve Hall (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, zero hits in Google Scholar or on PubMed and nothing I've ever heard of. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Maybe it is a real phobia, but I don't know the ancient terminology of the world 'allergy' so I can't figure it out. The point is, you can create a page about every phobia if you just place the latin/greek whatever it is infront of the world 'phobia'. No hits on Google and PubMed to me means this is not notable. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems like a hoax. Linguistically it should mean a fear of histamine, perhaps of histamine's role in the allergic response, but a fear of allergies would be more likely be a fear of the symptoms that come with it, not of histamine per se. Twirligig (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable. I would imagine allergophobia to be a more likely name for this (if it exists, and it may very well), as the word "allergy" is of Greek roots. Even a fear of histamine would have to be histaminophobia, not histominaphobia. Whatever happened to the creative hoaxes, the ones where folks really did their homework? :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Snowball fight anyone? Tavix (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As per above, I don't vote this way much, but: delete There is going to be snow this New Years.travb (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition[edit]
- Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources, no book notability or otherwise any mentions that i can find, seems to be promotional of this religious view-point rather than encyclopedicBali ultimate (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything sourced to Assemblies of Yahweh. Although it looks like the citations are only to libraries where the book can be found, not about its notability. 5500 copies in 20 years doesn't seem that notable to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Keep @ Keep People want to know about Sacred Name Bibles; this one has been around for the past 28 years. It is one of the only Sacred Name Bibles that use Yahweh is both the Old and New Testaments. It is one of the main of the Sacred Name Bibles and listed among very few Divine name translations [9]. You type Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition Bible in to a search engine and you will get literally hundreds of results for this reason. Just because you have a gap in your knowledge about certain things, doesn’t mean you can come out with something like this.
- You're the first to complain about "No reliable sources, no book notability" so what does that tell you. Apparently, others hold that the Bible is notable. in fact they are two books listed in the Bibliography and several references. Just because you have never heard of the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition, you cannot assume that people who hold different beliefs to yours don't either. And Ricky, contrary to your opinion, the AOY has printed over 5,500 copies.
- No reason to delete the article; it is backed by three books and several references: In Citer— In Citer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I The explanations of both Ricky and Bali for the deletion of this article aren't even backed by the article itself In Citer (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the first to complain about "No reliable sources, no book notability" so what does that tell you. Apparently, others hold that the Bible is notable. in fact they are two books listed in the Bibliography and several references. Just because you have never heard of the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition, you cannot assume that people who hold different beliefs to yours don't either. And Ricky, contrary to your opinion, the AOY has printed over 5,500 copies.
- comment Good lord. I nominated this via AFD because i knew speedy would be contested, and now there's a whole bunch of text up above in a template about the speedy nom being contested? Could you please at least remove the template and keep this on topic and not personal? As for the reason behind my nom, this book/translation/whatever does not meet any of wikipedia notability guidlines (start at WP:NOTABILITY if you haven't read it). It is not the subject of any non-trivial mentions in any reliable WP:RS secondary sources anywhere. Those are the reasons for the nom (and yes, i do think the Bible is a notable book).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Three books from outside sources and several references but you still say it isn't notable? Not sure about that Bal In Citer (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please do not put that I am a single user account again. I have created over 6 articles. What is wrong with putting down what I know about a certain subject (and I know quite a bit about the aoy). Why should I work on other articles when I know most about the AOY? I don't want to be a administrator. This subject interests me...what about you? In Citer (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Three books from outside sources and several references but you still say it isn't notable? Not sure about that Bal In Citer (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hey, from my personal point of view it's a screwy topic and the article is written in an odd style with possible WP policy issues, but as far as Wikipedia notability goes it took me about thirty seconds to find an independent source on this in an encyclopedia of religions.
“ | Several Assemblies of Yahweh groups have issued their own translations of the Bible. Among these are The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible', Missionary Dispensary Bible Research; The Sacred Name Bible, translated by A. B. Traina; The Sacred Scriptures, Bethel edition, Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel, Pennsylvania. | ” |
- Here's another one from a catalog of Bible translations. The entire text itself seems to have been scanned by Google Books, which means it's probably in at least one major library. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Per all the reliable sources. No doubt this is an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not censored. --Jmundo (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: may I ask, what sources? In this version, sources 2 and 3 are just about the meaning of the work "Yahweh" and aren't relevant, sources 4 and the two in 5 are to libraries where the book exists. I mean, I guess that's reliable but I assumed notability requires something more than mere existence. Otherwise, wouldn't even band, book, organization in existence be notable enough under that logic? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK credit crunch victims[edit]
- UK credit crunch victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced article documenting financial crisis ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 22:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to have plenty of sources, albeit badly formatted. AFD is not for cleanup. This is a notable topic and needs to be tidied up a bit. Compare with this very US-centric article. Lugnuts (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and retitle to something like List of notable UK businesses failing during 2008-2009 financial crisis. Highly notable subject, receiving a lot of press attention. JulesH (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename, and cleanup--Notable international topic, no doubt that the list will grow. --Jmundo (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with a new name that will attract the entries which are probably still out there. --Stormbay (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nom withdrawn, speedy delete per previous AfD (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Reid[edit]
- Fred Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not seem to meet criteria of notability guidelines for athletes as he seems to be competing in "junior" league. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, I hadn't noticed the old AfD that just closed as delete yesterday, going for the speedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete, A1 (no context). Note to nom--be sure to add the AfD tag next time. Blueboy96 19:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotham's Knight[edit]
- Gotham's Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no confirmation of this at this time. This needs to be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Yeah, a film is being discussed. No press covering it. The title, stars, etc. are not known yet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (A1) — no context. If not that, then definitely a strong delete as pure crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darrell bell[edit]
- Darrell bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - Not a particularly notable sound engineer. Google search brings up five thousand or so results, but the first few pages are related to a fine artist from Saskatoon. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not meet WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a search for Darren Bell turns up lots of people. Refining the search by adding in the various ventures into the search terms turns up no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (A3/G5) by MacGyverMagic. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ackuron[edit]
- Ackuron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable future game. No reliable sources provided, none found. Article runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL and links provided are blacklisted. No bias against recreation once game is released and reviewed in reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 18:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How long it has been under development is irrelevant, no prejudice to recreation once the game is released, right now it's all speculation. --Terrillja talk 20:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep--Admiralxgmx (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No references provided (there were some citations, but to a blacklisted site, so I removed them), no significant coverage from reliable, independent sources; therefore fails WP:V and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G5) — article by a sock of a (de facto) banned user — Xgmx (talk · contribs). MuZemike (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as copyright infringement. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Open thinking[edit]
- Open thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Original research, or yet another neologism that someone is trying to coin through a Wikipedia article. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nominator gets it right. Article is about a neologism that borders on a dictionary definition. TN‑X-Man 19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Neologism, copyvio too, as cc by-nc-sa is not acceptable on wikipedia. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per G10 (attack page; per discussion at WT:CSD, WP:ATP applies to attack pages against groups as well) and G4 (evading deletion of Hindu terrorism, with extreme prejudice. Blueboy96 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu terrorist[edit]
- Hindu terrorist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Soapboxing, author's own views. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already. No assertion of notability, unsourced, has been speedied 5 times (including 3 times last Monday), the list goes on. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Textbook soapboxing. And judging by the author's familiarity with Wikipedia formatting, I have a hunch he's somebody's sockpuppet. Blueboy96 20:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it for something you made up one day. --Terrillja talk 20:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt if it's just going to keep coming back. Reyk YO! 21:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G4) and salt --.:Alex:. 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note G4 is only for articles that were deleted by AfD, this has never had a discussion (until now).--Terrillja talk 22:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism. The history shows that this article was once moved there, where it was subsequently deleted. I would say that technically counts, I suppose. If it doesn't, then Speedy Delete as per G10. --.:Alex:. 22:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was CSD#g7, author requested here. (non-admin closure) Terrillja talk 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Axamenta[edit]
- Axamenta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND, signed to a label, but neither label has a wiki article, and a google search confirms that the LSP Company does not appear to be notable. This fails 2 records from a major label, all current and former members are redlinked, sources are either selfpublished or not WP:RS. Terrillja talk 18:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I found no mention of them in English language newspapers. The documentation does seem to be lacking. --Bejnar (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: article fails to establish notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I have decided that I can handle this being deleted. I, the creator of the Axamenta article, recognize that it comes short of wikipedia guidelines, and most or all the people viewing the article are probably thinking to themselves that this should be deleted. Well, I guess this was one of those articles I created that just didn't have the notability to make it passed the first few days, just like the article I made for the band Bergthron, which was speedily deleted. Their vocalist recently quit the band due to throat problems. If the band finds a replacement that is notable enough to have created or have a previously created article, then I might try again to create this article. If they sign on to a record label notable enough to have a wikipedia article (or if Shiver Records, their current label, has a wikipedia article, but the notability of that is irrelevant in this discussion, except for the fact that it's not notable enough), then I will probably try again. So, I acknowledge that this article wasn't meant to last, and I will give the administrators and anyone else who can delete articlesto delete the Axamenta article (I don't know if there are any non-administrators who can delete articles, but I put that just in case). Thank you. BTC 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgarians in Turkey[edit]
- Bulgarians in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is inconsistent and conflicting; instead of being an article about Bulgarians’ it is actually about Turkish people from Bulgaria who migrated to Turkey in 1989 being represented as Bulgarians. Contributors’ have also objected to and failed to try and improve the article. Thetruthonly (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article topic and the actual content are conflicting paradoxes. The article is named: “Bulgarians in Turkey” providing a figure of 300 000 Bulgarian speaking community in Turkey however refusing to elaborate that this community is in fact overwhelmingly (326 000 based on 2005 figures) of Turkish descent and speaks Turkish as mother tongue (most are Bulgarian citizens due to being born in Bulgaria, this does not guarantee their Bulgarian speaking skills). Actual ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey (not necessarily even Bulgarian citizens) forming the Bulgarin Diaspora are no more than few hundred. Turks in Bulgaria and Immigration to Turkey are separate Wikipedia articles where immigration of ethnic Turks and other Muslim minorities from the Balkans to Turkey are covered. In case this article is not streamlined and improved it has absolutely no value for Wikipedia readers due to its conflicting nature. Furthermore, any attempts to present clarification and improvement are being blocked.Hittit (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | A Bulgarian citizen shall be anyone born of at least one parent holding a Bulgarian citizenship, or born on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, should he not be entitled to any other citizenship by virtue of origin. Bulgarian citizenship shall further be acquirable through naturalization. | ” |
— Constitution of Bulgaria, Chapter Two, Art. 25 (1) |
- Keep as article author, the Turkish Wikipedians are refusing to believe that "Bulgarians" can mean (constitutionally) "Bulgarian citizens of whatever ethnicity", just like "Americans", "French people" or "Greeks". In my opinion, the article serves as a good overview of the several groups somehow related to Bulgaria but living or having lived in Turkey: whether ethnic Bulgarians, ethnic Turkish Bulgarian nationals or Bulgarian speakers of whatever origin. All reasonable issues that have been brought up have been addressed by me so far. Unfortunately, there is going to be a mass ethnic delete vote by the Turkish Wikipedians, so I'm kindly inviting all neutral Wikipedians to support me here and help us improve this article instead of deleting valuable and sourced information. Todor→Bozhinov 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: If the article was about Bulgarians then it should not be showing the population of Turkish people. This article is extremely offensive to those who suffered in 1989 due to 'Bulgarisation' which in some ways this article is also doing! The list of notable Bulgarians in Turkey are 70% Turkish whilst the 30% are from the Ottoman period when there were ethnic Bulgarians at the time. in short this article is trying to Bulgarise the Turks. Turco85 (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Even though the census is correct, the population are ethnic Turks. If this article was called ‘Bulgarian Turks in Turkey’ that would be a different matter. But this article is specifically hinting that they are Bulgarians. The gallery for example shows ancient churches; but I’m sure that this 350,000 population are not even Christians which demonstrate just how misleading the article is. Just because there has been migration from a certain country, it does not mean that they are that ethnic group. I will give you a simple example to why this article is absurd. Many Greek and Armenian Americans for example originate from Turkey, but the Turkish American article is about ethnic Turks and does not count Greeks, Armenian and Jews. If it did it would be ridiculous just like this article is right now. GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, articles entitled "something in somewhere" for example usually refer to an "ethnicity" rather than a citizenship group. I must agree with the votes from above, the article needs to focus on "ethnic bulgarians" in turkey, as this is what is implied by the title. The article should focus on ethnic bulgarians (orthodox and pomaks) in turkey and if users wish to have a section for the exodus of turks to turkey post 1989, i cannot see why it cant be included here. i guess if the article will not be changed in some sort of a way like that, then the above users have due reason to vote delete. PMK1 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but remove the part about the Turkish people. Jingby (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but the numbers should not include ethnic Turks with Bulgarian citizenship - they can only be mentioned as having one but not counted as Bulgarians. However, the article is needed because of the strong historical presence of the Bulgarians in Turkey. --Gligan (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: regarding the stats stating that there are 600,000 'Turkified Pomaks'- the reference leads to a page that cannot be found. A new reference is needed to support this argument. Also reference number 6) is about ethnic Turkish people who will not be allowed to vote in Bulgaria it is not about ethnic Bulgarians. Unless these points are cleared up, I still vote to delete because it is still misleading. Thetruthonly (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pomaks are not ethnic Bulgarians and furthermore there is a separate article about Pomaks in Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. Either this article focuses on ethnic Bulgarian’s in Turkey as its title states or it should be deleted. The term Bulgarian Muslims is purely Bulgarian invention part of the government supported Assimilation Campaign the roots of which could be traced back to the 1930’s. Ethnic Turks were also referred as Bulgarian Mohammedanians until 1989 by the Bulgarian State, which had fabricated and falsified historical evidence to support the idea of a unified Bulgarian nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: according to the international sholarly consensus, the Pomaks are Muslims of Bulgarian ethnic origin. Fringe theories should not be asserted as the truth. Todor→Bozhinov 14:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no imaginary "international scholarly consensus, you might want to visit the Pomaks Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Yes, fringe theories are not accebtable, Hittit. Jingby (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: If you look at the articles history, I tried to eliminate Turkish factors from the article, once it was reverted I realised this would come to pass. While the article has been neutralised to a certain standard; it is still not satisfactory. As user: Thetruthonly has stated reference number 5) cannot be accessed and reference number 6) is about Turkish peoples voting rights and in fact the same with reference number 7). Topkapi4 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the mass ethnic vote is happening. Reference 5 (Milliyet.com.tr) is working fine; if you need a cached version, you can find one here. Reference 7, page 323, clearly reads that some of the Pomaks retain their Bulgarian citizenship as dual citizens. The article has been updated by Jingiby today, removing any reference to ethnic Turks. The arguments of the Turkish Wikipedians are invalid and even if they were valid, they would have been no reason for the article to be deleted. Todor→Bozhinov 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is still deceptive... do you not realise this? Reference number 5) states that there are 600,000 people however whether they are Turkish or Pomak is unclear. Having said that, the statement in the article 'Part of those people retain their Bulgarian citizenship as dual citizens.[6][7]' this statement is backed up by references about ethnic Turks but why?? This article should be about Bulgarians’ only... if anything the article might be more suitable if it was called 'History of Bulgarians in Turkey' as they have a historical presence but almost no occurrence today. If you can find up-to-date references for ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey it could maybe bring to a standstill this quarrel. Topkapi4 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim that you speak Turkish as your native language, are you saying now that you can't read Turkish? The article clearly says 600,000 thousand is the number of Pomaks. Why do you consider it a problem that we're using a reference about Turks and Pomaks when we're talking about Pomaks only? We're only using the information about Pomaks. There are Bulgarians in Turkey today, so the "History of Bulgarians in Turkey" name would clearly be inappropriate. Kudos to the Ottoman government for the efforts, but they didn't manage to get rid of everyone. "Almost" doesn't work. Todor→Bozhinov 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But there is an up-to-date references for ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey, the figure is 300 - 400 mainly in Istanbul Hittit (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. This is the number of descendants of Tsarigrad Bulgarians, the traditional Bulgarian minority in the city, still living there. This is NOT the number of Bulgarians in Istanbul at all and especially not the number of Bulgarians in Turkey. This was already said to you so I don't know why you keep repeating it. Todor→Bozhinov 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article is just too inconsistent. Bulgarians are Bulgarians and Turkish people are Turkish people- end of story. This artile is meant to be just on Bulgarians, there is also no reliable sources indicating the presence of Bulgarians in Turkey Sundari32 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The legal rights of the Bulgarians were recognized fully by the Republic of Turkey through the Treaty of Angora (Ankara), signed on October 18 1925, which have been never denounced or enforced too. Read the attached to the Threaty Protocol, please: [10] Jingby (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Then as stated by me before, why not change the article to 'History of Bulgarians in Turkey'. Nobody denies that they have at some point lived in Turkey. But today it appears that there is only Tsarigrad Bulgarians left in the country. Pomaks should have its own article (i.e. Pomaks in Turkey)Topkapi4 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pomaks already have their own Wikipedia article and BTW if you look at the Ankara Agreement from 1925 "Turkish nationals of the Christian faith whose mother tongue ís Bulgarian shall be regarded as belongig to the Bulgarian minority", Pomaks are not part of this group. Hittit (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, because the Pomaks lived then in the Rhodopi. Jingby (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Have you ever read the Ankara Agreement before making references to it? "The Bulgarian government recognises as Turkish nationals all MOSLEMS born within the frontiers of Bulgaria before 1912 and who have before 1925 emigrated to Turkey. The agreement states Turkish nationals of the Christian faith and with mother tongue Bulgaria shall be regarded as Bulgarian minority...this excludes reference to 600 000 Pomaks.Hittit (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ok then if the last paragraph is removed (about Pomaks) then I will have no problem with this article anymore. Bare in mind that just because there have been agreements in the early twentieth century- it does not prove anything about today’s Bulgarian community in Turkey.Topkapi4 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The reference about Pomaks needs to be removed furthermore there is an maveric Wikipedia article wih the title "The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913" based to a great extent on a single source of an Bulgarian ethnographer Miletich. The purpose of that article is higlhly confusing with significant factual flows, either it is an article about Bulgarians that lived in Turkish Thrace or just some overview of Miletich's book...nevertheless one might rething of combinining these two into one article about the history of Bulgarians in Turkey...I would assume the period would be post 1908 since until then Bulgaria was officially part of Ottoman Turkey.Hittit (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We will not succumb to Turkish blackmailing just to save this article: the Pomaks are Bulgarians and the Thracian Bulgarians were all killed or expelled in 1913 by the Ottoman Army. Save your mucus, in the real world, you don't always get what you want. You had Turkish Bulgarians removed, but you'll have no luck with Pomaks or the erasing of the Thracian massacres. Just like we recognized our fault in the repression of Bulgarian Turks in the 1980s, you'll get to live with the truth. How come are you always representing Turkey as a victim? Todor→Bozhinov 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop your political debates and focus on the subject in question. Thank you. Thetruthonly (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and later on possibly recreate. It seems that the issue is to deep to just deal with here. The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913; this article is based on "events described by Lyubomir Miletich". Make it in to a real article, and not one that is based upon a book. Also if possible the link with pomaks should be clarified, but at the moment there is to much POV warring here for any such improvement. Anatolian Bulgarians is also another article which should also be included here. It is possible to see how the article can be taken as irredentist and offensive. PMK1 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Did anyone ever read Wikipedia:Deletion policy before voting? That you don't like an article is no reason to vote delete. None of the arguments cited so far are any reason to delete. What's happening here is Bulgarians being blackmailed by Turkish users and other "friends". Todor→Bozhinov 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Turkish nationalism and the Macedonism are well-known with their objectivity, arn't they? Jingby (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am merely saying that there would be no harm done, if the article was to recreated from scratch. PMK1 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The issues brought up by Delete voters #2, #3, #4, #5 and the nominator have been addressed. To these people: please reconsider your votes. To the closing admin: please consider that when assessing this nomination.
- The article seems more neutral- I still have my doubts on Pomaks being in the article however if you insist on Pomaks being kept in the article please remove reference 7) because it has no information on Pomaks what so ever- it is yet again about Turks from Bulgaria and the same with reference 8). Justinz84 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed reference 7 and have made a correction in the page's description of reference 8, (now 7). The Pomaks are mentioned there clear as migrants and later as dual citizens. Regards! Jingby (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of NCIS characters. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leroy J. Gibbs[edit]
- Leroy J. Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article contains nothing but plot summary. It treats its subject as a real-world person, and does not assert notability of this particular fictional character. Essentially, it is fancruft that contains absolutely no real world information. This should be deleted per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works." Scapler (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My investigation confirmed Count Scapula's findings. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of NCIS characters Sceptre (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Mr. Gibbs is already covered at the List of NCIS characters. Moreover, there is no suitable content to be moved there, because this article is entirely unsourced. Reyk YO! 21:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite this is of course exactly how not to write such an article--the fairly rare failure to even mention that it's fictional--it actually links to the REAL equivalent--and the really excessive detail. But he's the principal character of a a major show, and so a full account is appropriate. On the other hand, the discussion in the combined article is equally a poor example if it is to be the only discussion. either expand that one properly or reduce this. It doesn't matter, as long as its done right. DGG (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Sceptre. The more commonly known name Jethro Gibbs already redirects there. JuJube (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Sceptre; unacceptable as an article about a fictional subject. That's not to say an acceptable article on the subject couldn't be written, but this isn't it. Terraxos (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3RDegree[edit]
- 3RDegree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BAND. Only notable work till date is recording of a song for an indie label [11]. No secondary or tertiary reliable sources. LeaveSleaves talk 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only sources are the usual collection of Myspace and YouTube links. Blueboy96 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Lissa Explains it All . MBisanz talk 02:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alyssa Daniels[edit]
- Alyssa Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Clearly meets no notability criteria. It's nice that she had a blog when she was eleven and that she's now a junior in college, but aside from saying that she's "famous" there's no real assertion of notability here, much less proof thereof. Has been tagged since August. P L E A T H E R talk 07:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lissa Explains it All which is the website that made her "famous". Notability for the two are linked. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: per Whpq. Schuym1 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything Comes and Goes[edit]
- Everything Comes and Goes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only sources are primary or unreliable (a blog, YouTube). Track listing not verified, no other verifiable info at all. Was deleted in September although I'm not sure if it's close enough for a G4. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) — (I'll bite) Recreation of deleted material. Still crystalballery, just as before; the previous version was also deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. MuZemike (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment It is somewhat different to the deleted version. Plus I have added a Reuters source. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to a weak delete as we have at least one reliable source. However, needs multiple sources to establish full notability of the album. MuZemike (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient notability WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to rational trigonometry. MBisanz talk 02:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Norman J. Wildberger[edit]
- Norman J. Wildberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject of the article, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales, appears to fail WP:PROF. The subject appears to be known for a single event (WP:ONEEVENT), the introduction of so-called rational trigonometry. This subject is itself of rather dubious notability, and the notability of the former is entirely parasitic upon the notability of the latter. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into rational trigonometry. (I don't think the latter is of "dubious notability"). Michael Hardy (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps my wording "dubious notability" was poor. The article rational trigonometry only establishes notability in a rather marginal way. As far as deletion goes, I would still !vote keep for that article, since I tend to think that valid concepts should be granted more latitude than articles for persons, and I believe that policy seems to support this point of view. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say I'm puzzled by the comment above. In the word "!vote", is the exclamation point an abbreviation of "not", as in some programming languages? And which article do you mean when you refer to "that article"? Does "more latitude" mean you be more inclined to keep them? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wildberger has other -er- idiosyncratic views than rational trigonometry, including the view that almost all integers are indescribable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no third party sources to establish notability -- article is sourced purely to Wildberger's own "views" page. HrafnTalkStalk 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a pruned version into rational trigonometry. A Google Scholar search suggests that the subject's research is not highly cited.[12] (As an aside, I'm not sure the discussion on notoriety for a single event really applies to academics, who are often best known for a single piece of research.) Espresso Addict (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that if this article is merged it should also include mention of Le Anh Vinh, the 2nd most prolific person on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.40.36 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. As suggested by Michael Hardy and Espresso Addict. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anya bast[edit]
- Anya bast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article fails to establish notability per WP:CREATIVE. The article asserts without elaboration or proper independent references that the subject has won multiple awards, and that her fiction is nationally bestselling (whatever that means). However, the references in the article are the author's personal website and a writer's profile at publisher's marketplace. This google news search gives no relevant hits for the subject of the article, strongly suggesting that the subject of the article is not notable. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Delete None of them have more than 100 or so holdings in WorldCat, which is trivial for popular fiction; for fiction of this genre , I accept that it's harder to tell. But where are the reviews--that's what's needed to show notability. DGG (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider deletion. I have taken out objectionable phrases such as 'nationally bestselling' and references to awards. I have added two references outside Bast's web site and Publisher's Marketplace page. I wish to argue the subject is notable. Please see wiki entries for authors of the same caliber as Bast -- Barb Hendee, Megan Hart, Jeanne C. Stein, Jenna Black, Eileen Wilks, Richelle Mead. There are many and all have articles in Wikipedia. Also please note that New York Times bestselling author Yasmine Galenorn (also in Wikipedia) has around the same number of holdings in WorldCat. Iridillym —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I think there is a mistake in the above post: The poster wishes to argue that the subject IS notable rather than NOT notable. Problem fixed by poster. I'd strike through this if I knew how...Peridon(talk) 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's not in the vanity publishing class. There's plenty on Google, including "Anya Bast is a multipublished erotic fantasy & paranormal romance author. Primarily, she writes happily-ever-afters with lots of steamy sex" (http://www.jasminejade.com/m-24-anya-bast.aspx) which confirms that I won't be buying the stuff but other people are. If porn stars have notability, why not this author who may not be guilty of committing literature but is at least selling books? Peridon (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. There are clear criteria for the notability of pornstars. Are there such criteria for "romance" authors? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lowercase surnames in article titles are prima facie evidence of non-notability Sceptre (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses I'm confused, Silly rabbit. There are many articles in Wikipedia about authors of all genres, including romance. Should I list more examples than I have already? Nora Roberts, Sherrilyn Kenyon, Lisa Kleypas, P. C. Cast, Lori Foster, Jill Shalvis. I can provide many more. Sceptre, The lower case letter of the surname is obviously a typo. The template offers no way for me to correct it that I have found. I'm still looking for a way to fix it. Iridillym(talk) 10:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some of the articles you cite clearly meet the standards of WP:CREATIVE, namely that an author should have received (for instance) multiple awards and that those awards should have been acknowledged in reliable sources independent of the subject. Some of the other articles you mention clearly meet these criteria, such as Nora Roberts, which have won multiple awards and are widely acknowledged as "important" in that particular genre. Some others that you mention do not meet these criteria, and are as deserving as this one of deletion in my opinion. The relevance of other stuff on Wikipedia to this AfD is not clear. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - To me this really looks like a self-published author on the same level of notability as the recently-deleted Guy Anthony De Marco. Deb (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Anya Bast is published with Penguin Group and Harlequin Inc, two of largest names in publishing. She is not self-published. Follow the links to find her author pages at both publishing houses. Iridillym(talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree with your last comment, she is not self-published. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Notable crap author. Franciscrot (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Evidence of notability is utterly missing. {{citation needed}}. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Library holdings are somewhat misleading for erotic fiction, which is not traditionally held by most libraries. At least one of her books, Witch Heart, is frequently described as "national bestselling" (which in publisherspeak generally means that it has appeared in a top 50 lists published by a national paper, usually USA Today) and currently has a sales rank on barnesandnoble.com of 786, and on amazon.com of 2650, which is hardly what I'd call insignificant. There are hundreds of reviews available of her books in reliable sources, so many of them could clearly be considered notable. 17 of her books have been reviewed by Romantic Times. Her self-produced promotional video for Witch Fire won several Cameo Awards (a publishing industry award for book promotions). Seems notable to me. JulesH (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- can you give some references to the awards and to the reviews, and put them in the article? It would be better to have at least one or two reviews from established general publications. I'm not sure that notability for a book promotion is notability as a writer of a book. DGG (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A search in abebooks showed 230 copies of her various works for sale. Amazon has 31 titles on offer. Somebody is reading this stuff, and that means she's notable. If the article needs improving, that can be done; give it time for that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piano rock[edit]
- Piano rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A large piece of original research that has lingered around Wikipedia a bit too long at this point. "Rock music that utilizes pianos" is not a basis for a genre, and the article itself is just a list of rock musicians who have piano in their songs. Given this page originally started as a means for someone to go on about Ben Folds Five, I'm amazed it hasn't been deleted sooner. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a paragraph from a book to consider:
Since this book revolves around the piano, you will also lean about pop pianists/songwriters such as Elton John, Billy Joel, Randy Newman, and to a lesser extend newer faces like Tori Amos, Ben Folds, Rufus Wainwright, and others. Grouped together you could call this "piano rock" or "piano pop". Differentiating between those terms is something to explore as well and distinctions will be made about the sometimes hazy discrepancy betweeen pop and rock in chapter 12.
— Eric Starr, The Everything Rock & Blues Piano Book, pp. 9 (ISBN 9781598692600)- Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This can easily be added to the article about rock or pop music. There are far too many article on Wikipedia regarding spin-off genres that don't need a page on it's own. It's the same with articles about "genres" like "pop rap", "synth pop", "electro rock" and the like. Away with them all!! Orane (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the fact that it's not the whole of the book quoted there. You're also not considering how well documented such genres may be. synth pop, for example, is documented on pages 212–213 of that same book. (This subject is documented on pages 213–215.) We're not in the business of getting rid of knowledge because an editor thinks that there are "too many" articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not paper. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This can easily be added to the article about rock or pop music. There are far too many article on Wikipedia regarding spin-off genres that don't need a page on it's own. It's the same with articles about "genres" like "pop rap", "synth pop", "electro rock" and the like. Away with them all!! Orane (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, but that's not even half of it. My main concern was that these pages are not properly sourced and contain but a few paragraphs. A topic should be devoted an entire article only if there is sufficient independent sources covering it. That two or three pages of your book are devoted to the topic of synth pop or piano rock is ok. But that is simply one source. We cannot lift the text verbatim into Wikipedia.
- "Synth pop is pop music with emphasis on synthesizers" — that is all one gets from that article. Most of it is padded with repetition, original research, and useless list of artists that have had one or more songs qualify. That's unacceptable. The topic can be given a section in the mother article (i.e, synth pop can be covered under the article for pop music. It is, after all, just an extension of it).
- To add to that, the proliferation of such articles have led to the huge problems people are currently having regarding genres in infoboxes. A song like Pink's "So What" would — if we're being professional— be classed as pop/rock. However, because there exists many unnecessary articles like synth rock, synth pop, electro rock, electro pop, this, that, etc, etc editors are seemingly compelled to list almost all of these so-called genres in the genre field. We need to get rid of them. Orane (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The quote doesn't really support the existence of "piano rock" as an official genre, it just says "you could call this 'piano rock'" as if it were some nickname for the supposed genre. There don't seem to be any reliable third party sources that support the name of the genre. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is just a problem for the title. The book's author isn't uncertain that the grouping exists. Indeed, as noted (and as the quoted paragraph said), there's additional documentation of the genre in the rest of the book. Do you really think that there are no other sources? The paragraph was meant to be a clue that this is in fact a recognized genre that is documented in books, and that all of these artists really are recognized as belonging to that particular genre in sources, contrary to the nominator's assertion that this is original research constructed by Wikipedia editors from whole cloth. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A large amount of very odd genres that do not sustain notability, per WP:NOTE, have been popping up all over Wikipedia; this being one of them. NSR77 T 17:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thanks for nominating this one. We need to weed out a lot of these articles. Nothing but original research and misinformed opinions. Orane (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have seen "piano rock" used a genre occasionally, such as for Elton John and Bruce Hornsby, but as is evident from these two very dissimilar artists, the term doesn't mean much beyond "the artist plays piano". Out. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the term means isn't a deletion criterion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Neither is Wasted Time R's personal opinion of whether two artists are similar. Nor is the state of earlier versions of the article. And this is not original research, as has been claimed.
What is a deletion criterion is that a subject is not documented, in depth, in multiple independent sources. This subject is documented.
In addition to the book by Starr (which, as mentioned — but which has seemingly been missed by everyone here, who perhaps didn't realize that page nine of the book was perhaps its introductory chapter, not the entirety of what the book had to say on the subject —, documents this genre in chapter 12) this genre is documented on pages 23–26 of ISBN 9780715320648, which traces the history of this genre from its inception in 1968 (which it calls "The Year Of Piano Pop"), through the explosion of piano pop/rock in the 1970s, to some of the artists in the genre that have arrived since the 1980s.
The sources exist. The subject is documented in depth by multiple published works that are independent of the subject. The Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied, and it is possible to write and maintain an article. All that is required to write and to maintain it is for editors to accept that when there's a conflict between the personal ideas and tastes of editors and what sources actually say, by policy sources must win. Sometimes, what one thinks one knows is contradicted by what one actually discovers by reading sources. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there are books that trace the trends of the use of piano in popular music over time, just as they do the guitar, drums, saxophone, etc. That doesn't mean that "drums rock" is a legitimate genre. For a genre to have any real meaning as such, it has to be recognized by many or most of the people in a field, not just a couple. For example, if some edition of The Rolling Stone History of Rock 'n' Roll had a chapter called "Piano Rock", that would change my position. It would also help if the article in question had a single cite. Instead, it tries to draw connections between Jerry Lee Lewis, Freddie Mercury, and Vanessa Carlton that aren't there. And while the "frantic performance styles" of the early pioneers was indeed influential, it was influential on all rockers – singers, guitarists, drummers, etc. – not just piano players. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not in the business of taking Wikipedia editors' words over what sources say. Your assertion that Jerry Lee Lewis is not part of the history of piano rock is simply the statement of someone with a pseudonym on a WWW site. Readers don't trust you. Whereas readers do trust sources which say (as Starr says on page 183) "To understand rock piano you have to go back to its blues roots. Five pianists stand out in rock-n-roll's early history: […] Jerry Lee Lewis […]." and that list (as Starr says on page 213) "newer artists Tori Amos, Sarah McGlaughlin, Rufus Wainwright, Vanessa Carlton, and Ben Folds" as artists in this genre.
You still aren't getting the idea that your personal view of who was influential and who belongs to a genre is irrelevant. In a conflict between your personal views and sources, sources win. And the sources are cited here, in this very discussion. This does not make it impossible for you to know what they are and address them. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that you can find a book or two that talk about "piano rock". That doesn't mean it's a recognized genre in the field at the same level as "girl groups", "British invasion", "country rock", "bubblegum", "heavy metal", "punk rock", etc. I've read through the Jerry Lee Lewis and Elton John entries in my 1980 edition of the RS History of RnR and I see a lot of mentions of piano, no mentions of "piano rock". And note that Starr's use of "rock piano" above is completely different than "piano rock". "Rock piano", meaning the use of piano as an element in rock music, is a very valid and important subject (as it would be for drums, sax, etc). If this article were titled and themed Use of piano in rock music rather than piano rock I'd be all for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We need more than an instructional book on how to play rock songs on piano to establish notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not in the business of taking Wikipedia editors' words over what sources say. Your assertion that Jerry Lee Lewis is not part of the history of piano rock is simply the statement of someone with a pseudonym on a WWW site. Readers don't trust you. Whereas readers do trust sources which say (as Starr says on page 183) "To understand rock piano you have to go back to its blues roots. Five pianists stand out in rock-n-roll's early history: […] Jerry Lee Lewis […]." and that list (as Starr says on page 213) "newer artists Tori Amos, Sarah McGlaughlin, Rufus Wainwright, Vanessa Carlton, and Ben Folds" as artists in this genre.
- I'm sure there are books that trace the trends of the use of piano in popular music over time, just as they do the guitar, drums, saxophone, etc. That doesn't mean that "drums rock" is a legitimate genre. For a genre to have any real meaning as such, it has to be recognized by many or most of the people in a field, not just a couple. For example, if some edition of The Rolling Stone History of Rock 'n' Roll had a chapter called "Piano Rock", that would change my position. It would also help if the article in question had a single cite. Instead, it tries to draw connections between Jerry Lee Lewis, Freddie Mercury, and Vanessa Carlton that aren't there. And while the "frantic performance styles" of the early pioneers was indeed influential, it was influential on all rockers – singers, guitarists, drummers, etc. – not just piano players. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's an OR essay. Shot info (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The term appears to be a neologism that was thought up by somebody to describe a type of music.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William Herschel (disambiguation)[edit]
- William Herschel (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice Tassedethe (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unneeded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Please see WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes the rationale is the article. It certainly appears to be, here. Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Please see WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Since there are hatnotes present on both articles, consider tagging it with WP:CSD#G6, explaining the reason. An admin will most likely consider it a genuine maintenance case and delete it, particularly since no article links to it. LeaveSleaves talk 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a useful dab page. doncram (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are four items. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep even if there were only two, sometimes otheruses hatnote templates don't suffice, you have to look at what searchers are likely to request. --Bejnar (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Strictly speaking the two additions (William Herschel Telescope and William Herschel Museum) should not be included on the dab page for William Herschel as they don't conform to the manual of style (See WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created). Neither of these places is known simply as William Herschel (the first is also known as WHT, the second as Herschel Museum of Astronomy). On such a short page this is not particularly important, so I am happy to withdraw my nomination of this page. Tassedethe (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note- I had closed the AfD after the nominator withdrew the nomination. But after realizing that the changes made in the article were reverted for failing WP:MOSDAB and upon discussion with the nominator, I have reverted the closure. LeaveSleaves 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the extended p. was reasonably useful, and the application of the MOS rather arbitrary--a page listing the 2 people with articles, and two things named after one of them, makes perfect sense to me. the criterion for navigational devices is that they should be useful and unambiguous. DGG (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not arbitrary; it is unlikely that a reader looking for the William Herschel Telescope (for example) is going to enter "William Herschel" in the search box. That's the non-arbitrary criterion for not listing them on the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." I admire your enthusiasm for deleting things, but please follow this rule. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." You may not like that rule, but it is best to follow it. I didn't create the rule, and you invoked WP:MOSDAB, so please be polite, and follow the rule. You are putting a lot of energy into deleting a trifle of a page. And please, assume good faith in other editors, there is no need to invoke sinister reasons for people's edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You used up your good faith assumption when you continued to ignore WP:BRD after being asked to abide by it. Yes, it's a trifle of a page, and its current consumption of energy (yours, mine, and other editors) is the best reason for its deletion, to avoid future energy consumption for a trifling navigational page that serves no navigational purpose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The page seems useful and has a couple add-ons that are interesting and may be useful to someone. --Stormbay (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now the page looks very odd with the bolding and lack of a bullet. It looks like it is telling me I have to click on "William Herschel" and he is the only one that matters. When I go to a disambiguation page, I don't want to be told that one choice is correct and the other is wrong. It looks very odd. What does anyone else think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks odd because disambiguation pages with a primary article more than one non-primary articles that are ambiguous. Since this one doesn't, the correct formatting looks odd. The preferred solution is to delete the useless dab page. See WP:MOSDAB for the information about linking to the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure I follow what you are saying except that that you want the page deleted. By putting one name in bold and removing the bullet it looks like you are steering people to what you believe is the correct answer to their query. It presumes that you know what they have come to the disambiguation page for. Disambiguation pages should be neutral and not advertisements for one of the entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Porn creep[edit]
- Porn creep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
PoV essay, whose original research is not supported by the listed references. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only that, the cited "references" do not even mention the term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. — ERcheck (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research. Judging from google scholar, books, and news archive this is unfixable. Juzhong (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pov pushing original research. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; composed pretty much entirely of original research [original research?]. Veinor (talk to me) 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not encyclopedic. Spudinator (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I notice this phenomenon in real life. It happens to me as well. I don't want to inadvertantly let others know that I am a porn addict. So keep it as the info is very userful.--Witticism (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately noticing something in real life is original research. Juzhong (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dentler Erdmann[edit]
- Dentler Erdmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, being a high school teacher is not enough. Punkmorten (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The main, and real, claim to notability is that he was the 1975 California Teacher of the Year. This fact is confirmed by the reliable source already given in the article[13]. A googlenews search also quickly yields this 1974 article in Los Angeles Times about Erdmann receiving the award.[14]. However, I was not able to find any significant coverage beyond that and no other newscoverage. While the award is reasonably significant (especially given the size of California, both in terms of population and area, which makes it bigger than many countries), I don't think it is sufficiently significant to justify having a stand-alone article about Erdmann, especially in the absence of wider coverage. Based on the coverage available appears to fall short of passing WP:BIO. Perhaps the thing to do here is to create an article about the California Teacher of the Year award and redirect this entry there. Nsk92 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Nsk92. I like the idea about a general article and redirecting this one to that. --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep. The award is undeniably notable. The problem is not there is no verifiable third-party sourcing, but that the verification is not accessible by Google. Thirty-plus-year-old newspaper stories are not generally archived by Google. Or indexed. I was at one of these award ceremonies in my home state several years ago (the teacher was from my home town). All 5 TV stations came and covered it on their evening news. Every major newspaper in the state covered it. The teacher appeared on local TV news/interview programs for several years. Many news articles on her activities, often quoted on her opinions. These award winners meet all the Wikipedia requirements for notability, they're just not celebrities. They're honored by the US President/White House with a ceremony every year. I am struck by the comparison to this AFD which I was just on the wrong side of. [15] The award is given by a much more notable organization, the distinction is more significant (class of about 50 vs class of at least 500, and the "talent pool" is much larger), and the verifiable third-party coverage is much greater. There's no reason to delete this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the claims made in this article don't provide enough notability, verifiable or not. Delete. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N says that receiving a notable honor makes the subject notable. Your complaint is with the policy, not with my position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the claims made in this article don't provide enough notability, verifiable or not. Delete. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep National level awards for teaching are notable. State awards are less obvious. It is perfectly reasonable, though, for use to use awards as a standard. I'd like to see some sourcing for the actual notability of the award. I don't think its reasonable to compare porn actor notability to teachers, or equate awards across different fields. DGG (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if the award is really the only claim to notability (and it appears that this is so), then perhaps we should consider WP:BLP1E. This appears to be another article where there isn't really a basis for an article -- it's hard to see how it could be expanded by what is already here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11th parallel north[edit]
- 11th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: clearly there's notability here, but a question about how to organise it into one or more articles. See Latitude, List of cities by latitude, Category:Lines of latitude. See circle of latitude which includes a list of significant parallels. See also Meridian (geography). Franciscrot (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, top-level geographical division. Also this one formed part of the frontier between French and British territories [16] and French and German territories in Africa [17] Juzhong (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete of this and all the others below. The argument that this, or any other measurement construct, is important or notable or significant simply because it appears in countless atlases strikes me as pure sophistry. Why do we not have every sub-measurement as well, with minutes and seconds, too? Certainly those all appear on atlases and cut through various countries. The only latitudinal or longitudinal figures Wikipedia should include are those of genuine significance, such as 23° 26′ 22″ or the 42nd parallel, which have astronomical and political significance, respectively. Jlg4104 (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems fine to me, a typical Almanac table. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. DGG (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Three related queries and a comment - Is the fact that people "want" this, per the author above, relevant here? Seriously, can somebody explain to me why this is not an indiscriminate collection of information? Latitudinal and longitudinal demarcations are arbitrary, are they not? Furthermore, just because lack of notability is not necessarily a criterion for deletion, as UncleG points out above, it certainly begs for a satisfying answer as to whether the subject in question is indeed notable. In the case of this practice (of making pages for every parallel?), I fail to see an adequate response. What DGG says above is not convincing, to me, because it is part truism ("there are many valid ways") and part advocacy. That is, I do not see Wikipedia's purpose as summarizing graphical information in words, in the sense of "writing out" graphical information to be readable by screen readers for the blind, perhaps. This is not, unless I'm missing something, one of Wikipedia's purposes. Now, if somebody wants to make a "verbal map" to which each of these pages is linked, I could see the beginnings of a "verbal globe." That would be very cool. Jlg4104 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's lack of a claim of notability that isn't a criterion for deletion. I was specifically addressing the nominator's poor rationale that didn't have a policy basis. And you are quite right about the real question to be answered by AFD: whether a subject is actually notable. Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Three related queries and a comment - Is the fact that people "want" this, per the author above, relevant here? Seriously, can somebody explain to me why this is not an indiscriminate collection of information? Latitudinal and longitudinal demarcations are arbitrary, are they not? Furthermore, just because lack of notability is not necessarily a criterion for deletion, as UncleG points out above, it certainly begs for a satisfying answer as to whether the subject in question is indeed notable. In the case of this practice (of making pages for every parallel?), I fail to see an adequate response. What DGG says above is not convincing, to me, because it is part truism ("there are many valid ways") and part advocacy. That is, I do not see Wikipedia's purpose as summarizing graphical information in words, in the sense of "writing out" graphical information to be readable by screen readers for the blind, perhaps. This is not, unless I'm missing something, one of Wikipedia's purposes. Now, if somebody wants to make a "verbal map" to which each of these pages is linked, I could see the beginnings of a "verbal globe." That would be very cool. Jlg4104 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I urge a Snow Close to this entire group of nominations. DGG (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC) unfortunately now impossible, due to the persistence of objections--but I still see the objections as IDONTLIKETHISTYPEOFRTICLE.
- Yes these are a complete waste of time if people like Spyke can't even be bothered to read the debates. Juzhong (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I don't need to. Latitudes of line are not inherently notable. There is nothing in the article that says this one is notable (same with the other ones nominated). None of them have any sources, and their only info is that they exist. There is no reason for this article to even exist. Hell, I could make a article on my street (which is only 3 blocks long) that would have more sources that show its notability and and be better written. TJ Spyke 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes these are a complete waste of time if people like Spyke can't even be bothered to read the debates. Juzhong (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say that notability for almanac and gazetteer entries is different from encyclopedic entries. Wikipedia uses the concept of inherent notability in geography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. I vote Delete on the other AFD's too. TJ Spyke 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the article could stand some improvement, Wikipedia tends to favor geography-related articles, finding even small towns to be inherently notable. I can appreciate the nominator's concern that this paves the way for up to 360 different articles about each line of longitude and latitude, but geograhical features aren't debated the same way that celebrities are. Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - (all of them) First, the titles of those pages are misleading. They are not articles about the respective circles of latitude, but "lists of countries and territories crossed by Xth paralell north/south". And once that is understood, notability is really not a valid criterion anymore, but rather Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IF they are kept, then they must be renamed to reflect the actual content. --Latebird (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of countries may be all they are at the moment, but there is no reason why other information cannot be added in the future - they do not need to remain just lists. Indeed, since the 11th parallel north article was created, information has been added about mining rights in Thailand and a treaty between Britain and France. Bazonka (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Other parallels nominated for deletion on 2nd Jan have already been marked as Keep (e.g. 12th parallel north) - I'm not sure why this one hasn't. I'd like to point out to the administrator who reviews this that 11th parallel north is no more or less notable than those ones. All should be treated the same. The only difference that I can see is that this one is nearer the top of the AFD list and so has received more comments. Bazonka (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11th parallel south[edit]
- 11th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems fine to me, a typical almanac table. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per same arguments of inherent notability referred to in "11th parallel north" Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to List of territories running through the 11th parallel south, the page is not an article about the topic and I doubt an article would be possible given the lack of sourcing, "11th parallel south" gives 7 Google hits two of which are from Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's about the topic. It's a new article though - other information is yet to be added. Bazonka (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Other parallels nominated for deletion on 2nd Jan have already been marked as Keep (e.g. 12th parallel north) - I'm not sure why this one hasn't. I'd like to point out to the administrator who reviews this that 11th parallel south is no more or less notable than those ones. All should be treated the same. The only difference that I can see is that this one is nearer the top of the AFD list and so has received more comments. Bazonka (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12th parallel north[edit]
- 12th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per same arguments of inherent notability referred to in "11th parallel north" Mandsford (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12th parallel south[edit]
- 12th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per same arguments of inherent notability referred to in "11th parallel north" Mandsford (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13th parallel north[edit]
- 13th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 14th parallel north. I think they should do like the floors in a hotel, and just not have a 13th parallel. Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, as being no less notable than the following articles:
- 30th meridian east
- 60th meridian east
- 90th meridian east
- 120th meridian east
- 150th meridian east
- 180th meridian
- 30th meridian west
- 60th meridian west
- 90th meridian west
- 120th meridian west
- 150th meridian west
- 180th meridian
- 15th meridian east
- 45th meridian east
- 75th meridian east
- 105th meridian east
- 135th meridian east
- 15th meridian west
- 45th meridian west
- 75th meridian west
- 115th meridian west
- 135th meridian west
- 10th meridian east
- 20th meridian east
- 40th meridian east
- 50th meridian east
- 70th meridian east
- 80th meridian east
- 100th meridian east
- 110th meridian east
- 130th meridian east
- 140th meridian east
- 160th meridian east
- 170th meridian east
- 10th meridian west
- 20th meridian west
- 40th meridian west
- 50th meridian west
- 70th meridian west
- 80th meridian west
- 100th meridian west
- 110th meridian west
- 130th meridian west
- 140th meridian west
- 160th meridian west
- 170th meridian west
- Equator
- 10th parallel north
- 20th parallel north
- 30th parallel north
- 40th parallel north
- 50th parallel north
- 60th parallel north
- 70th parallel north
- 80th parallel north
- North Pole
- 10th parallel south
- 20th parallel south
- 30th parallel south
- 40th parallel south
- 50th parallel south
- 60th parallel south
- 70th parallel south
- 80th parallel south
- South Pole
- 5th parallel north
- 15th parallel north
- 25th parallel north
- 35th parallel north
- 45th parallel north
- 55th parallel north
- 65th parallel north
- 75th parallel north
- 5th parallel south
- 15th parallel south
- 25th parallel south
- 35th parallel south
- 45th parallel south
- 55th parallel south
-- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: more lines of latitude and longitude that have Wikipedia articles can be seen here. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 23:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14th parallel north[edit]
- 14th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per same arguments of inherent notability referred to in "11th parallel north" Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14th parallel south[edit]
- 14th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per same arguments of inherent notability referred to in "11th parallel north" Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15th parallel south[edit]
- 15th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep as a mistaken AFD nomination. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16th parallel south[edit]
- 16th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability is claimed. Cerejota (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - My mistake, a claim of notability is indeed made.--Cerejota (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17th parallel south[edit]
- 17th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability is claimed. Cerejota (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. this is good sourced material; I suggest that nominating so many at a time before seeing what consensus would be may not have been the best course. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18th parallel north[edit]
- 18th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability is claimed. Cerejota (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. this is good sourced material; I suggest that nominating so many at a time before seeing what consensus would be may not have been the best course. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18th parallel south[edit]
- 18th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability is claimed. Cerejota (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the only parallel that I really don't particularly care for. Mandsford (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. this is good sourced material; I suggest that nominating so many at a time before seeing what consensus would be may not have been the best course. I don't see why what I personally care for is relevant, but perhaps that was ironic. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19th parallel north[edit]
- 19th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability is claimed. Cerejota (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems fine to me, a typical Almanac table. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per same arguments of inherent notability referred to in "11th parallel north". There are plenty of sources that show where 19 degrees north is located. Mandsford (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. this is good sourced material; I suggest that nominating so many at a time before seeing what consensus would be, may not have been the best course. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19th parallel south[edit]
- 19th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability is claimed. Cerejota (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems fine to me, a typical Almanac table. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. TJ Spyke 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. this is good sourced material; I suggest that nominating so many at a time before seeing what consensus would be, may not have been the best course. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Government Scientist[edit]
- Government Scientist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not a recognized term. Unsourced OR. Graymornings(talk) 10:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN or redirect to suitable article about government sponsored reaseach. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]Changing suggestion to Move to Government sponsored research and expand on article in that location. An objective description of that topic (including examples) seems reasonable enough as encyclopaedic content. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Opinion changed to Keep based on heavily rewritten article. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is this term in the movie Borat. preceeding unsigned comment was posted by User:SocialGhost (contribs|talk at 13:30, 2 January 2009)
- Delete as unsatisfiable list, OR, Not a Dictionary...take your pick. ju66l3r (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For a supposedly "unrecognized term", it occurs 27 times in the past month alone in newspaper articles. Even the U.K.'s Food Standards Agency seems happy to use this term when describing the employment of its chief scientist. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these people seem to agree that government scientists exist, too. They are discussing how they should be paid. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The question becomes whether the term has notability above and beyond the two words which comprise it or whether it's a pure dictionary definition of those two words. In any case I'm changing my opinion since I certainly feel that government research as a wider topic is encyclopaedic. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems pretty clear from the article (q.v.) that there's discussion of government scientists to be had. Note that government scientists are not employed solely for research. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conceeded. The rewritten article is a whole different story. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems pretty clear from the article (q.v.) that there's discussion of government scientists to be had. Note that government scientists are not employed solely for research. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The question becomes whether the term has notability above and beyond the two words which comprise it or whether it's a pure dictionary definition of those two words. In any case I'm changing my opinion since I certainly feel that government research as a wider topic is encyclopaedic. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these people seem to agree that government scientists exist, too. They are discussing how they should be paid. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try going to google and search for the term "Government Scientist" and you will see how recognizable it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialGhost (talk • contribs) 2009-01-02 12:55:03
- Keep . Term is called out in US federal regulations here [[18]] and here [[19]]. Gerardw (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good start, references available, needs to be expanded to other countries. DGG (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment only at this stage. This is a difficult one. The term "Chief Scientist" is used in some countries, including Australia. There is in many countries something like the UK Scientific Civil Service. Whether this comes together to make a reasonable article on this term of "Government Scientist" is less clear. I am inclined to think it should be handled differently but I am not yet clear on how. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles aren't on terms. They are on the concepts, people, places, events, and things that the terms denote. So this article is about government scientists. As such, discussion of government scientists in Australia seems not only feasible but apposite for this article. Be bold in combatting systemic bias! Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The meaning of the term is a trivial dicdef (some scientists are employed by governments, duh). All that the article adds to that is volatile und unencyclopedic information about employment conditions and salary hierarchies in various countries. --Latebird (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiable information is not unencyclopaedic. Indeed, it is the very definition of encyclopaedic information. And information that is documented by a source published in 1967 cannot honestly be called volatile. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no indication that a discrete topic exists -- as opposed to a trivial intersection of the topics of 'scientists' and 'government employees'. Will we also have articles on 'government drivers', 'government engineers', etc? HrafnTalkStalk 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't read the discussion hyperlinked-to above, did you? Other people in the world at large seem quite convinced that there's a concept of a government scientist. They were happy to debate the pay of government scientists in at least one country's legislature. As such, your denial of the existence of the concept can only reflect a lack of knowledge in this area, rather than a legitimate reason for deletion that is based in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Wikipedia isn't supposed to contain only the stuff that you personally know. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that condescending lecture. I dare say you'll also find 'government drivers', 'government engineers', or similar whose pay has been debated at some stage. What you have failed to achieve is to present is any evidence that this article presents any information that could not easily be slotted into either scientist or civil service. HrafnTalkStalk 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is the second time in a single day that you've contributed to an AFD discussion without taking into account what has already been said, and without even looking at the things that are cited by other editors to be looked at. Your arguments are not based in policy, and your contributions to the discussion, which ignore sources, ignore policy, and operate purely upon subjective evaluations (and straw men discussions of nonexistent articles, I note), don't actually help either AFD or Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that condescending lecture. I dare say you'll also find 'government drivers', 'government engineers', or similar whose pay has been debated at some stage. What you have failed to achieve is to present is any evidence that this article presents any information that could not easily be slotted into either scientist or civil service. HrafnTalkStalk 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't read the discussion hyperlinked-to above, did you? Other people in the world at large seem quite convinced that there's a concept of a government scientist. They were happy to debate the pay of government scientists in at least one country's legislature. As such, your denial of the existence of the concept can only reflect a lack of knowledge in this area, rather than a legitimate reason for deletion that is based in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Wikipedia isn't supposed to contain only the stuff that you personally know. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No! This is simple badgering, and now WP:HARASS, (here and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Science of an editor for disagreeing with your thesis that mere usage of a two-word combination in sources in some way "explicitly documents the subject". I disagree with this interpretation -- live with it and stop badgering me! HrafnTalkStalk 06:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I quite understand Uncle G's arguments, but I am still inclined to think that this topic can be handled differently. For example, Her Majesty's Civil Service could have a section on the UK Scientific Civil Service. A section on Government Scientists in Australia would have a massive overlap with Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which employs the majority of them and, I think, dictates pay and conditions for some of the others in much smaller government organisations. The article has improved, but if it improves further it may be OK. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as copyright violation of text marked "Copyright © carrot.org 2008" Nancy talk 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carrotmail[edit]
- Carrotmail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
CSD(A7) suggested by User:L33th4x0rguy, I agree about delete as NN software but criterion A7 explicitly does not apply to software. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete apparently the article is a copy-vio from http://www.rmpp.com/en/HK/productInfo and/or http://www.carrot.org/en/US/productInfo ... (isn't that a CSD?) ~ PaulT+/C 17:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Backdoor.Win32.IRCBot[edit]
- Backdoor.Win32.IRCBot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It was the subject of the Seattle Times here, and was mentioned in Express Computer Online here and Help Net Security here. I have rewritten this article ([20]) with these references included. Google News may be able to offer other reliable sources. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aragon (computer virus)[edit]
- Aragon (computer virus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete: Not a big enough or notable enough virus, speedy delete. South Bay (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to be notable enough, and no reliable sources. – Alex43223 T | C | E 03:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Inheritors (1980 film)[edit]
- The Inheritors (1980 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find an entry on IMDb (although that in itself shouldn't be a reason to delete), but if the film had any air of notablity, it should be on that site. Delete per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scarlett Pong[edit]
- Scarlett Pong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
the subject, a failed legislative elections candidate, does not appear to pass the bar of notability for policicians. Furthermore, the relevant sources are not reliable, or the mentions therein are trivial Ohconfucius (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Failed to get elected to LegCo twice. She's an elected member of the District Council, but that is a 2nd level sub-national political office and does not pass notability per WP:POLITICIAN. She's a TV presenter for RoadShow, but I'm not sure that passes notability in and of itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:POLITICIAN, Ohconfucius & H.Q.G. Take California State Assembly as an example, many of the members don't even have a wiki entry. I can see her being "relisted" in the future under other "WP:" Guidelines. (Maybe her business, her foundations, etc etc) TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do You Believe? Another World is Possible[edit]
- Do You Believe? Another World is Possible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Complete rubish non-sense. South Bay (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The video is on AOL India videos.[21] — ERcheck (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No news coverage. No listing on IMDb or allmovie. No secondary or tertiary sources. Also please delete couple of redirects, should the article is deleted. LeaveSleaves talk 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Centrist Party[edit]
- Centrist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrist Party)
This entry in my mind should be deleted because as mentioned in its talk page, they have not been active since 2006 and one member -- the founder -- claims that it won't be back up until 2010. In 2010, if they do something notable, then this entry should be revived. But for now, it is not notable. This looks like a group comprised of the founder and nobody else, at least in this point of time. Also, they claim "a member of the Centrist Party" ran for Congress in 2004, but this is completely dubious because the party claims to have been founded in 2006.
The following is also reposted in my vote. But as it may not be clear as to whether or not I, as the nominator, can also vote, I want to add my additional justifications and researched rationale for proposing that this article be deleted.
All coverage was within a couple-month timeframe back in 2006. All of it focused on the founder's efforts. There is been no coverage since 2006. It appears that the efforts foundered and their has not been one item of evidence indicating any members and certainly no coverage to demonstrate notability since 2006. All that has existed of this group is a Web site that lists no members and does not publicize news of the party. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to go on the record as stating that I am willing to go along with a suggestion of deleting this stand-alone entry and instead merging the Centrist Party into a "list of" or some comparable location. In that way, if they do become notable in 2010 as the founder, and still only verifiable member, purports, then this entry would be notable. But as it stands now, this is a party of one man. To further substantiate my claim that this entry should be deleted, take a look at the 2006 articles cited on the entry. The only member of the party quoted, named or refereced as a member is the founder. Not one other person is referenced anywhere as an official member. In short, this is the 2006 efforts of one guy who attempted to start a party but never gained any members, and in fact has not demonstrated any notable or ascertainable activity since August 2006.danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Evidence of coverage and notability. Okay for a stub. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All coverage was within a couple-month timeframe back in 2006. All of it focused on the founder's efforts. There is been no coverage since 2006. It appears that the efforts foundered and their has not been one item of evidence indicating any members and certainly no coverage to demonstrate notability since 2006. All that has existed of this group is a Web site that lists no members and does not publicize news of the party. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- NEVER GOT LISTED UNTIL TODAY: JAN. 2
- Weak keep or merge. Notability, once acquired through coverage, is not lost. That said, the coverage is really poor for a party with national ambitions: it is limited to a very few articles in local or college papers in which the founder speaks grandly of the newly founded party's goals. A merger into a "list of minor centrist parties in the United States" or some such would probably be best, if there is an appropriate merge target. Sandstein 07:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability is never lost. Period. I think notability was established however weakly. This is a minor party, didn't make much waves, and came to nothing and apparently died. Yet encyclopedias are full of dead things that came to nothing. A historian in a hundred years, will go to the Wikipedia category link for minor political parties of the USA of the early 21st century (or do a semantic search or think about it in his neural interface :) and will find out this existed. We owe our great-grandchildren this. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep notablity and the presence of realiable, verifiablesources is definitely extant withi the realm of thi sa rticle. Wikipedias purpose is NOT to suppress nacsent political movements but to report on anything that is notabele that and that contains verifiabl sources in roder to fulfill this commitment we canno t hack t odeath political parties regardless of our views on the niceosity of their websties or the levelof success that they have achied (a subjective benchmark as we lal realize). keeping this article because deleting it because it is "no longer" ntoable (as if such an abominance is even POSSIBLE!) would not be in strong compliance with WP:VWP:NWP:RS&WP:AFDSmith Jones (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the party no longer exisiting in a meaningful way is a weak argument for deletion. For example, the Whig party is long dead, but it has an article for its historical significance. Notability doesn't have to be current for it to be worth keeping. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- concurent i agreee this AFD is obscene and it sbased on a ortured reinterpretizaiton of the policies and guidelignes.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Muldowney[edit]
- Ryan Muldowney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a non notable college tv presenter. Article lacks non trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject. Muldowney's tv appearences do not meet WP:ENTERTAINER (significant roles in multiple notable television productions) as it is limited to a non notable campus TV show Gettin' Later, a single segment of talk show and as a game show contestant. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Last afd was a bunch of redlinked editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I see much puff but little notability. Punkmorten (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although sourced, none of those sources establish notability. The only coverage is in the university newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Samba d'Or[edit]
- Samba d'Or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced and poorly-written article about a non-notable subject; zero hits on Google searches for both names of this award. sixtynine • spill it • 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the prestigious Noticias (magazine) considers this award worthy of a feature - here. Also referred to here. Smile a While (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These snippets are more about a Spanish league player winning an award, rather than its notability (non-league/federation sanctioned, and voted on in part by fans via the Internet). Google searches on "Samba D'or," "Samba Gold" and "Samba Association" all turned up nothing except one dead link. sixtynine • spill it • 00:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[26][27] There´s a lot of links about this award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikelmike (talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep privided more references are added to cement notability. GiantSnowman 11:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have added two more references to the article. Smile a While (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to have received reliable, third party coverage, indicating notability. matt91486 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources provided above demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Klarer[edit]
- Elizabeth Klarer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Despite the claims of being South Africa's most famous contactee, I could not verify this to anybody except UFO fansites and the like. I'm not convinced she has received all that much in the way of third-party reliably sourced attention. Thus, she fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move the external links into inline citations. It has several good references, including the lengthy Pravda article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None of the sources seem reliable to me, even the Pravda article. Pravda.ru is not the same organization as the Pravda that Wikipedia has an article on, and its articles seem to be more opinion than fact. The book is clearly fringe, and not a reliable source. Theymos (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I believe that Pravda.ru is the same organization; it's just diverged that much from its past. They're Russia's answer to Weekly World News but with
more credulityless tongue-in-cheek. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I believe that Pravda.ru is the same organization; it's just diverged that much from its past. They're Russia's answer to Weekly World News but with
- Calling them the same as Weekly World News is original research. The current headlines from Pravda are: Russia’s new international role becomes its biggest achievement in 2008; Israel launches massive military operation against Gaza Strip; and Military expenditure increases dramatically all over the world. Change of ownership and change of editorial style still make United Press International a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it is less than a tabloid, specially in "science" reporting, but it is not the same Pravda, the article for Pravda says: There is an unrelated Internet-based newspaper, Pravda Online (www.Pravda.ru) run by former Pravda newspaper employees. Having some employees in common hardly makes for "same organization", in particular because Pravda was the official organ of the CPSU, which ceased to exist in 1991. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors may determine that a particular source is better than another without "engaging in original research". WP:OR relates to article content specifically and exclusively and tossing that term around to describe discussions on a source is non-sensical. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your confusing truth with verifiability. It doesn't matter if it is in the National Enquirer, so long as the publication has editorial control. The top stories in the current Pravda are: Russia’s new international role becomes its biggest achievement in 2008; Israel launches massive military operation against Gaza Strip; and Military expenditure increases dramatically all over the world. Having an article on a fringe topic doesn't make you a fringe source, anymore than when the Associated Press, and Reuters, and CNN have their "wacky stories" sections. Wacky, doesn't mean unreliably sourced, it just means wacky. When a wacky story is covered by more than one independent source, it is then a notable story. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:FRINGE, when a wacky story is covered by multiple "News of the Weird" outfits that does not make it notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote me a chapter and verse, don't just point me to the bible, and say: "All the answers are in here". Maybe to you the New York Times is the same as "News of the World", you have to find official policy that says Pravda is an unreliable source. When Wikipedia issues a burn notice, that source is blacklisted and the domain name can't appear in references anymore, that hasn't happended to Pravda. The stories are no different than the Associated Press, and Reuters, and CNN "wacky stories" sections. That Pravda carried them, just tells me that the folk story tradition is just as popular today in Russia as it was 200 years ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Arguments on reliability of provided sources are convincing. However, if sources from within the UFO cults are produced, I will switch. Just because they are loony, does it mean they are without encyclopedic value as part of the human experience. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't believe Ms. Klarer was abducted and sexually assaulted by extraterrestrials, but do see ample reliable and verifiable coverage about the claims. That the events described occurred more than 50 years ago in a part of the world not covered as well as other parts of he English-speaking world would indicate that there are likely systemic bias issues that make finding additional reliable sources that much more challenging. The number and quality of sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Meets wp:notable: Subject covered by the mainstream media, 1. Another site list her as one of South Africa women who made their mark.--Jmundo (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though I would say otherwise if it were a BLP and the pravda.ru site were the only source. The comparison was made above to the National Enquirer, and I think neither of them usable unsupported for controversial BLP. But she's no longer alive, and there are other sources. DGG (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was living in South Africa when she died and I remember her death being major news. Sadly, a great deal of the South African media is not accessible via the Internet. However, what is available in this article satisfies WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sadly New Jersey news isn't even archived. There are at least 6 major New Jersey papers, and none appear to have a permanent archive. I have to get my New Jersey News from the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Seixas UFO incident[edit]
- Elias Seixas UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another Brazilian UFO article that does not seem to be reliably sourced or noticed enough to pass our notability criteria. I listed it as a biography because that is essentially what it is, but it fails WP:BIO too. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It doesn't establish notability. One of the sources is non-English, and the other is a 404. Theymos (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Total nonsense which doesn't meet WP:N or WP:V Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Essentially an article about a man who says that he was abducted by aliens. However, I have more trouble with the claim that "he presents his story on lectures and congresses", with no source to back that up. If it were shown that he is indeed a traveling celebrity in the UFO world, that would be different, although I dont see anything in Google to back that up. Most of the hits seem to be a rehash of his story. Mandsford (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the "references" in the article establish neither factuality nor notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Butt dial[edit]
- Butt dial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A new word --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable neologism. Matt (Talk) 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Spam. sixtynine • spill it • 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spam? Maybe from eating too much spam. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey what just happened? I must have typed Delete with my butt!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- At second thought, although it's funny, the term might be notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The term is included in Urban dictionary and there are some Youtube videos about it, but neologism anyway. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no sense in having articles for all of the individual terms (that aren't just protologisms) for acidentally dialling someone on a mobile telephone. There several ways in which this accident can happen, and it is a single concept. The proper place for the subject is in some central article, not in multiple little 1-sentence articles all of the form "X is the act of accidentally dialling a number on a mobile telephone using Y.". Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At second thought, although it's funny, the term might be notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NEO, and it doesn't attempt to establish notability. Theymos (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest delete absolute stupidity. JuJube (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Butt delete — This is not UrbanDictionary. Easily a nonnotable neologism. MuZemike (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: even if notability can be proved, the article is so horridly written that I would vote delete on those grounds. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. --.:Alex:. 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Electrogravitics[edit]
- Electrogravitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This particular article is essentially an original research synthesis of a variety of ideas related to trying to get electricity to give you anti-gravity. Thomas Townsend Brown is perhaps the major proponent of ideas of this nature, but anything that is worth discussing can be discussed at that article. There is a ridiculous amount of unbridled speculation and unverifiable conjuecturing that is holding the article together right now. I just don't see this as passing fringe muster since it is essentially a hodge-podge and not one singular idea and hasn't received notice as a singular concept from anyone except the true-believers in free energy suppression, perpetual motion, and anti-gravity. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Anti-gravity. This is basically a fork of that article. Theymos (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I think Mythbusters debunked this idea at some point, and ionocraft seems the most productive potential redirect target. Actual opinion to be rendered after I can sift for gems in the cruft. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuild as a pointer to articles that deal with electricity and gravity. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was already rebuilt once. I rebuilt it. After the rebuild, it looked like this. I recommend reading what was said in the prior AFD discussion, as well as reading what is written at User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2008-01-01#Electro-gravitic propulsion. I note that ScienceApologist has made no attempt to work out the neutrality dispute in the intervening time, with zero edits to either article or talk page, and has simply brought the article back to AFD instead. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason that stubby paragraph can't be merged to Thomas Townsend Brown. There is no reason for this POV-fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want a merger, then that implies that even you don't want the article deleted, since merger precludes deletion. I note that in the 19 months since that version was written, you made no attempt to suggest merger, on any talk page, in addition to making no edits to the article and no attempt to work out the neutrality dispute with other editors. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason that stubby paragraph can't be merged to Thomas Townsend Brown. There is no reason for this POV-fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - blatent OR. Shot info (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to have once been a notable theory. Yes, there are cleanup issues here, and the sourcing needs a lot of work but I don't see this being any trouble at all for somebody with the relevant journal subscriptions. Here, for example, is a useful mainstream press article explaining the background of the theory. JulesH (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed a lot of OR from the article, leaving behind a kernel of article that seems to me should be possible to back up with appropriate sources. JulesH (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you read the version of the article linked-to above. The content that you have just marked as needing a citation originally had a citation linked directly to it. The problem with this article is that since April 2007 editors have attempted to portray history backwards, by moving the text around (and breaking the cross-links between text and citations) making it seem as though the conclusions by Priess are contradicted by the Glenn L. Martin Company. In fact, reality is the other way around. But this is a simple neutrality dispute — one in which the nominator here has made zero effort to participate — that is solved by adjusting the article, with the edit button, so that it once more accurately reflects mainstream modern opinion relative the opinion held by a very small minority, not a deletion issue. Uncle G (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a sufficiently distinct subject, and there are sufficient references. But even the current article needs some modifications for NPOV. DGG (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename as Electrogravity.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The book described in this article seems to be another reliable source to go with the ones already presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge and redirect. After some googling, decided to be WP:BOLD and do the merge and redirect to King William II of the Netherlands. Non admin closure.--Terrillja talk 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don Carlos (double sighted dog)[edit]
- Don Carlos (double sighted dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The claim to fame of this pooch is that his owner convinced the King of the Netherlands to give him an audience to demonstrate his psychic abilities. An interesting trivial tidbit, but hardly worthy of an entire article -- and certainly a WP:ONEEVENT. Any interesting content can be merged into King William II of the Netherlands, but I doubt this less-than-memorable event is worthy of more than the sentence or two the article consists of in its entirety. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the first three sentences, as suggested above. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science)[edit]
- Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Plainly a neologism for statistical hypothesis testing made up by the parapsychology fringe community. Since the term has received no recognition from anybody outside of the psychic true-believers, it does not belong in our encyclopedia. No reliable sources identify it as distinct from the ideas associated with statistical effects. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article describes specific usage of term within parapsychology literature. The usage is demonstrated by a range of references, so is clearly not a neologism. Other arguments for deletion reduce to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This terminology may be specific to one community, but that does not make it unencylopedic. The phenomenon that it describes may be a statistical artefact, but that does not make it unencyclopedic either. It could bear some re-writing for greater clarity, but that is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Describes a well-known issue in investigations into claimed psychic abilities. Definitely not a neologism, I plainly recall the same term being in widespread use when I read about psychic claims in my teens... that would be during the 1980s. The term is also used by skeptics discussing psychic claims, not that I feel this is particularly relevant to its notability. There's a clear difference between wikt:neologism and wikt:jargon. Article needs to be marked for cleanup as it appears to be written with the viewpoint that psychic effects are real, but this is not grounds for deletion. JulesH (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sourced. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rewrite for NPOV as a claimed effect. DGG (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument not current backed by any real reasoning. Artw (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no third party sources to establish notability -- only sources (and few enough of them) are from WP:FRINGE journals. HrafnTalkStalk 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the article is about the usage of the term in parapsychology literature, so most of the references will naturally come from that field, in the same way as most of the references in transubstantiation, say, are from Roman Catholic sources. But note that not all of the references are from parapsychology journals - I think Nature and the British Journal of Psychology certainly qualify as independent reliable sources, and establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FRINGE#Independent sources: "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources." By way of example Transubstantiation#Views of other Churches on transubstantiation demonstrates that this topic has notability that goes beyond Catholics. See also WP:FRINGE#Sufficiently notable for dedicated articles. HrafnTalkStalk 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that the Nature and the British Journal of Psychology citations are more than 60 years old (dating from the early 1940s). If the mainstream has not even looked at the topic since, I think that's a good reason not to consider it to be 'notable'. HrafnTalkStalk 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NTEMP: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". If independent references establish that the term was notable in the 1940s, then ipso facto it is still notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- or, for that matter, the 1840s. That it was actually covered by mainstream journals at any time is sufficient for unquestionable notability, and I see no reason for saying otherwise except a bias that as little as possible on the topic area should exist. DGG (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NTEMP: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". If independent references establish that the term was notable in the 1940s, then ipso facto it is still notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the article is about the usage of the term in parapsychology literature, so most of the references will naturally come from that field, in the same way as most of the references in transubstantiation, say, are from Roman Catholic sources. But note that not all of the references are from parapsychology journals - I think Nature and the British Journal of Psychology certainly qualify as independent reliable sources, and establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) The reliability of scientific articles tends to degrade with time (as findings and conclusions are refined with more modern accurate equipment, more data, etc). (ii) WP:NTEMP is not phrased in terms of 'anything that was ever notable is still notable', but far more equivocal "If a subject has met the general notability guideline...". While this may be stretchable somewhat, it is probably not true that everything the Caesar found notable enough to write about in De Bello Gallico, or Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, is still notable today. HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dino Kraspedon[edit]
- Dino Kraspedon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Cannot confirm the claims that his book was "popular" or that it caused him to be notably accused of being a communist. Have a feeling that this is all self-promotionalism given the unreliable sources and fansites I did see dedicated to him. So, I am pretty confident he fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks fine to me. Notable and verifiable. Add a fact tag if you are suspicious of something. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Neutral article; enough third party sources to establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References provided appear adequate to substantiate the claims made. JulesH (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Hatcher Childress[edit]
- David Hatcher Childress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Borderline case, but I'm of the opinion he fails WP:BIO. He's authored a lot of books, but most are self-published treatises or in conjunction with other authors. He's appeared as a "special guest" on television, but normally in small segments devoted to "news-of-the-weird" craziness (see WP:FRINGE about this problem with asserting fringe notability). He's not academically notable and the sources about him are all self-promotional or fansites. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is established in the Chicago Reader article. His books also have a number of reviews on Amazon.com. Theymos (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks fine to me, needs some cleanup. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems to be okay notability wise. Matt (Talk) 07:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article was relatively "cleaned up" recently, needs a bit more work, but worth keeping. Deconstructhis (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dana Howard (contactee)[edit]
- Dana Howard (contactee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another non-notable contactee. She published some books, but none were popular enough to make her notable. Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Some third party coverage, including [28] (which is written from the point of view of a UFO-believer, but I don't see why this rules out its inclusion in notability) and Jacobs D. M. The UFO Controversy in America (Indiana University Press, 1975). JulesH (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. The subject is a total wacko, but she is the subject of independent coverage and she is a published author. -Arch dude (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Martin (contactee)[edit]
- Dan Martin (contactee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable contactee. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Sole reliable source about him mentions him only in passing. I do not believe that every person Long John Nebel interviewed deserves an encyclopedia article all to themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Alternatively, merge to the article about the martian he met. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nom, unless non-trivial coverage about the individual (not the event) can be found in multiple, third-party reliable sources. Cheers, CP 16:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Poland Uprising (1848)[edit]
- Greater Poland Uprising (1848) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, and Norman Davies states: "The year 1848 ... is notable for the fact that the Polish lands were not seriously involved in the excitements besetting almost all the surrounding countries." Hardly a year for Polish victories in the battles of Miłosław and Sokołów against the Prussian Army. Matthead Discuß 02:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There does seem to have been some sort of uprising in 1848, fairly short-lived and unsuccessful, but holding a few cities for a few months. This book states that veterans of the 1846 Kraków Uprising "joined the 'Springtime of Nations' of 1848 with hardly better results: Kraków surrendered by April to Austrian troops; Lwów only after the turning point of the revolution in November. In the Prussian area, the ruling troops forced the rebels to surrender in May after a few weeks of clashes." --Delirium (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Greater Poland does not include the Austrian (in 19th century) cities Krakau and Lemberg, events there should be covered in Revolutions of 1848 in the Habsburg areas. The Revolutions of 1848 in the German states saw clashes between Prussian troops and German revolutionaries in many places, namely Berlin. Ludwik Mierosławski was released from prison, and fought with Germans against Prussian troops in Baden, which is far away from any Poland, Greater or not. As Davies states, 1848 events in Polish lands are not notable enough to write some sentences in his book God's Playground, thus Wikipedia does not need a separate article for the Grand Duchy of Posen with highly dubious claims . -- Matthead Discuß 02:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. It's unsourced for five years.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This may not be a major European event, but it is notable, there are quite a few publications ([29]) and even some dedicated books and articles in Polish language (ex. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]). Here's a dedicated article in WIEM Encyklopedia. Note that an alternative name of roughly the same popularity in Polish and greater in English is the Poznań uprising/Posen uprisng (powstanie poznańskie - [37], [38]). Finally, through my knowledge of German is tiny, "polnischen Aufstand von 1848" yields some print hits as well, which I am sure Matthead can analyze for us. Thus the only reasonable outcome of this discussion, other then keep, may be rename.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added bibliography - keep Radomil talk 13:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable. There is academic literature on the subject.--Hillock65 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, uprising was part of the Spring of Nations, a larger movement encompassing most of Europe. I am actually at a loss when trying to understand why this article was nominated in the first place. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Every history textbook I possess that covers 1848 (and I possess quite a few) mentions the uprisings in Poland, but more in relation to the general uprisings within the Austrian Empire. that said, they certainly have texts that cover them out there, and therefore is notable. Cam (Chat) 06:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karen Pamintuan[edit]
- Karen Pamintuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable TV show host; article ridden with POV. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--though I did what I could to rid the article of POV. What's left now is a collection of trivialities (I merely cut extraneous namedropping...) about a non-notable person. In fact, some of her claims to notability (her modeling career) are completely unreferenced. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- mostly unsourced content. she's not much of a big name anyway, well at least outside of the A-list clubbing partyphile scene...like who gives a crap if Brent Javier's her BF? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Fancrufty, plus the kid's not really that mainstream outside of the socialite world... Blake Gripling (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable person. Matt (Talk) 07:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per not being encyclopedic-enougn/notable-enough. Come to think of it, original nom might want to attach the Brent Javier page as well. That one is much, much crappier (although might be a tad more notable). Shrumster (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I speedied Brent's page per A7... Blake Gripling (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but edit. The subject is a notable television host of ETC Entertainment Central's Chill Spot. I believe television personalities are notable by default. Starczamora (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not so sure about keeping it for further editing when the article creator, User:ChillSpotFan, reeks of WP:COI. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it still desperatly needs editing, but there's stuff around on her, including the Manila Standard Today and the Manila Bulletin. More to the point, though, given that she won Model of the Year for Seventeen Magazine Phillipines and appears to have had reasonable success as a model, I find it very likely that other reliable sources exist as well - she's been on the covers enough to expect more, but I don't have access to any of the print sources needed to see what is in there. - Bilby (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete basically non sourced content and subject lacks a notable body of work. --Stormbay (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sci-Fi Movie (film)[edit]
- Sci-Fi Movie (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no verifiable coverage that this film, announced by David Zucker in June 2008, has ever begun production. While there are Google hits for this project, none of them indicate that a film is being made or has been made. Delete per the notability guidelines for future films, but no prejudice against recreation if it can be reliably sourced that filming has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:WP:CRYSTAL violation. Not enough information to build an article.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a future film. JJL (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. GlassCobra 01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deejay ace[edit]
- Deejay ace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't meet WP:MUSICIAN. No third-party sources. No Google hits outside Myspace and other social networking sites. Graymornings(talk) 01:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jamin rathbun[edit]
- Jamin rathbun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't meet WP:MUSICIAN. No third-party sources. Graymornings(talk) 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've updated the page with complete discography for each project, and external links to each project online. Please note that this page is NOT solely about a musician but -- also includes references to the school and non-profit arts foundations. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdink (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnotable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete member of three non notable bands, lacks coverage in reliable sources, solo albums appear self released, organisations appear non notable, COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable? Trinity Arts Center is an active organization with more than 30 employees, and over 400 students -- the largest private school in our region. Did you click on the link to their web site. They produce original ballets, and popular productions attended annually by tens of thousands of patrons. The Foundation funds more than $60,000 worth of arts education scholarships and production grants for thousands of students and patrons. Hot Pink Turtle is NOTED on both the Dighayzoose and REX Records wikis, both of which are already included on record.--Superdink (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has different notability guidelines than other wikis. See the guidelines for the inclusion of individual musicians for more info on how the community decides which musicians are notable enough to be included. Graymornings(talk) 09:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the reasoning's of Duffbeerforme. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:
1.) Jamin Rathbun is NOT solely a musician. Please reference the links and information included about Trinity Arts Center and Trinity Arts Foundation, both organizations which were founded, and are currently operated under his direction.
2.) Judged only as a musician, Jamin has three national CD releases from a band listed in the Christian Music Encyclopedia, which has been used as a reference source for other bands already included on Wikipedia. That same band is cited on the Wikipedia pages for Dighayzoose, a band of similar notoriety, and R.E.X._Records, the label who signed and distributed the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdink (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Being a founder of non notable organisations does not make one notable. Being the founder of notable organisations does not always make one notable. No reasons have been given why his connection with these organisations make Rathbun notable.
- 2) If the 3 cd releases are refering to Hot Pink Turtle, only one is their own release, the other two are compilations on which they appear. Not enough for WP:MUSIC for the band. Even less for individual menbers. The Hot Pink Turtle section of Dighayzoose does not even metion Rathbun. Dighayzoose is far from similar notoriety, look at the sources provided within the article on them and the articles on their albums. Sources which are lacking on the Rathbun article. In additioon being a member of a notable band (if Hot Pink Turtle were notable) is not sufficient for WP:MUSIC. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently notable enough for you to find that information, nearly fifteen years after their release. = ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdink (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transitalk[edit]
- Transitalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable transit enthusiast site, fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually is a notable transit enthusiast site. It has a strong history within the rail and bus fan community for nearly ten years and I find this all to be frivolous and without merit and the page has not violated any wikipedia guidelines. user:seanwarner86Good Night and Good Luck 02:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? There are NO reliable sources establishing any kind of notability based on the guidelines at WP:WEB or WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This was posted on the talk page for this AFD:
- Thank you to those that backed me up on this article, but due to Mr. Schumin's lack of understanding that this article was written by TTMG/TransiTALK staffers as well as the images were from us and copyrighted by us, they were deleted. I'm letting this article go because It wasn't done and it was reported prematurely and because Mr. Shumin feels that I should get it up to par in 5 days like I live on Wikipedia, I'm letting it all go. Supporters, see us on www.ttmg.org and see our TransitWiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorlogan (talk • contribs)
- Take it for what you wish, I suppose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deelte - there is no coverage about this website. It may have some popularity with transportation enthusiasts, but note that notability is distinct from popularity, see WP:Notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Delete this Page or add an article on Subchat as well - it is about as notable as Larry Fendrick's Subchat. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MidnightPumpkin[edit]
- MidnightPumpkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Japanese band that seems to fail all the criteria outlined at WP:BAND. A basic Google search for "MidnightPumpkin" [39] returns no reliable, published sources that have anything to do with the band, and searches using Google News [40], Google Books [41] and Google Scholar [42] return nothing relevant whatsoever. My WP:PROD tag was removed by the creator with the rationale that "it meets one of the criteria", but no indication was given as to which criterion it meets. While the article does claim that the band's songs have been used as themes for Japanese TV shows, WP:BAND makes an exception if this is the band's only claim to notability. Unscented (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I went on the Princess Princess D article I noticed that there was mention of the band but there was no article on it, which was annoying, and then I saw there is one on the Japanese wikipedia so I just figured that since they have one, why don't we? I wouldn't say that they are non-notable (due to their two TV themes), and because of the fact that there is a lack of information in English about the band I thought it would be useful to have an article on it for those who can't read Japanese but are interested in it (because if Japanese Wikipedia has an article on it, and has done since 2006, there isn't any reason not to have one in English). Unless of course both the Japanese and English articles should be deleted for non-notability, in which case it would be fair. (The japanese article is here [midnightPumpkin]) Tom (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is a version in japanese so it is only fair that there is one in english too (or both are deleted, but the japanese one has been going since sept '06 without dispute (as far as I can see)). Razzmo (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Razzmo. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, while there are claims of notability, there is a lack of reliable sources to verify any of those claims. Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What's needed is for a Japanese speaker to go to the Xtra Large Records website and confirm they list this band's albums, and that they have a sufficient number of other albums out to pass WP:MUSIC C5's definition important indie label. If this can be done, then the band passes WP:MUSIC, and this is a keeper. (I note that there's another articled band with an album out from Xtra Large Records, though their notability comes from being then signed by EMI.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BAND would say "merge/redirect" not "delete" if their only claim was one theme song, but actually they seem to have done two. Searching google news archives reveals a "midnight pumpkin interview" at tv-tokyo.co.jp [43] and a short article which seems to be about them: [44] Juzhong (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--The translated version of Xtra Large Records confirm the band discography. --Jmundo (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So it does -- thankee. And the label does not seem to be a flash-in-the-pan company, though their catalog isn't exactly deep. That, combined with the two links Juzhong, convinces me they meet WP:MUSIC -- keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 22:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Čakajík[edit]
- Martin Čakajík (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability, lack of information The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If he's playing for Plzen HC, a team in the Czech Extraliga, he meets WP:ATHLETE as someone "who [has] competed at the fully professional level of a sport". --aktsu (t / c) 01:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a verifiable assertion of notability, as aktsu pointed out. The article needs expanded, not deleted. If after several months no further information is located on him, then we can revisit whether the article should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Slovak and Czech hockey is pretty good, and he has several years of experience. Punkmorten (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawl OK, Keep it, I agree. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard F Lee[edit]
- Richard F Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Insufficient notability. A minister/church having its own tv broadcast does not make him notable. — ERcheck (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet wp:bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not Myspace. Zero indication of any significant work done by the person that would even help judge the notability. LeaveSleaves talk 16:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to be notable enough to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. No Google News archive results that I could find [45][46]. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Travels with Li Po[edit]
- Travels with Li Po (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As always, the creator of this article (or anyone else) is welcome to show us that "[t]he book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself," which is the basic relevant standard for encyclopedic inclusion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--coverages is minimal. There's one article from the Derry paper "Sunday Journal," and that's it. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedied by C.Fred while I was writing the nomination. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC) (non admin)[reply]
I am a Cancer[edit]
- I am a Cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Let's see how long this one stays up. There is no song of this name by Bob Dylan. His own website allows one to search his lyrics, and it appears that he has never included the word 'cancer' in any of his lyrics. [47] Also there are other online databases of his songs, such as [48], which have no mention of this song. Richard Cavell (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy g1, g3, g11 or g7 - you are the author, feel free to delete. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Heron (TechTV)[edit]
- Robert Heron (TechTV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reading from the article text, Robert seems to be just another blogger who writes about popular computer software trends. Does not pass any notability guidelines. If trivia content (such as in sections "History" and "Trivia") would be removed, the article would just sum up to 2 paragraphs about this guy is just one of hundreds of publicists employed for Ziff Davis - I see no sense in creating article for every one of them. Article lacks any references (why should I trust this article for facts like "He never graduated from college"?), not to mention any serious references, such as citation in some independent reliable 3rd party publication. GreyCat (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This entry has not been properly added to the Wikipedia: Artcles For Deletion page, therefore other editors have not seen it and have not been able to participate in this debate to determine it's outcome. If you're going to make such a stir about deletion, please learn the procedure. Rugz (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I see nothing in the article which mentions he is just another "blogger" as you have asserted. Furthermore I see nothing in the article to support your assertion that he is either employed by Ziff Davis, or that is a "publicist" for Ziff Davis, or that he is merely one of a hundred employees. You stated "I see no sense in creating an article for every one of them." Who is "them?" I think it's clear you hold some personal bias against something broader than Robert Heron and are not being objective. Instead of deleting we should find references and clean up the article so that it is more encyclopedic. Tech TV was a worldwide television network reaching millions of viewers. Simply because it no longer exists does not mean it is any less relevant. Rugz (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you stop complaining and find sources yourself if you care about this article so much? Schuym1 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the author of the article, nor have I contributed to it. That is not my responsibility in a deletion debate. I'm only pointing out here that the nomination was clearly biased. Rugz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Article includes an infobox that mentions that Robert is employed by Ziff Davis. According to Ziff Davis article, they have approximately 500 employees. While Tech TV may be indeed notable, I don't see anything notable about one of its hosts personally. I've searched the web / news / books / journals briefly to find out if I'm right or wrong and I've found no good sources to assert notability of biography. --GreyCat (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are the rest of the TechTV hosts: List_of_TechTV_Personalities You should nominate them all for deletion as well based on your anti Ziff Davis theory. Have at it. They should all be treated equally. Rugz (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You really aren't helping anything. Schuym1 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we're discussing this particular person. However, I've made a quick peek at the list, thanks. In fact, few of other hosts I've seen are pretty well notable and referenced — for example Yoshi DeHerrera includes 10 references, includes a link to external database (IMDb) that aids asserting its notability and he is a notable published author, when is alone a criteria of notability. Kevin Rose includes 15 references, he appears as on the cover of major BusinessWeek magazine, etc. I'll try to nominate several others, less notable and referenced. --GreyCat (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--the accusations of bias are pretty baseless, as far as I can see. This is an article about a person who has appeared a couple of times on a TV show (so the article says) and can mess around with Quake 3 purty good. None of it is referenced, and none of it really seems relevant, let alone notable. I have to agree with Schuym--if this character is so notable, why can't the keep-voter find those references and add them to the article? Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete why did this even need relisting, other than the fact that was not a cookie-cutter super-easy unanimous AFD? No sources were ever found... it's a pretty clear delete. --Rividian (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres[edit]
- Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
POVfork of Chittisinghpura massacre. Might run afoul of WP:SOAPBOX. The article itself is poorly written and full of POV. Chittisinghpura massacre was subject to vandalism sometime ago with SPA's trying to turn the article into platform for blame against the Indian Government. This article seems to be doing the same thing. References are outdated. vi5in[talk] 20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Edited the article and merged all relevant information from Chittisinghpura massacre.
- Chittisinghpura massacre was filled with inflammatory language, and contained numerous factual errors that were not substantiated by its sources. For instance, the article claimed that the Pakistan Rangers trained alleged militant Suhail Malik, when in fact the quoted source clearly states that he claimed to have been trained by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. Such errors have been cleared and all additional information has been included.
- Furthermore, Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres contains far more information on the aftermath of the massacre, including killings by security forces, and the Indian government's attempt at covering up subsequent killings by tampering with DNA. All such arguments are fully referenced with Indian and international sources.Kabuli (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The attacks were quite notable. POV might need to be cleaned up but the article can be salvaged. NoVomit (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one's saying it's not notable, but this is a POVfork - perhaps it could be redirected to Chittisinghpura massacre. --vi5in[talk] 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I've already pointed out, Chittisinghpura massacre has glaring POV issues, to the point where it includes a number of factually incorrect statements that contradict the very sources it quotes. Even after Vivin's attempt at making the article more palatable, I see that the section on the "Clinton controversy" still claims that the publishers issued a public apology, when the given reference makes it clear that the statement is from an email to the Times News Network. It also claims that the US government ultimately accepted India's explanation (that Pakistani militants were responsible), when the given reference makes no such claims. And again, Chittisinghpura massacre lacks any information about the inextricably related, subsequent killings committed by Indian armed forces, or the DNA-tampering scandal, and in fact, any references to these incidents have been deleted vigilantly according to this history page...including them in the article title will help prevent future editors from doing the same. All the relevant information from Chittisinghpura massacre has already been incorporated into the more complete Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres article.Kabuli (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed the sentence which says that the US Government accepted the Indian version of events. I still feel that this current article obliquely tries to implicate the Indian Government in a number of things and as a result is far from objective. --vi5in[talk] 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've repeatedly failed to provide even a single specific example of POV, or any other issues with the current article. Meanwhile, despite your efforts to edit it, Chittisinghpura massacre still lacks any reference to the subsequent killings at Pathribal and Barakpora, and the Indian government's DNA cover-up, all of which are inextricably linked to the original incident. The article literally ignores all of the undisputed events that cast the Indian government in an unfavorable light...a pretty glaring POV issue. Moreover, even with all your editing, Chittisinghpura massacre remains riddled with factual errors (the authors didn't even get the village's location right). The current article is quite frankly better written.Kabuli (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed the sentence which says that the US Government accepted the Indian version of events. I still feel that this current article obliquely tries to implicate the Indian Government in a number of things and as a result is far from objective. --vi5in[talk] 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I've already pointed out, Chittisinghpura massacre has glaring POV issues, to the point where it includes a number of factually incorrect statements that contradict the very sources it quotes. Even after Vivin's attempt at making the article more palatable, I see that the section on the "Clinton controversy" still claims that the publishers issued a public apology, when the given reference makes it clear that the statement is from an email to the Times News Network. It also claims that the US government ultimately accepted India's explanation (that Pakistani militants were responsible), when the given reference makes no such claims. And again, Chittisinghpura massacre lacks any information about the inextricably related, subsequent killings committed by Indian armed forces, or the DNA-tampering scandal, and in fact, any references to these incidents have been deleted vigilantly according to this history page...including them in the article title will help prevent future editors from doing the same. All the relevant information from Chittisinghpura massacre has already been incorporated into the more complete Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres article.Kabuli (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I've been busy with the holiday season. Here are a few issues with the article:
- "A unit of Indian paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles stationed nearby failed to intervene during the attack." - uncited
- "Local observers and political activists doubted the Indian government's official reports however, pointing out that if there had been a gunfight, some of the security force personnel would have sustained injuries - but none were injured. Over the following days, local villagers began to protest, claiming that the men were ordinary civilians who had been killed in a fake encounter, not "foreign militants." According to them, up to 17 men had been detained by the police and "disappeared" between March 21-24. On March 30, local authorities in Anantnag relented to growing public pressure, and agreed to exhume the bodies and conduct an investigation into the deaths." - completely uncited.
- "The parties responsible for the initial massacre at Chattisinghpora remain unidentified - various theories have been put forward accusing both Pakistani Islamist militants, and Indian security forces" - POV. According to whom? Who says that they were Indian Security forces?
- WP:UNDUE and cherrypicking of facts. I notice that the (outdated) Amnesty International report hasn't been used to say that Indian Security forces weren't involved (2nd section, 8th para). In a direct contradiction, the article claims (as I have pointed out above) that it is not known who was behind the attacks and that it could have been Indian security forces. This is definitely POV and a direct misrepresentation of facts.
- The article cites the "International Human Rights Organization" which is a completely partisan pro-Khalistani organization that has nothing to do with Internatoinal Human rights.
- Information about the Pathribal attacks and DNA tampering can be merged into the main article. But the article as it stands is a blatant POVfork that cherrypicks and misrepresents facts. I fail to see how it can even marginally be considered "better written". --vi5in[talk] 22:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' The statements you mention are all taken from the Amnesty International report - appropriate citations have been added.
- Comment No one's saying it's not notable, but this is a POVfork - perhaps it could be redirected to Chittisinghpura massacre. --vi5in[talk] 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to the Rashtriya Rifles, the AI report states: "A unit of paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles (RR) stationed close to the village failed to intervene and only visited the place of the incident on the following morning."
- In regards to doubts about the Indian governments official reports, AI states: "Local observers, however, disbelieved the official account; they pointed out that if armed men hidden in a hut on a hilltop had indeed been involved in a gunfight as claimed by the authorities, they would have injured some of the security force personnel attacking them from the valley - but none was injured...On the following days, local people held protest demonstrations claiming that the dead men were ordinary civilians, labourers or petty traders, from the villages Braringam, Mominabad and Halam who had nothing to do with militant activities or the killing of the Sikhs on 20 March. There were rumours that altogether 17 men had been picked up and 'disappeared'. Demonstrators have claimed that the five men the authorities claimed had been killed in the hut were ordinary villagers who had in fact been picked up by the Special Task Force under the Senior Superintendent of Police of Anantnag between 21 and 24 March and had gone missing since. In at least one case, a First Information Report (FIR)(15) had reportedly been filed about the 'disappearance'."
- As for the final point, the article has been edited to reflect the AI report's suspicion that Indian government sponsored counter-militants (referred to as "renegades" in the report) may have been responsible.
- Finally, considering the fact that you're so desperately trying to defend Chittisinghpura massacre, an article that so blatantly cherrypicks facts that its ignored (and has repeatedly been purged of any references to) ANY of the confirmed, undisputed incidents that cast the Indian armed forces in a negative light, I really wouldn't bring up the issue of "misrepresenting facts".Kabuli (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to understand. The article quotes information as fact, when it's more of a statement of opinion from involved parties. This is a clear example of POV. The Amnesty International hasn't stated it, some of the villagers are of the opinion that Indian security forces are involved. If you've got references, add them. You asked me to find out problems with the article, and I did. Say that the original article cherrypicks facts doesn't change the fact that this article is completely POV. We're not playing "I know what I am, but what are you?" here. I never wrote the original article; my involvement with the article was regarding the addition of clearly outdated information. Like I mentioned before, you're welcome to add new information to the article, as long as it's cited (especially regarding the related incidents and DNA tampering). But the article as it stands is obviously POV, and I'm sorry to say, with respect to your edits, your POV is more than evident. You have also conveniently ignored the fact that the Amnesty International report doesn't say that the Indian Government was involved. In fact, they think otherwise. Like I said before, this page should be deleted, but the salvageable information should be moved in to the original article. --vi5in[talk] 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, considering the fact that you're so desperately trying to defend Chittisinghpura massacre, an article that so blatantly cherrypicks facts that its ignored (and has repeatedly been purged of any references to) ANY of the confirmed, undisputed incidents that cast the Indian armed forces in a negative light, I really wouldn't bring up the issue of "misrepresenting facts".Kabuli (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tendentious article with dubious and outdated sources. Most quoted text is partisan or WP:FRINGE/Unreliable Sources justified through victimology-porn and political correctness.Ontopofcosts (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aftermath sections, as postulated by Kabuli and others need not be forked to create new pages to turn Wikipedia in to a soapbox. These pages serve as little more than glorified POV forks.Pectoretalk 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nowhere does the article state as fact that the Indian government was responsible for the events at Chattisinghpora. It points out the difference of opinion that exists, and clearly goes through the Indian government's claims of Lashkar involvement, including essentially the same information and evidence presented in Chittisinghpura massacre. As for the related killings and DNA cover-up, cases in which no one disputes the Indian government's clear culpability, all statements are fully referenced with human rights reports and BBC news stories. Finally, considering the fact that proponents of deleting the current article are presenting Chittisinghpura massacre as the more authentic and impartial version of events, I think its entirely legitimate to point out the numerous instances of factual errors, cherrypicking of facts, and outright POV issues in that article.Kabuli (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DBpoweramp[edit]
- DBpoweramp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable music player/encoder. Zero references, no third-party coverage. Article lacks summary of notability, article lacks lots of necessary facts (such as clear licensing information, not just some sort of rumors on controversies). Lots of facts in the article need strict checking and sourcing (and, I guess, due to their nature, it won't be possible - for example I bet that no one concluded a proper scientifical study of opinions of users in weasel-words ridden phrases such as "Many users were upset"). Most of the information looks like blatant advertisement, but speedy delete was contested by a creator. GreyCat (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete a google search found some reviews here here but I doubt that 2 reviews will be enough --Numyht (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Tech Journalist Robert Heron (TechTV) of DL.TV strongly recommended using DBpoweramp for ripping and encoding large CD collections in Episode 162: Linux, dBpoweramp, Polite Video Sharing and more. of DL.TV. Don't think he would make such recommendations if it wasn't noteworthy. —IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 11:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I agree that the article currently is way below our quality standard. However, we have articles on all other notable CD rippers, and according to this (not statistically representative) survey it's the third most used one. BTW, I actually got to this page because I wanted to find out a bit about it - but then, that may not count since I'm wikiholic. — Sebastian 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not sources cited and all the material in the article appears to be simply what you'd expect the app's own webpage to contain (features, licensing, codecs, etc) -- making it little more than WP:ADVERT. HrafnTalkStalk 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Hyde[edit]
- Mary Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person; notability is not inherited. The achievements of her husband and children have no affect on the notability of this woman, who's only achievements seem to be marrying the former and giving birth to the latter. Ironholds (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Her husband and children may be notable but what has she done to make her so? NoVomit (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The achievements of her husband and children have no affect on the notability of this woman? It is exactly those achievements that hold a mirror up to reflect her achievements. It is bad enough that women like Mary Hyde, who played an integral part in their husband's business affairs, were not in any way lauded publicly in their lifetimes. But to then not let their contribution to be recognised in future generations? If this article is removed it will be denegrating the important role of women in history. Selkcerf0142 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to argue for it to be kept, please argue based on Wikipedia policy. Notability is not inherited, no; if it was we'd have to include articles on every famous persons husband, and sons, and father, and mother, and grandfather, and grandmother, and so on simply because they 'hold a mirror up'. I'd ask this of you; what, of note, has Mary Hyde done? Being married to particular people doesn't count. Neither, really, does her 'integral part in her husbands business affairs'; the business itself is not that notable. Ironholds (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability is not inherited, and as User:Ironholds has pointed out above, if we included every person who was related to or maybe had some influence on a famous person, pretty much everyone would have a biography here. Yes, her husband and son were notable, but she was not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Hopefully the article has now been edited to overcome your objections, and the question to "What has Mary done?" has been answered. Selkcerf0142 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.Taking the government of the day to court and winning is notable. This woman's story also makes interesting reading. Kamelblm (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, many people take the government to court. Examples: Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v. Blackpool City Council, or Gibson v. Manchester City Council (which also went to the House of Lords in the end). Famous cases in the history of contract law that made massive impacts on the state of law in that area. However. Taking the government to court does not make somebody notable. If the case had an impact on the state of law, we should have an article on the case. Creating an article on the claimant when the only thing "notable" they have done with their life is take the government to court is not valid, firstly because people known for individual acts should not normally be given an article and secondly because the only content in it of any interest would be found just as easily in the page for the case itself. Ironholds (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, there's much here that is actually about Simeon Lord. The extra information remaining, after discounting that, deals mainly with the posthumous continuation of that person's business and (to a minor extent) a prior marriage. A merger to that article would thus seem appropriate, except that I cannot find a single reliable source to back up the information. There's none actually cited in the article that covers the extra information given here, and searching I cannot find a source that documents this. The one source cited is actually a mailing list submission, ostensibly by a person whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy is unknown, and which (by the very nature of Internet electronic mail) cannot be guaranteed to be by the person named as its author in the first place. And it doesn't even support most of the (extra) content here.
So since the extra mergeable content appears to be unverifiable from sources that readers can actually trust, or even from any sources at all, a simple redirect will do. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but improve. It seems that Mary was an important person in the early days of NSW. For a woman to take the government to court in those days in a penal colony is indeed notable. Her story is an important part of the history of NSW and it should remain. Sources are likely to exist but not on the web. They will be in the State Library of NSW. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important historical figure. Managing an estate of that size--from the sources, is a significant accomplishment. ₤16,000 would probably be the equivalent of $3 million, for a small part of the estate. That the House of Lords took it is significant--but I am a little confused, shouldn't it have gone to the Privy Council? is also significant. Considering cultural bias, this would be sufficient for an article. DGG (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like a Keep but I can't find the story in all the words. What the heck did she sue for? I was trying to put it in the first sentence, as that appears to be what she most notable for, but I can't find it! This article is in desperate need of a rewrite, starting with removing all the asides and unrelated material, then putting what she was famous for first. I'd help if I could find it! --KP Botany (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, no-one has yet put forward a reliable source documenting any of those parts of the article. I certainly wasn't able to find one. This is one of the reasons why we don't include unverifiable content, of course. It is impossible to fix. Welcome to the mess that happens when people ignore verifiability in favour of subjective personal opinions as to importance. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can't find a particular source about the lawsuit, and I can't read what's in the article to find it. I've asked the editor to put forth, but without this information. DGG does have a point, though, managing an estate of that size, but that's based on it having been her husband's and that might be redirect. --KP Botany (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, no-one has yet put forward a reliable source documenting any of those parts of the article. I certainly wasn't able to find one. This is one of the reasons why we don't include unverifiable content, of course. It is impossible to fix. Welcome to the mess that happens when people ignore verifiability in favour of subjective personal opinions as to importance. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks references needed to meet WP:V or WP:BIO. It should be very easy to find references for a woman like this - if the article is accurate then she would have been one of the most prominent women in Australia at the time and would have an entry in databases such as the Australian dictionary of biography and any number of Australian history websites. Instead, she's not even mentioned by name in her husband's ADB entry (she's referred to only as "the mother of his children" and that Lord married her belatedly) and there's only a single result on her in the results of a search in Google Australia on both versions of her name ( [49] and [50]) and it's a photo of her in the collection of a museum which is already in the article. As there are hundreds of active Australian editors, many of whom have a great interest in Australian history and access to good quality reference material, there is no cultural bias against Australian articles as suggested above (probably the opposite in fact!) and some of the keep comments seem to be close to WP:ILIKEIT. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For your googling do not stick to Australia for your search results as not all Australians publish on Australian web-sites. Try googling “Mary Hyde convict” and you will find the following link Convicts to Australia which will then lead you to this page Mary Hyde. Try googling “Mary Hyde Black” and you will find two more web-sites (referenced in the article). These three web-sites give some of the details of her life but, unfortunately, no mention of the court case. - The only reference that you will find on-line about her court case is in her husband’s entry in The Australian Dictionery Of Biography Online Edition article on Simeon Lord where, unfortunately she isn’t even mentioned by name. But it says more than ”after he belatedly married the mother of his children”. It also gives details of the business that she owned after her husbands death, and says “In 1855 with a litigious pertinacity worthy of Simeon himself, his widow fought the commissioners of the city of Sydney to the House of Lords, winning compensation of more than £15,600 for the inundation of part of the Botany property and the loss of the stream which drove the mill.” - That this court case existed, and that she won it, is both verifiable, and the references were given in the article. - History has largely ignored this woman. Why? Because she was a woman living in a male-dominated society in which women had very little power. Details of her court case, however, can be found off-line in newspaper archives, and in the records of the court proceedings. Selkcerf0142 (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC). Edited Selkcerf0142 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unverifiable content? No Way! But, unfortunately, details given in the article largely do not come from online sources, like details about what was published in the Government Gazette of July 1855. They come from archived original documentation that is not available on-line. - Although not relevant to the discussion, but just in case anyone is wondering, I am not related to this woman Mary Hyde. I do think, however, that history should not have ignored her. Selkcerf0142 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument that the lack of verifiable content and the 'glossing over' of her story is as a result of her gender fails quite magnificently; the ADB volume covering this time period was published in 1966-7, a period of increasing liberation for women. I'd also reiterate: winning a case in the House of Lords does not make one notable. If the case heralded a change in the legal system it should have an article, but the plaintiff? No.Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been following this argument for deletion with some interest and find that the argument for deletion seems to be based on a rather shallow understanding of history of the time period that this article is based in and that the arguments used to defend your position are fraught with glaring errors to say the least!
Let’s take a more in depth look at the history aspect of the article firstly.
Firstly the subject is a woman which in and of itself meant that she had almost no rights in society at the time in Australian history. Women were more the chattels of their husbands than individuals in their own rights. And she was a transported female convict had previously had very negative dealings with the English court system. Now, a women who had been part of the lowest class in society, dared to think she could take on the government of the day, which it is of no suprise that she lost in the New South Wales courts. She then dared to think that she could pursue her case even as far as back to the English courts where she had previously been a victim.
Secondly the chances that she had a education at this time worth a pinch of salt is laughable considering her position in society. What father of her time, from their station in society would have felt it was worth educating a daughter let alone be able to afford it?
Next we need to consider the fact that at a mere 23 years of age she had been left without a means of support due to the disappearance of the father of her two children and might I add that she wasn’t married at to the father at this time which makes it all the worse.
Taking just these few points into consideration we have to say that the fact that she not only survived but actually managed to prosper to the point of being able to take the Commissioners of the city of Sydney to the House of Lords and win the case has to be considered a “NOTABLE” achievement in and of itself by any reasonable person. And that isn’t even considering that she was the age of 76 at the time!
But let’s not leave it there; we should look at some of the arguments being used to discredit this article.
A claim is made that we should compare the following cases to the one fought by the lady in question.
“Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v. Blackpool City Council (1990) or Gibson v. Manchester City Council (1979) (which also went to the House of Lords in the end).
To say the either of these cases can be compared is facetious to say the least. On one hand we have an organisation that is taking their local council to court and secondly we have a case were a person takes his council to court and loses. Both cases were held in recent years compared to a court case decided in a woman’s favour in 1855 in the House of Lords. How these can be put forth as an argument to delete this article shows a lack of understanding of what the lady in question not only had to overcome but what she actually accomplished. Remember that to fight a case in the House of Lords in England at this time, it wasn’t as if she could jump on the phone and then jump in her car and drive down to the House of Lords. This was accomplished in the days of sailing ships and a trip to England from Sydney was a three month trip one way. She was a 75 year old woman at the time of the court case we should also keep in mind!
Next we have the following:
“Your argument that the lack of verifiable content and the 'glossing over' of her story is as a result of her gender fails quite magnificently; the ADB volume covering this time period was published in 1966-7, a period of increasing liberation for women. I'd also reiterate: winning a case in the House of Lords does not make one notable. If the case heralded a change in the legal system it should have an article, but the plaintiff? No.”
Talk about “failing miserably”, that you ask us to consider an article published over 40 years ago during what you claim was a “period of increasing liberation for women” as a form of proof that the information contained within should be considered infallible once again shows a considerable lacking in judgment. Remember that this was a time when African Americans were fighting for equal rights and that the Australian Aboriginal was just being given the right to vote. It was still a male dominated society and this would have permeated all aspects of society even I would suggest the vaunted ADB of the time!
This article should be kept as an important part of Australian history, and allowed to develop into a much needed point of reference about this woman and her “NOTABLE” accomplishments.Kamelblm (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been following this argument for deletion with some interest and find that the argument for deletion seems to be based on a rather shallow understanding of history of the time period that this article is based in and that the arguments used to defend your position are fraught with glaring errors to say the least!
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kaben. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kaben Airport[edit]
- Kaben Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This one is tough. If you search for this airport on Google, you will find many sources saying it exists, but I did look at one just to see what all it included. The sources will list the same information. I.e., directory listings, the airport code, and it's location. That's it. Go here and look at the airport. (you have to go to satellite view and zoom very very close) It is nothing more than a dirt strip. (I wouldn't want to land on it) The island it is located on does not even have an article here. (yet) With all that being said, it fails WP:N and WP:RS. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as much as I hate to delete an airport, this isn't even notable enough to be listed in AirNav. Oroso (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just a dirt strip, not listed on AirNav, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kaben.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article for Kaben appears to have been created now so merge and redirect seems like a reasonable solution. The airport's extent seems decidedly unimpressive, but it does appear to have some commercial air service, and is relevant to the discussion of the locale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All airports
are noteableshould be noteable, so (unfortunatley) I'm going to have to say Delete. K50 Dude ROCKS! 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC) P.S.....I wouldn't wanna land on it either.[reply] - Merge as Brewercrew and Sjakkalle. I do not think we need articles on every possible landing strip. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Brewercrew, Sjakkalle, and Peterkingiron. --Triadian (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FRIDA[edit]
- FRIDA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable software. "It is referenced in another wikipedia article" doesn't really cut it for notability, and the fact that it will be in a paper in the future doesn't work much easier, especially since the article creator is also the writer of said paper. Delete and move on. Ironholds (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claims of why this is notable in any way. NoVomit (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Insufficient claim to notability. GlassCobra 02:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy[Really really fast & unambiguous] delete: no assertion of notability. HrafnTalkStalk 13:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Molly Conlin[edit]
- Molly Conlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article not needed for a young actress only appearing as a minor character in a soap opera. Only one line of text Matty4123 (T•C•A) 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails wp:bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Falls under A7 --Mblumber (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just nominated it for speedy deletion. No point having this drag on - Matty4123 (T•C•A) 20:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO WE NEED TO KEEP THIS ON, WE'LL FIND MORE ABOUT HER AS ITS BEEN RELEASED, LEAVE IT ON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.195.135 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elert Bode[edit]
- Elert Bode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable actor. IMDB (Google cache only, page down) shows many bit parts, but no significant roles as far as I can tell. Sounds like and interesting guy, with a long career, but not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:BIO analysis follows...
WP:BIO Entertainers #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" does not appear to be satisfied. As mentioned previously, IMDB suggests many bit parts, some short recurring bit parts, but no overtly significant roles. Article fails to assert any as well.
WP:BIO Entertainers #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" not shown by evidence in article, or by Google search.
WP:BIO Entertainers #3 "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" not shown by evidence in article, or by a Google search.
The conclusion of that analysis is Delete, however I would like comments, so Afd process seemed appropriate, rather than a prod. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nothing more to say. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Tangri[edit]
- Roger Tangri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Standard academic who doesn't appear notable based on this article. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--I don't see any notability either following WP:PROF. An earlier prod had been removed by DGG, saying that the prof in question had two books by OUP--however, they were published (at least one of them still listed on the publisher's website) by James Currey in Oxford (originally misspelled as 'Curry'), which is a small press (though in league with Boydell and Brewer). The Politics of Patronage has been reviewed a few times, but isn't cited much, as far as I can tell. Then, the prof strikes me as a journeyman, not as a notable person (head of something, endowed chair, etc), and no sources are provided to suggest otherwise. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Yes, I was wrong about OUP, and it does make a difference. But I see that Politics in sub-Saharan Africa, 1985, copublished by Heineman and Currey, is held in 350 worldcat libraries [51] and The politics of patronage in Africa : parastatals, privatization, and private enterprise publ by Currey , is held in 159. These are substantial counts for the subject. However, it is borderline. DGG (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As pointed out by DGG, his book Politics in sub-Saharan Africa is widely held (in 359 libraries worldwide, according to my version of Worldcat). I believe a threshold of 300 is enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #1. He is also cited in the media, including New York Times, although not extensively. Citation impact appears to be borderline, as far as notability under WP:PROF is concerned. All in all, I would say it is a keep.--Eric Yurken (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Eric, DGG, I should know more than I do, and this maybe isn't the place for it, but a WorldCat count doesn't necessarily mean a book is notable. Lots of books are simply acquired by academic libraries become they come from a certain press, or because a certain reviewer has said certain things, etc. I understand that that may mean something, but it's not a given, and I don't really see how 300 copies worldwide (which really isn't much, considering that there's 300 universities in the state of Alabama alone, it seems) means that #1, on "significant impact," has been fulfilled. BTW, if y'all say keep, you're not hurting my feelings. Thanks for enlightening me, Drmies (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Drmies. If 300 Spartans could do it, then 300 books should also … okay, the 300 in Worldcat is a subjective threshold, but it seems to be somewhere in the ballpark of those agreed to be notable here after some discussion. This is primarily for academics that are deemed notable based on scholarly books; often in the social sciences. Worldcat does not provide information on all libraries, only the major ones. These libraries buy based on requests from faculty (if they are university libraries), or directly from publishers; the latter usually only from reputable and selective publishers. By comparison, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman’s book The Spatial Economy yields 456 entries in Worldcat. --Eric Yurken (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Eric, DGG, I should know more than I do, and this maybe isn't the place for it, but a WorldCat count doesn't necessarily mean a book is notable. Lots of books are simply acquired by academic libraries become they come from a certain press, or because a certain reviewer has said certain things, etc. I understand that that may mean something, but it's not a given, and I don't really see how 300 copies worldwide (which really isn't much, considering that there's 300 universities in the state of Alabama alone, it seems) means that #1, on "significant impact," has been fulfilled. BTW, if y'all say keep, you're not hurting my feelings. Thanks for enlightening me, Drmies (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the threshold depends on the subject. This is a relatively out of the way topic, and US universities are notably weak in African studies, so the number is significant. I am not aware of any academic library that has bought books indiscriminately across all fields in the last 50 years or so, though some will indeed buy every published book in very narrow fields. The number that do it in this topic in the US might be between zero and five. DGG (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could take a book that is no doubt notable and do a count for that to get an idea how it compares. - Mgm|(talk) 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This raises the interesting question of whether WorldCat is a useful tool for measuring notability and how to intrepet ad hoc formulas constructed using its data. This would be worth looking into in more detail, outside the context of this AfD. I just looked up a number of what might be deemed universally used textbooks in my (very large) field that have surprising low WorldCat numbers. I'm at a loss to explain that. Food for thought... --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - he does get some news coverage, but not a lot. Then again, I suppose there are not too many quotable experts on Ghana's economy out there. Quotable, apparently. Notable, not sure. Academics are quoted all the time, often just because the journalist has to track down somebody who can give a credible quote. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--His prolific academic work is cited by others, Google Scholar--Jmundo (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gail Carter Lott[edit]
- Gail Carter Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contest PROD. There is no evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that would satisfy WP:N or allow a full, neutral biography to be written about this individual. Several types of searches revealed nothing more than trivial coverage, at least as far as I could find (and I freely admit that I am not the world's best searcher) The PROD was contested with the edit summary "RSPB council = notability" by the original creator. I then went to the user's talk page to ask them to explain what that meant and/or help me understand why they felt that it shouldn't be deleted, but that was unsuccessful. I therefore feel that I have put forth a reasonable effort to unearth notability and have come up empty-handed, although I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Cheers, CP 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Having a place on the managing council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the largest conservation organisation in the world, with more members than the three main UK political parties combined, grants inherent notability. That references to her are in print rather than on-line, and not yet converted to Wikipedia references, does not change that; the whole concept of stubs exists for such cases. For the record, I answered every question put to me on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean "having had" a place? She's no longer there.[52] MikeHobday (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One doesn't loose notability by resigning a notable position. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean "having had" a place? She's no longer there.[52] MikeHobday (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If someone were notable per wp:bio, they should get significant ghits if they were English in 2009.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The raw number of Google hits (which is what I resume you mean) is not a criterion for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Number"? there aren't any. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The raw number of Google hits (which is what I resume you mean) is not a criterion for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Former membership of RSPB council does not convey individual notability. Coupled with absence of absence of reliable sources per CP. MikeHobday (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MikeHobday Decltype (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Total Recall (music company)[edit]
- Total Recall (music company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article written by company itself. No sources are provided, no notability is established (and it's barely established in the article). I could find no sources to prove that this company is notable and important; besides, the article is written by the company itself. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: An A7 was declined a half a year ago on the grounds that the company acquired notability by acquiring a supposedly notable record label, Mille Plateaux. However, WP:Corp does not suggest that notability is inherited (from child to parent, in this case); moreover, the 'significant publication' requirement is still not fulfilled. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The acquisition also means several artists came under the new combined label. Isn't having notable artists on the roster one of the key things to look for when assessing notability of a label? It might not be inherited but it's not lost either. (Also there are already several cases that show notability can be inherited - getting a notable award makes someone notable, or (a down/up example as here) bands with notable members are considered notable. - Mgm|(talk) 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Possible Speedy. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established as per WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Way Productions Ltd[edit]
- Urban Way Productions Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. 19:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This can be rewritten to WP:N standards and formatted properly. Also, sources might be possible to add. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Might? So you are saying there might be no sources, too? That would be a clear case for deletion. Punkmorten (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real claim to notability. lacks coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Same as above. Article fails to assert notability. Fails WP:CORP. Trusilver 17:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry (CMS)[edit]
- Cherry (CMS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Notability issues ... a Yahoo or Google search turns up few reliable sources. High COI as well--author is CherryCMS (talk · contribs). Blueboy96 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G11) as blatant advertisement/spam. Also note that the article's author (as well as the AFD's nom) has been indef'd for using a promotional username. MuZemike (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable source mentions, combined with a strong potential COI, makes it unlikely this meets WP:V or WP:N. As far as I can see [53] the software has not even been released as yet, and I can find no coverage elsewhere. ~ mazca t|c 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: blatant & unencyclopedic spam. HrafnTalkStalk 12:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.977 Music Network[edit]
- .977 Music Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
fails specified notability criteria: no non-trivial third-party coverage, well-known awards, etc. SlubGlub (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The only reliable source that shows notability that I can find is this, but that doesn't make the article pass WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delftse Studenten Zwemvereniging 'WAVE'[edit]
- Delftse Studenten Zwemvereniging 'WAVE' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Just another non-notable sports club. Aecis·(away) talk 00:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--nom. is right: there's nothing notable here. (Nothing in the Dutch press either.) Drmies (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, don't see the notability here. Punkmorten (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ankh-Morpork Post Office[edit]
- Ankh-Morpork Post Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I like the Discworld novels, I really do, but this is just original research plot summary with no reliable third party source in sight, and much too detailed to merge anywhere. Relevant policies and guidelines include WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N. Sandstein 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Terry Pratchett is my religion. I'm seriously getting a Terry Pratchett tattoo. No lie. That said, this is mostly OR, and it's not notable enough outside the context of the series for its own article. So, delete it. Graymornings(talk) 22:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that this article is in pretty poor shape at the moment, it's not completely beyond hope, it could be salvaged by an editor with detailed knowledge and time to dig out the references, so... Keep , put on the appropriate warnings and wait for re-editing 82.32.73.70 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge to Going Postal. If the organization had been featured in more than a single novel, I'd suggest keeping the article, but honestly there's nothing here that is worth saying that couldn't be said in the main article for the book. JulesH (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I too am a great fan of Mr. Pratchett's novels, but this article is nothing but unsourced plot summary about a minor element of a fictional world. Fancruft in other words. Reyk YO! 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim unsourced/merge/redirect into Going Postal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not peripheral background, the major plot element. The justifies an article--as for the merge, that makes sense also, but should be discussed later. DGG (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Consists solely of plot with no reliable secondary sources. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. GlassCobra 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Willie Da Kid[edit]
- Willie Da Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable musician with no secondary sources, only sources are from his record label fails WP:MUSIC BigDuncTalk 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: lacks substantial 3rd party sources for notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hunde Dhugassa[edit]
- Hunde Dhugassa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominated for deletion for notability issues. Individual sounds like he has a compelling story, but revolutionizing a student organization really doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Possibility for merge with school article exists, but probably not practical. WP:BIO/WP:Notability analysis follows.
- WP:BIO Basic Criteria, For Sources Provided
- http://oromiatimes.multiply.com/journal/item/785 - Disqualified Primary Source (he wrote press release)
- http://www.apanews.net/apa.php?page=eco_article_eng&id_article=34083 - Subcription Required (unable to review)
- http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/43086 - Questionable, mostly just press release above w/commentary. Probably fails WP:BIO.
- http://ogqbo.multiply.com/journal/item/228 - Primary Source (his paper advocating secession)
- http://www.cadtm.org/article.php3?id_article=2408 - Valid Proof he is secretary of the "Union of Oromo Students in Europe, Belgium Branch." Not proof of notability.
- Fails WP:BIO Basic Criteria.
- WP:BIO Politicians
- Note: Considering "Politician" as a possible class for additional review, due to class office held.
- Not a "[person] who ha[s] held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." Not a "major local political [figure] who ha[s] received significant press coverage."
- Fails WP:BIO Politicians
- WP:BIO Creative Professionals
- Note: Considering "Creative Professional" as a possible class for additional review due to degree, profession, and thesis.
- All "Creative Professional" criteria besides "the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" not under review because they clearly don't apply.
- "Revolutionizing" a student union not significant enough to merit inclusion in encyclopedia. Great acheivement, but just doesn't rise to encyclopedia content level. There isn't even a source for that, anyway.
- Fails WP:BIO Creative Professionals.
- WP:Notability Analysis
- The individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, see above. No objective evidence of notability has been provided that passed criteria for sources. Mostly just material written by the individual.
- Fails WP:Notability.
- Recommendation: Delete, nominator: Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did what I could with copyediting, etc. I'm afraid that I agree with the nominator on this point: "...compelling story, but revolutionizing a student organization really doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia". The California Chronicle source could hardly be called reliable, as it reprints a "most devastating" (source's description) press release from the subject of the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Doesn't quite pass WP:BIO. GlassCobra 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. A7. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: based on the facts presented, the subject appears notable, but the lack of a good reference is a problem. Apanews (African Press Agency) is a good source, but since it recently moved to subscription only archives we can't check that one. I would recommend a more thorough search for sources before action is taken. Everyking (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Feel free to poke around some more. But...Of 134 GS-results, I've found nothing but word-for-word copies of his press releases, copies of his dissertation, Wikipedia dumps, and blogs that seem connected to his organization...in other words, nothing third-party and reliable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Charlotte's Web (1973 film). MBisanz talk 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zuckerman's Famous Pig[edit]
- Zuckerman's Famous Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - no reliable sources indicate that the song has any notability independent of the film. PROD was removed by editor stating that because the book is notable the song "might be" notable too, but this is not the standard for notability and the editor should certainly be aware that notability is not inherited. Otto4711 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I concur with the reasoning of the Nom. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as there is no independent notability. Tavix (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep It seems to me that given the importance of the original work, and the use of the song is subsequent works would mean there were sources likely to be found, and thus a community discussion was appropriate. I myself cannot competently do the checking. DGG (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Charlotte's Web (1973 film). There's plenty of useful information that would be a shame to lose. --JD554 (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per JD554. Note also that an article has been created for each of the songs from the film, and most (did not check 'em all) have been proposed for deletion. All of these articles should share a common fate, one way or 'tother. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unnotable song. Article is unsourced, and any "new" information in it is unverifiable. Should be deleted like two of the "bigger" songs have already been. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added a variety of sources to the article and cleaned it up. The title is clearly notable in several respects and so, per WP:BEFORE, deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are significant coverage, nor that relevant. Two only verify that the song exists and is used in the film, something that doesn't even NEED sourcing. None are specific (lacking page numbers), and the other two are not significant coverage, but only pass by mentions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this addresses the points of WP:BEFORE. This is clearly not a "hopeless case" and so should not have been brought to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If none of the sources provide significant coverage of the topic (ie "Zuckerman's Famous Pig") as per the general notability guidelines, then I would say it is a hopeless case. --JD554 (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment contradicts your opinion above where you indicate that the article should not be deleted. There you suggest that the content be merged. The difficulty is that there are mutliple possible targets. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. I don't think the topic is notable and therefore anything that is salvagable from the article, such as writer etc should be added to the main article. I see no contradiction there. Anything noteworthy that isn't relevant to the film would be added to the relevant article, such as The Brady Kids cover being mentioned in that article. But that's all I can see. --JD554 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment contradicts your opinion above where you indicate that the article should not be deleted. There you suggest that the content be merged. The difficulty is that there are mutliple possible targets. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If none of the sources provide significant coverage of the topic (ie "Zuckerman's Famous Pig") as per the general notability guidelines, then I would say it is a hopeless case. --JD554 (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep article and sources establish some notability outside of the original film. JuJube (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per decent improvement by Colonel Warden. GlassCobra 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm sorry, but the sources provided do not establish independent notability for the song. The first source mentions the phrase as part of the plot of the book Charlotte's Web for what appears to be an explication of Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief. It does not provide any coverage of the song as it draws its reference from the phrase's appearance in the novel, not the song's existence in the film. The second source is nothing but a track listing. Does not cover the song in any substantive fashion. The third source merely mentions that the Brady Kids recorded it and does not discuss the song in a substantive fashion. The fourth source is a dedication of a novel (which is also dedicated to "Hayao, Jesus, Akira" and the men who shaped the author and the woman who said the author was her favorite. No discussion of the song at all and no evidence that it is a reference to the song and not the phrase from the novel. Per notability guidelines notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Single-sentence mentions are not significant coverage, as also established by notability guidelines: "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." Four plainly trivial mentions, two of which are likely not about the song at all, do not and cannot establish notability. Find sources that are about the song in a significant manner. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Smerge Fails the GNG. Also would arguably fail the proposed WP:FICT, though it would be pretty close. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The song receives its notability from the film and is not independently notable. --Stormbay (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Colonel Warden's input (I would treat him to a pulled pork sandwich, but that might be construed as inappropriate). Ecoleetage (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And your response to the fact that the so-called "sources" he used are trivial one-sentence mentions, some of which do not refer to the song at all but instead the novel, which are the sort of mentions that WP:N specifically excludes as establishing notability, would be what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kaltiecoatia[edit]
- Kaltiecoatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Content duplicated from Cymothoa exigua. No Google hits for "Kaltiecoatia", "Kaltie coatia", or any similar spacing permutation. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE, if nothing can be found to verify its existance.--Sallicio 22:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why not speedy or redirect?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 December 2008
- Hoaxes should only be speedied when they consist of "blatant misinformation"; sometimes, information corroborating the veracity of a suspected hoax can surface during AfD. Redirect to what, exactly? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as probable hoax. GlassCobra 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wrote a poem about how this article was written. I call it "How that hoax article was written." Copy / paste / find-and-replace. The end. flaminglawyerc 05:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax. Personally, I would have redirected it to Cymothoa exigua and then proposed it for speedy as an unlikely redirect... :-) --Crusio (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probably a hoax, and anyway no need to keep it; it's just a copy-paste from another article. Chamal talk 09:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Virtual native network[edit]
- Virtual native network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This does not seem to be a very notable product in English speaking world. Fangfufu (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability in the English speaking world is not required; notability anywhere would serve. But this seems to be a non-notable tech product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RTLS communications[edit]
- RTLS communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
page is entirely how-to material - violates WP:NOTHOWTO Ikluft (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. This page is a how-to/instruction manual. Ikluft (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment A lot of technical mumbo-jumbo. I would think the article RTLS alone would suffice. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. GlassCobra 02:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NOTMANUAL. As Wapondaponda said, the RTLS article should suffice. Matt (Talk) 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 07:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James B. Hazen[edit]
- James B. Hazen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources found to verify notability Mrmcdonnell (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. unnotable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Police commissioner for 1 month, a lobbyist of a small association. Both doesn't seem to be anything notable enough to have an article about him in Wikipedia. Chamal talk 09:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warp Pipe (software developer)[edit]
- Warp Pipe (software developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about trivial, third-party GameCube software with no assertion of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant information to Nintendo GameCube. As an aside, 'warp pipe' redirects to this article. Seeing as 'warp pipe' is a plausible search term, a redirect might be in order. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, while it may not be relevant to the AfD process, interested editors might find it interesting that a disambiguation page for the term 'warp pipe' was redirect to the aforementioned article. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm seeing a bunch of stuff come up, though I cannot and will not vouch for any for the sake of WP:RS which is what is required for WP:N. Also, Warp pipe should probably be redirected to Mario (series)#Recurring gameplay elements... --Izno (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for reasons above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 03:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Expanding on Izno's thought, it might be better to just reestablish Warp Pipe as a disambiguation page and link it to Mario (series)#Recurring gameplay elements and Nintendo GameCube respectively. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there really any need for that? It seems a bit trivial, linking no full article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Just seems to me that Warp Pipe is a plausible search term for a few things. Might be better to just redirect Warp Pipe to the aforementioned section on Mario, and add a 'Warp Pipe redirects here, if you're etc, etc, etc' love note to the start of the section. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubify - Content is unverified, but external links contain two reasonable interviews. Propose stripping content down to stub, and leave open for expansion using these sources, per WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, stubbify, etc. - Those news articles look pretty good. Merging is not a good idea because it's a separate entity whose scope differs from that of the Nintendo GameCube article. SharkD (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hellas Berlin[edit]
- Hellas Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim of notability, has never played in the 1st or 2nd German division. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'd be open to keeping it if it were notable for either sport or non-sport reasons (e.g. cultural position in the Greek expatriate community), but even after quite a bit of searching I can't find any nontrivial mention of the team, under either "Hellas Berlin" or its previous name "Olympiakos Berlin". There's also no German Wikipedia article on it. So at the moment at least, writing a reliably sourced article seems unlikely. --Delirium (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chi Rho Omicron[edit]
- Chi Rho Omicron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This organization doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria contemplated at WP:ORG. There is also a serious lack of citations to reliable, third-party sources. No significant improvement since the last AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline One state, 8 branches. DGG (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ORG. A passing mention in a much broader book is insufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Y'self[edit]
- Please Y'self (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This band elicits about 350 ghits but I do not find any significant coverage in reliable sources. I declined a speedy delete because there is the assertion of notability. Maybe the wider community would be best to make a decision here. JodyB talk 16:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPerforming for 30 years. I think there are sources to establish notability out there, they just have to be tracked down. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and couldn't find much. They haven't actually been performing for 30 years. They performed and then had a long hiatus as best I can tell. So, I think the nom is correct and tehy should in fact be deleted. Letting go is hard to do, and they're a nice enough band, but they don't meet the notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Child of Midnight. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: CoM changed his vote... JamesBurns (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mostly for lack of reliable secondary sources. Although supposedly created 28 years ago, the band's activity does not in any way asserts notability under WP:BAND. Whatever coverage present is extremely local. Plus more or less the entire article details a review, copied and pasted from here. LeaveSleaves talk 15:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. MBisanz talk 02:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism[edit]
- Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A clear POV fork of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Jtrainor (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - POV issues are obvious, also clearly falls under WP:SOAP as well as WP:POINT. Raitchison (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please note:
- User:Sandstein, the administor who closed the first AfD wrote:
- "I see no core policy violations (of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR) that can be remedied only by deletion"
- "It is neither apparent nor clearly explained what this is supposed to be a POV fork of, and how. It is linked to from both parent articles through WP:SS-style, brief summary paragraphs that are (if at all) at least not overtly or irremediably non-neutral. Furthermore, it is prima facie unclear what POV the article would be pushing. It seems to be at least superficially neutral in that it cites several scholars with a variety of viewpoints...For these reasons, I find that there is currently no consensus to delete this article. This does not rule out consensus-based editorial solutions, such as merging or redirection, that may be arrived at on the article talk page(s)."
- The same recycled empty reasons to delete this page are being trotted out yet again for a third time. travb (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't a part of any of the previous AfD debates, in any case I disagree with the closing admins decision in the first AfD (though I agree with actions in the second AfD). The article establishes as fact that the bombings were state terrorism which makes it highly POV IMO. It was apparent to me from reviewing the first AfD that the consensus was delete though obviously the closing admin felt otherwise. In any case I suspect that regardless of the outcome of this AfD that the article will continue to be nominated for deletion over and over because the title screams POV. Raitchison (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is a summary fork from Allegations of state terrorism by the United States due to size. There are no POV issues as the article presents both sides of this debate. The bombings were clearly acts of state terrorism by the US and meant to be so, as documented in the Allegations article and it's talk pages, including references by Chavez, Chomsky, Richard Falk, the Target Committee's minutes, Frances Vryling Harbour, and others. Although there are those that feel differently. The article is very well referenced. And as far as WP:POINT, it seems just a bit POINTY to nominate this article the thirst time (plus a DRV) for essentially the same reason within about seven months. — Becksguy (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To say that the bombings were "clearly" an act of state terrorism is IMO preposterous. As is discussed at length in the article provided by nominator Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki both targets had significant millitary value which automatically rules out a label of terrorism according to many definitions (Definition of terrorism). I can see making an argument that the attacks may have been state terrorism, as the original article does, after all there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, but to establish it as fact that the bombings were terrorist in nature reveals strong POV. In any case I'm not the nominator but don't see how nominating for deletion at all falls under WP:POINT, given the obvious POV issues. Care to elaborate? Raitchison (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems somewhat unbalanced (in favor of the terrorism conclusion), but the POV issues can be resolved without deletion. That said, if the balance issue becomes even worse, and if consensus turns into a bunch of editors bickering, then I could see this being relisted and deleted. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to Merge based on discussion below. The content of this article seems to be better served by existing within Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Merging will allow better balance and anti-POV measures, as well as provide the reader with better context and ties is with the related topic better. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's not a "spinout" as it was spun out singularly from the Debate... article while the other seven sections, which were just as long, were not. As undue prominence is given to one viewpoint opposed to the other seven, it's a POVFORK; Summary Style does not (or if it does, should not) allow viewpoint articles to be spunout unfairly or with one viewpoint. Also, I think the Allegations of state terrorism article should be deleted myself, but that's not either here or there. (Incidentally, I do believe the bombings were a form of terrorism; didn't stop me from nominating it the first time around) Sceptre (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Nomination is based on a misunderstanding of WP:POVFORK. WP:POVFORK states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit.
WP:POINT, "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" has absolutly no applicability here. WP:POINT is about an editors behavior, not a content dispute. travb (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm interpreting WP:POINT differently because it seems to be a very good example of point 9 (borderlining) of "gaming the system" by creating an article that trivially addresses an opposing POV in order to give an article a veneer of NPOV. Raitchison (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Any article that actually comes to a conclusion, in its title no less, is quite clearly making some point. That aside, in order to put forward a single point in this way and still create a good article length, (as seen in the article) is one must list a huge number of arguments in detail, making it highly unencyclopedic. A discussion of the numerous point of views about the Bombings is a fair enough fork, given the size of the topic, however a page on each and every argument is completely useless to an encyclopedia. No page should ever come to a conclusion, or be focussed on a single literary conclusion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' Forked off of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I expected to say otherwise, but the material would fit very well in the main article. A good deal of it is already there, and the specific part that is about state terrorism belongs there in context with the rest. This is not an expansion, not a spinout due to size or difficulty. In practice it does serve as a POV fork--and even from the POV, not a necessary one. DGG (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge Honestly, as others have said, there is already an article to house this information: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe that the material included here fits very neatly into the Debate article. Adding a second one seems unwieldy and unnecessary. The creation of this article isn't a logical step in trying to teach someone about a debate on an important historical event. Keeping it all in one place will allow every claim, from either POV, to be examined in context of one another. SMSpivey (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MalikCarr (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect. It's important to get the history behind this article right and as someone who knows about that and a bit about this topic I'll go into a little detail here. The content was culled from one section of the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (not, as several suggest above, from Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and dumped here because of wild disputes over at the "Allegations" article. It should have stayed there to begin with, and a vastly slimmed down version of this current article should be merged back to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. One thing I cannot stress enough: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not the place to house some version of this content. It could probably be mentioned there briefly, but to have any lengthy discussion of the notion that the atomic bombing of Japan was state terrorism in the main "Debate" article causes major, major undue weight problems. There are huge academic and popular debates about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, obviously, but only a tiny amount of the discussion revolves around the notion of state terrorism. It is discussed in those terms, most definitely, but almost exclusively in literature that deals more generally with the topic of state terrorism, particularly as supposedly committed by the United States. Thus Allegations of state terrorism by the United States is the perfect place for this content, probably in the form of three or four paragraphs in this section (which, again, was how it started in the first place). The content was stable there for quite awhile and this article was only created in an ultimately ill-advised effort to end a really annoying content dispute. Let's redirect this title to the previously linked section and thus take things back to the status quo ante circa May 2008.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bigtimepeace is correct that this content was spun out of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, not the Debate... article (and I pointed that out above also). There were massive debates about this content, much hinging on wartime acts vs. state terrorism with reliable sources on both sides of the issue. One of the most telling arguments is the (now declassified) minutes from the Target Committee, the US government group tasked with selecting targets for the atomic devices in May 1945:
"A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value." [54]
- Several have expressed concerns that this title is inherently POV. If true, that can be fixed without deleting the article, per WP:DELETE. Especially since the article presents all significant viewpoints, and is therefore NPOV per se. — Becksguy (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.