The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The delete arguments here cite a lack of reliable sources, and no evidence that he meets either WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. The keep arguments mention the possibility that he may meet WP:ARTIST#3 or WP:PORNBIO, but offer no evidence to prove it. No prejudice to recreation if reliable secondary sources are found. Kevin (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in the article (or anything I can find on google) suggests that he meets WP:PORNBIO, and I can find no significant coverage of him in reliable sources. --BelovedFreak 12:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the period of the films he starred in, online sources from his earlier films will be scarce. The fact that he was in a Richard Attenborough film and starred in at least 19 porn films would mean that he has a reasonable body of work. In this case the more general WP:ARTIST #3 guidance has been satisfied even if nobody has yet found a particular named award that would meet WP:PORNBIO. Ash (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments by Ash --emerson7 03:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AIML. Non-admin closure. JujutacularT · C 19:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable desktop applet, still in alpha. Can't find any third-party independent sources. Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AIML, the language deleveloped by the same author, which this is basically a demo of. See [1]. Pcapping 19:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to AIML as per Pcap. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither of the two subjects meet the WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR standard individually, and coupling them together as "Bihar's Scientist Couple" violates WP:OR and WP:NEOLOGISM. Note too that several of the current claims in the article don't stand up to scrutiny: for example the two are listed as "co-authors" of the book Energy from the Desert. In fact, they are just two of many contributors to this publication, with their contributions appearing only in Appendix A8. Not to downplay their real-life achievements, but the article does them a disservice by possibly exaggerating them, and thus adversely affecting its/their credibility. Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advice about the Title Do you think that the title of the article should be modified? arunbandana 05:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)
KeepThe list of their publications indicates that they have been working together. So they have been coupled together. arunbandana 05:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)
Delete. Notability is not demonstrated for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:Prof, lacks references, and does not meet WP:NPOV. Married scientists are not "unique," and being a conference chair is not a "rare distinction." No evidence (e.g. of prizes or awards) is given supporting the claims that their research is "significant" or "excellent," and the bulk of the article seems to be an ordinary academic CV. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a joint article isn't really appropriate. Even notable married scientific couples like Marie Curie and Pierre Curie do not have a joint article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create separate articles. They may have enough citations for independent notability. Radagast3 is right about couples. MiRroar (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create separate articles. A lot of cleanup work is required.--Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sighificant work of notability [2]--kaeiou (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. For keeping, HSG was a professor. Against, the body of work is not large or notable. Against wins. MiRroar (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. Although much of his work is pre-internet, there are very few third party citations of his work online, making it unlikely that he/she has made the significant impact on his/her field the criteria requires. Similarly, there is no evidence of a major award, appointment to a chair of a major university or head of a major institution. In short, there is no evidence of notability as an academic. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low cites in GScholar and GBooks. MathSciNet lists 19 papers by him, with the total of 3 citations. Most papers seem to be in relatively obscure journals. Nothing else in the record indicates passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expandWeak Delete: my understanding is that India uses the British meaning of professor (i.e. = "chair"), which would meet WP:Prof criterion #5, given that Karnatak University is a major university in India. The Karnatak University web site lists him as one of a small number of "eminent mathematicians ... [who] worked as faculty members and Chairpersons and brought the Department to a level which is on par with any other best departments of our country." In other words, his notability lies in his impact on the development of his institution. However, being only 2 lines, the article needs considerable expansion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #5 reads - The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. HSG was not a chair. How do we or wiki define a distinguished professor? Is Karnataka University a top 50 or a top n in India? Are these answered anywhere? We have to depend upon the data from Google scholar, MathScienceNet or other tools (reliable sources) to figure out whether someone is distinguished in that chosen field of research. Chair is a relative term (must be of a well known reputed institution (Tier 1 or 2 school in that discipline)). --kaeiou (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karnataka is a state with a population substantially larger than California or Spain. Karnataka University is the second oldest in the state, with over a million students. That makes it a "major institution." Given the British definition of professor, I understand that H. S. Gopalakrishna was a chair (I could be wrong), which would make him notable on the basis of his service to the institution. I agree that he is not notable on the basis of his publications. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment populations may not measure the strength - it is the the quaility of research for an auniversity. I think KU comes after Mysore and Bangalore Universities. I do see two more math professors E. Sampathkumar and K. S. Amur from KU who served as chair, not HSG - May be he was chair somewhere else. sorry.--kaeiou (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote from the KU web site was "Eminent mathematicians like Prof P. N. Shivakumar (Presently at University of Manitoba, Canada), Prof K. S. Amur, Prof H. S. Gopalakrishna, Prof E. Sampathkumar, Prof S.R. Malghan, Prof S. M. Sarangi, Prof B. A. Uralegaddi and Prof (Smt) P. S. Neeralagi worked as faculty members and Chairpersons and brought the Department to a level which is on par with any other best departments of our country." Sampathkumar followed Amur as chair, so you are correct: Gopalakrishna can't have been the chair. I'm changing my vote to Weak Delete. Sorry for wasting your time. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. The nominator states that: "Actually the closing was proper but the result was wrong, there was a general consensus on deleting the article. The problem is that it was closed and nobody challenged it. That's why it was nominated again for deletion." Deletion review is that way. Fences&Windows 01:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a second proposal for the deletion of this page. I believe it is important to delete this page since there is not such a thing as Conspiracy Theory regarding an event as an earthquake. The scientific grounds on tectonic plates are very clear. The so called theories are nothing but not notable gossip invented by some yellow-journalism newspapers in Europe. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to 2010 Haiti earthquake The article by itself seems to be a single compilation of gossip. DustiSPEAK!! 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep- When the admin who closed it orignially said it should be re-evaluated at a later date, I'm betting they were thinking of something a little farther off than 6 days after the last one closed. No matter how good faith the nomination is, it still reeks of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Wait a few months, then lets look at it then. Until then, we just don't have the perspective to gain any sort of consensus. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The time since the last AfD is irrelevant. The article has been substantially revised since then.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't comment at the last debate and, if i did, I would not have supported the retention of the page. But the argument for this nomination is invalid. There can be a "conspiracy theory regarding an event such as earthquake" - someone just has to make one up. The real question is whether such a theory is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Arguing the science (and proving the conspiracy theory wrong) doesn't, in itself, exclude the theory from inclusion in the encyclopedia. If this develops into a extended debate, I may later add my view on the articles notability. But, in acknowledgement of Umbralcorax's point above, I will wait and see. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean invalid? Who can take seriously the statement of conspiracy theory regarding an earthquake? I mean, maybe if it was an old hypothesis that had been part of some ancient culture or maybe something that overtime grew to become a real "theory". But the truth of the matter here is that some guy wrote a conspiracy theory story in a website or newspaper and then the hype of the event (the earthquake in Haiti) brought some attention to such, but this is no more than a gathering of links to gossip like stories that are not to be taken seriously. I mean, look, I am kind of an inclusionist, I hate proposing deletion of articles, but I mean , come on, this goes against common sense, you don't have to evoke any Wikipedia guideline to realize the article is per se a joke. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I didn't mean that the argument itself is invalid. It's an invalid reason for deletion. The craziest conspiracy theory can be notable if it gets enough coverage in indpendent sources. I'm not arguing that's the case here either - just pointing out that sanity of the theory is irrelevant to the debate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find the nominator's arguments particularly compelling but I do think the article should be deleted. In fact, I think that the first AfD (closed as "no consensus") should have resulted in deletion and the arguments I made there still stand. On the other hand, some of the "keep" votes were based on the now-debunked rumour that Hugo Chavez gave credence to the HAARP nonsense. I'd also like to note that in the past week (since the first AfD's close), the only significant contributors to the article are Feudonym, Pontificalibus and myself. We all supported deletion, yet we're the only ones who care enough to turn the article into something which isn't quite the embarrassing piece of junk it was. The fact remains that it's an article on an ill-defined topic and serves only to hold marginal stuff that no other self-respecting article deems of any significance. We should recognize that the HAARP and IDF conspiracies described here are not conspiracy theories about the Haitian earthquake specifically but recurring conspiracy theories about HAARP and the IDF that pop up during, respectively, any earthquake and any IDF operation. I suppose we could create Israel Defense Forces conspiracy theories though I seriously doubt it would stand any chance at AfD. Wikipedia has no obligation to maintain articles for the sole reason that it contains something that can be referenced from somewhere and it has no obligation to track the flavour of the month on the conspiracy blogosphere. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories has been viewed 13535 times in 201002. Where else would this info go? Helped explain the resignation of Jenny Tonge]. 93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
We gotta thank God you don't even have a username dude.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nummber of times a page has been viewed is in no way evidence of notability. This is discussed in the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically mentioned at WP:POPULARPAGE. Keep and delete arguments should address Wikipedia policy which relates to notability and wether the articles contents can be verified. Cheers, Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article is linked to from 2010 Haiti earthquake which obviously has seen quite a bit of traffic, the page views are not really a surprised. More relevant and harder to measure is how many of these pageviews resulted in readers rolling their eyes wondering why this even had a spot on Wikipedia. And I'll say it again: if people are so enamoured with this article that they can't fathom its deletion, then they should roll-up their sleeves and maintain it instead of leaving that work to people forced to waste time on it because they care about Wikipedia's credibility. Pichpich (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): Well, Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, so that argument doesn't really hold. And, if it's notable, it could be part of the main article. I'm not sure which ad hominem argument you refer to. I don't see any on this page! Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of reliable sources - eg all UK newspapers - have referenced the organ thing. A politican has been sacked for taking it seriously. Maybe it would be better in the main article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am gonna have to ask you to refrain from such argument. If that was the case then anybody could write anything and protect it from deletion because of the GFDL argument. So no, that cant be taken into consideration, deletion or no deletions is achieved by consensus. thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because this ONLY applies when work is transferred from one article to another, and it is kept at the other article. It can NEVER apply to cases where no work is transferred, or it is not supposed to be on the other article and is removed for that case. (This does not mean that the article need to remain an article, only that it should not be deleted. A redirect also preserves edit history) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of ways in which the GFDL issue can be addressed. Yes, the simplest is to keep the article but it's not the only one and GFDL should never be the central reason for keeping an article. Pichpich (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been covered in quite a few media outlets by now, including foreign-language ones. I plan on expanding this article sometime soon I expanded this article with information about the "Big Oil" conspiracy theories; quite a few people have been claiming that the real reason the US is in Haiti is because it wants to secretly take their oil. These theories are not going away. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not kept on the basis of expansion, so you are welcome to write as much as you want. The article is a collection of gossip-like stories (wrongly called here theories). If we were to leave articles because other people wrote an article about it in some website then Wikipedia would be just a collection of links.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for procedural reasons and substantively. WP:DRV is the place to appeal, but not here. There are plenty of sources and information now, even if not at the time of the first AfD. Let it go for a few months, when with more perspective, consensus might change. But the close was proper. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the closing was proper but the result was wrong, there was a general consensus on deleting the article. The problem is that it was closed and nobody challenged it. That's why it was nominated again for deletion. So, yes, this is the right place to reach consensus on the deletion of the article.Let me add, so far there is no logical explanation on why this article should be kept. There are some procedural reasons exposed, but that actually weakens the reason why it should be kept. The article is notable only as a gossip and not a factual oriented story. It started when it was said that Chavez accused the US for the earthquake, but this was later on debunked. So anything else is made up imagination. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"there was a general consensus on deleting the article..." No there wasn't. Look at that discussion again, it was pretty much an even split. Also, many of the people on the "delete" side of the aisle had different reasons for wanting the article deleted. When the folks who want the article deleted can't even agree on why it should be deleted, that is not consensus. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teetering between procedural keep per above and delete as a load of fringe hogwash based on the rantings of pov-pushing types such as the Iranian regime.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the number of RS on this topic, we will need to put the info somewhere. I think having a subpage makes wp look less "crazy" than if we put a shorter summary version of this info, on the main haiti earthquake page... but I either way we can't just get rid of this many RS's, even if some of the other cites are not RS. Also I think people are forgetting that while the HAARP story has moved in a tabloid direction, it was originally reported in an RS fashion, no matter how much en-lang wp might be tempted to discount venezuelan and russian sources. IE: if it was a different story about military current affairs, say tu-95 flights down the US east coast between vz and rus, no one would question the RS provenance, with the same reporting chain (northern fleet reports in venezualan media, then picked up by others), its only when the military reporting puts the usa in a more negative light, that people start complaining... it is also good that we have this section, so we can verifiably DEBUNK the chavez video. That is also a public service done by keeping this page, because not everyone will otherwise know the falseness of that video. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I would like to challenge the closing of this AfD proposal. People need at least 30 days to reach consensus. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply that is never the case at AfD. That only happens for WP:RFCs - AfDs are listed for a week, and then sometimes relisted for another week, but it is never standard practice to list it for more than a week. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not apparent that this product has received independent coverage, even if is is an official accessory for a popular console. Pcapping 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an electronics cleaning kit. Cleaning kits are made for all sorts of devices (game consoles, cassette decks, tape backup systems, et cetera) but that hardly means that they're notable, not this specific brand of one at least. JBsupreme (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JBsupreme. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of commercial products. ReykYO! 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Nintendo Entertainment System accessories. The NES Cleaning Kit (besides being a first party one) has some more notability than most because of how much extensive attention it got because of NES games getting dirty quite often (anybody who grew up with a NES had to blow in cartridges on more than one occasion, and the NES Cleaning Kit was supposed to be used instead). TJSpyke 23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The guidelines of WP:PRODUCT are very clear. Products are to be included in the article of the manufacturor wherever possible. To be notable in its own right, this product would need some independent, verifiable, non-trivial sources. If the product had been the subject of a recall, caused a war, received extensive news articles, had a significant cult following, etc we might have a case, but this one doesn't seem to come close to any of those. - it's simply a (green) cleaning product from the 80s! Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent autobiography and unreferenced BLP by a "Reality Show producer" and "Internet celebrity" (read: young man with a YouTube channel). Prod contested by page creator Dogliker8. Non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Cnilep (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I can't find anything that accords any notability to any Joe Wren. The page fails so many policies and guidelines, esp. WP:BLP, WP:CITE and looks like a user's first editing test. Possibly good faith and not vandalism but it's really something that should be in a sandbox, and should probably not be left in article space in its present form. To judge by the dob & age in the bare tpl it could be the work of a child. Suggest the editor work on this some more in his user space and find some reliable VRs before posting to article space.--Kudpung (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an apparent test page. Best to advise new author on how to create and use a sandbox. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr. C.C. (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any single slight hint at notability. noisyjinxhuh? 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously prodded this because the first sentence said the player was semi-pro. I assumed that meant he would fail WP:ATHLETE. The creator of the article since removed that line and my prod.
The player plays for Lincoln United. I don't know if that's a pro team or not sufficient for the ATHLETE criteria. Seems to me that it's not. Shadowjams (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails ATHLETE having not played anywhere near high enough league, fails GNG as there is no in depth coverage, only local match report type passing mentions, half of which are on leagues own website--ClubOranjeT 07:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, reason was: No assertion of notability of athletic technique; implied lack of verifiability A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Google hits. Given the article's phrasing, that this method "only works for Iain MacNab-Stark", I suspect that at best this is a vanity article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity/hoax. I note that the creator, Andy Kilgour (talk·contribs), has made only three edits, all to this article, and two of those were the article's creation and the removal of its PROD. TJRC (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant hoax. It might be possible to jump this way, but the rest of the entry is made up nonsense. Hairhorn (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7. JamieS93❤ 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
USerfy back to author with encouragement to return the article once it has been released and has coverage. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because you have not heard of the film, does not mean it is non-notable. It has a sizeable fanbase, particularly in scotland. and as I have previously said, it is not a hoax, it is real. This site claims to be an encyclopedia, and yet pages are deleted because of a topic being relatively unknown. it's shameful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofeggs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 February 2010
See WP:N and WP:V. This is not an encyclopedia of everything, it's an encyclopedia of what is notable. And more importantly, it has to be verifiable. This article meets neither of those requirements. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your work. I42 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got AGF coming out of my fingertips, but it's very hard to believe that anything which has a "sizeable fan base" anywhere in the English-speaking world would get absolutely no Google hits whatsoever. [3] Before we even go to the question of notability, I think you need to establish the actual existence of this film. Would you please post any link, of any kind (fan website, director's webpage, anything) that would show that this is not a hoax? Without some indication of that, I see no possibility of this being saved from deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{copied from discussion page) This is ridiculous. I've had just about enough of this nonsense, why would something need hits on google to be pouplar. there's more to life than the internet, perhaps those who are interested in this film have better things to do with their lives and interests than sit in front of a computer screen all their lives. I shall delete the page myself, as I have tired of the band of self absorber cyberfreaks that are running this corrupt establishment. This site can sink into the ground for all I care. What a waste of my time. posted by User:Manofeggs 13:26, 13 February 2010
Delete - Probable hoax or personal project. Editor doesn't seem interested in cooperating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator deleted the text of the article, leaving a "This article has been deleted" note on the page. Technically, he can't do this, so I've restored the article, but added a "db-author" speedy delete tag for him. I think that wraps this up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial. DimaG (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any unambiguous, reliable and relevant information about this person other than news relating to his death. noisyjinxhuh? 02:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this really meets notability guidelines. I posted a question here, and editor Atama cleared out most of the obvious advertising, but there haven't been many contributions apart from the obvious COI sources. RabidDeity (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a search for sources on this article, and the most I could find were a few press releases at Plumbing Park, all from February of this year. No actual independent coverage. -- Atama頭 20:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes#Seasons 8-9. There is barely any information, so this article can be recreated when season 8 episodes are released, but without the "-9" part. This is my first AFD comment, so hopefully this comment is okay.--Hadger 03:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It makes no sense to have a combination of two seasons when the rest of ther progression is season by season, not even as a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whpq is correct. I would have said redirect, but come to think of it, there's no point in redirecting whatsoever. "SpongeBob SquarePants (seasons 8-9)" is not a plausible search term and therefore it doesn't need redirection. There's no point in treating them as a single entity. When the time comes for an article on season 8, the article will be called "season 8" so there's no reason for this article to exist. Swarm(Talk) 04:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oddball "seasons 8-9" construction not supported by pesky reality. Abductive (reasoning) 06:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The two seasons/40 episodes claim is not supported by the reference. Reference 1 says nothing about two seasons, it says there will be "another season" and 26 new episodes - even the title says "'SpongeBob' Renewed for 26 Episodes". (Can't tell what ref 2 said, as it's a 404, but it's an older ref and was about the 10th anniversary). I think the information that there are new episodes commissioned should be added to the SpongeBob SquarePants article, which is actually out of date -- Boing!said Zebedee 10:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no previous notability might otherwise be a cause for celebration of a new find!? There is more to find about this man, who was a significant
London merchant around 1720, when he was one of the leaders of the re-form of the Sun Life Office, of great importance to London and Britain as a whole.
I would have thought in these days of inverse snobbery a lesser figure like Robert Smith, ie not a king or earl might attract praise not deletion from something supposedly democratic, plebean, as Wikipedia. It's a bit late to claim Wikipedia as a rival to the ODNB in terms of who is allowed in, surely. As I said ther's more to find on Smith, so why not add a Stub rather than thow the baby out with the bath-water.Rodolph (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such a lesser figure that the the facts we have on him are these:
he was married (like most of us)
he had children (like most of us)
he wrote a will (like most of us)
he was a merchant (so were/are thousands/millions of others)
he was a shareholder in a notable company (but not the founder or a major shareholder)
er,.... that's it.
Delete as non-notable. Emeraude (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, no doubt more interesting than some ruined French castles?
he was a major shareholder.
more informtion is coming.
who are you to decide what is included?
there were not millions of London merchants in 1720.
not that many wrote wills around 1740.
Don't judge him by standards of 2010.
yes, he had children. but the records of his children are good and some were notable.Rodolph (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make this a personal attack. I only nominate because I doubt Robert Smith's notability in Wikipedia terms. It is not for me - or you - to judge that; the whole point of this procedure is that the Wikipedia community makes the judgement. So far, the article inlcudes nothing that I can see that makes Smith notable, even in 18th century terms. The quality of the records is totally irrelevant and I have not and do not question them, but the key point is what he personally did. There is no evidence that his children were notable (and even if they were, that does not confer notability on the father!). The best we have is that Robert Smith is notable because one of his sons married a woman who was the daughter of someone who was notable. Or, his daughter married someone who was a tutor to someone notable. Hardly satisfies the criteria does it? Incidentally, I did not say there were millions of London merchants in 1720; I wrote that here have been millions of merchants - being a merchant in itself does not make one notable. Emeraude (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your reply. I'll try and find more context so as to make him appear more notable. Though I would'nt say 'quality of records is totally irrelevant'. For example, see present RA show of Van Gogh's letters. I'd thave thought you might appreciate the paucity of info; a bit like the tantalizing remains of a rampart of a ruined fort?Rodolph (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point about the quality of records (impeccable as they are) is that they themselves do not confer notability. Emeraude (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. I really don't get the point of this article. Most of it consists of naming his children and describing how much they inherited from him. The most notable thing he did apparently (aside from fathering children) is to own 1% of an insurance company. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so what if he was'nt that notable? Why are you so destructive? What or how does it cost Wikipedia to store this information? It is not as if Wikipedia is an actual book that would be clogged up and made heavy by third rate non-notables. My piece on Robert Smith just sits there quietly in cyber-space bothering no one who does'nt want to read about him. (And it's not as if it is factually wrong). And as I've said he's only about two lines of added findings away from being what you call notable. Your lack of tolerance is worrying.Rodolph (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has to have standards if it is continue to be an international encyclopedia - rather than a free bulletin board where anybody can post anything. If it became that, its usefulness would be gone. The standards are arrived at by consensus among those who post here, and are "enforced" by consensus among ordinary users like me. There are other online sites that would love this kind of genealogical inforamation, and that's where it should go. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this article is social history, it is more than pure genealogy. Even if it was pure genealogy why not tolerate it? The genealogical sites are'nt free and don't work nearly as well as Wikipedia. Genealogy is about connections and topography which Wikipedia does very well. Once small cliques decide on consensus and go round cleansing Wikipedia we're getting back to 1930s central Europe or similar.Rodolph (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Utterly ridiculous..trumped up Wiki-wankRodolph (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteWeak Keep Fails WP:BK and WP:N. While is has been licensed in some other countries, it appears to have not made much of a splash anywhere. Only one review found for those counties[4], a French one. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 18:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak keep per one more foreign source found. Now passes WP:BK even if just barely. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Humm. Kagome Kagome a 3 vols series by Toshiki Yui. Was licensed in France, Germany & Italy by the worst publisher possible Panini Comics. As mentioned by Collectonian there is one a French review and there are also German reviews animepro.de and splashcomics.de. I'm tossing the hot potato to our German reviews expert before making a definitive opinion but Panini Comics is know for releasing lame & bland series on a print, sell and ditch basis, that series fells right into that spot. --KrebMarkt 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those [ETA: meaning both the German references] are, or at least should be, reliable sources, though I don't know if this has ever been officially confirmed. Not exactly glowing reviews (compared unfavorably to the author's more erotic Kirara) but still reviews. I more or less agree, but that's neither here nor there. With three reviews internationally, though, I think we have something that passes WP:BK by the skin of its glossy front cover. Keep, barely. Pity it wasn't someone better at this than Panini. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Panini Comics is the publisher which put an incongruous and Big "Spiderman" figurine in their stand during the anime/manga Japan Expo that how much they care about manga, just a segment of the Comics market that can generate profit. --KrebMarkt 07:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found an entry for this series in the French Dico Manga, again not something rejoicing to read. Pulling those German and French reviews together make this one pass WP:BK #1 thus Keep. However i'm clearly not moved to develop more this article after reading those reviews. --KrebMarkt 07:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it doesn't set the critics afire, but nonetheless passes WP:BK#1. --Malkinann (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable series from a notable manga creator. It has reviews in different languages. DreamFocus 06:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of notability of the original game; only sources duplicate information already in Action 52; reads like a game guide. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also Action 52 games whose articles have the same issues:[reply]
*Merge or redirect all to Action 52 They are all baasically guides and are not notable outside of Action 52, why is there a need to even create articles for each? 112.203.167.185 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
change to Redirect. I am the same as the one who did the vote above, but in a different computer. After seeing carefully it's better to just have them redirect to Action 52. The other games could also have a redirect created. 121.96.133.118 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What parts would you merge into Action 52? It's not like any of the in-game stuff is actually notable or sourced. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - viable search term; no notability beyond the compilation itself. Marasmusine (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all of them to the compilation page; it is the obvious choice. Do not delete history as some material may be suitable for a merger. Pcapping 03:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this game not considered notable? It is a completely separate and playable game from the other games on the Action 52 cartridge. Would any given Atari game, for example, not be considered notable and simply redirected to an Atari page? This game is a self-contained work and could easily have existed as a stand-alone game. Though part of a compliation of games, it is a game in its own right and thus should have its existence catalogued. A simple redirect to the Action 52 page seems inappropriate since the Action 52 page only lists the games on the cartridge; it does not say anything much about those games, and some games it only names with no information at all. Since each game on the cartridge is unique and is a separate game and since information is not actually included about most of the games on the actual Action 52 page, it makes sense to have the specific games have their own entries. If Space Dreams were mentioned to someone and they wished to know more about it, a redirect would leave them no better off than giving them the fact that the game was part of Action 52, which is something they probably already knew if they were looking it up. Sources are given, and more could be put in if necessary. The "in-game stuff" is notable for the reason that it actually describes what this game is, not just the fact it exists. This game is obviously not as notable as something like the theory of evolution, but it is not so trivial as to be denied some form of description.Dpysniktalk 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't about whether you think it's important or not, it's about whether it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. See WP:N. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not notable. Charting at 108 is just enough of a claim of notability to avoid an A9 speedy deletion IMO, but even this I couldn't verify, as the top-200 chart, unlike the top-40 chart, is behind a paywall. (I initially thought the artist had a Wikipedia article, but it was a different person of the same name). No Gnews hits. Google hits all appear to be vendor sites, facebook or similar personal page mentions, or otherwise not reliable sources. The article and mentions found on Google say that this single is included in the artist's first album, whih was released only this past December (the single has been out since November 2008). Perhaps the single or the artist will become notable in time, but I now think it isn't yet. DES(talk) 17:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC) DES(talk) 17:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per my own nomination above unless sources are presented that establish the notability of this single, in accord with WP:MUSIC or the WP:GNG. If sources that I failed to find are presented, and they clearly establish notability, i would withdraw this nomination, as notability is the only issue here in my view. DES(talk) 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to fail notability. I looked at his website, figuring he'd be sure to add anything notable there, and then tried to find the originals to his quotes - and failed. Also did a Google search. Myspace, etc, but I couldn't find anything more. If anyone does, I might reconsider, but at the moment, no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above remarks. As WP:NSONG points out, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts . . . are probably notable." As best I can tell, this is one of the cases where a song (apparently) charted yet remains encyclopedically non-notable. As there's no article for the singer, there's no place to merge. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however the charting makes the artist notable, if a page were to be created. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If charting with a single at slightly over 100th place (currently unsupported by any cite) would make the artist notable, why wouldn't it make the single notable also? or to put it another way, can an artist be notable for having created a non-notable single? WP:MUSIC says that an "A musician or ensemble ... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria .... 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." (emphasis added) Well I suppose in such a case the info on the single could be included in the articel about the artist, but still this seems marginal. DES(talk) 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is completely unclear to me what chart this single was supposedly on. The references provided are rather vague. And in any case, is peaking at #108 really charting? His biography doesn't make it any clearer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prod declined by author. No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a company. Company appears to actually be "Aloha Trailer Company", but no good sources found for that either, other than confirming existence. tedder (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, pending search for reliable sources. I suspect that because of this company's demise pre-Internet, there is more to be found at the library, if anyone is willing to do some research. My gut feeling is this is certainly as Northwesty and notable as White Stag. (Which I know is not a proper argument against deletion, but I think my hunches are usually pretty good.) Katr67 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from Katr's research on the article talk page, looks like a valid company. I even sense a DYK in its future. Suggest move to Aloha Trailer Company. --Esprqii (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think we should move it too, but sometimes that causes a mess while the Afd is running. Katr67 (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Esp- it's a valid company, but are the non-minor sources enough to establish notability? Certainly the SEC link is helpful, but what else establishes it, aside from having advertising? And yeah, please don't move it until the AFD is over. I'll take care of any wanted moves at that time. tedder (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then again, the thing seems to have more notability than the company. Lots of hits on people restoring them and so forth; nothing super reliable yet, but still. Oh, and then there's some fun meta stuff. Which I see Katr is all over already. --Esprqii (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while I share the concern that this pre-dates the web, a search for just "Aloha" on The Oregonian index comes up empty. Now, the index is far from perfect as it does not search the full text of all the articles and relies on the headlines and keywords, but it is a general indicator. Additionally, the Oregonian's 1987-on archives also comes up empty. So at this point delete seems in order, unless more items are found. A trip to the Hillsboro library to search through old Argus papers might turn something up, as would finding old copies of the Beaverton Valley Times and the Aloha Breeze (I don't know without a search where archives for those are located). Please note I will not be doing these searches, just a suggestion for the article creator to find the sources needed. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- It needs a great deal more evidcne of notability, before Iwould want to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not finding reliable sources for this one RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is wrong with you people?!? Why should Shasta travel trailers have an entry and not Aloha? What kind of notability are you looking for? This was a travel trailer company that in Oregon for more than 20 years! 1000's of trailers were made and are still on the road. We have fan clubs and t shirts and Aloha trailer get togethers! Do you realize that Tucker motor company was only around for 2 years and made 48 cars and they have a Wikipedia entry? Why don't you spend some time trying to take down those entries and nominate them for deleting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumpytrout (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I understand this process is frustrating but saying "what is wrong with you people?" isn't going win anybody over to your side. I've done what I can and I still plan a trip to the State Library tomorrow to see if they have anything. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF about why Shasta and Tucker don't have any bearing on this discussion. Please click the bluelinks in the various discussions so you can get a better feel for what we are looking for. This is a matter of the FUTON bias, unfortunately. Basically we need multiple not trivial mentions in reliable sources. You can read more about it at WP:CORP. You said you've spoken to the historical society and the CoC. Do you have any citations, that is to say, titles, authors, publishers and dates from newspaper articles and the like? If so, note them on the article's talk page and we can help you add them to the article. I'd like to also request at this time that if this article is deleted (I think time for this debate is running out), that the closer please move it to my userspace. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just get frustrated and clearly I'm out of my league here and don't really understand the process, I've talked to historical society and people that have worked in the factory etc, let me find something good and in written format. I think that there are a lot less notable companies that are on Wikipedia than Aloha and I really think they deserve a good entry and I will do what I can to make that happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.134.2 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC) (Lumpytrout, not logged in)[reply]
A good thing to do is to have the article moved to your personal space after this is over. You can then work on it there without worrying about it being deleted, and then move it back to the main Wikipedia space when it's ready. Read WP:RS carefully- that's what the article is lacking. There's no doubt Aloha exists - your personal trailer is proof of that - but existence doesn't immediately make something eligible for having an entry on Wikipedia. BTW, I have the name and number of the guy who owned Aloha. I haven't called him; you might enjoy making the call to get more information, find out if any books were written, etc. tedder (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder, I think he already had a version of the article in his userspace. Note I also requested above that the Afd closer move the article to my user space. I want to preserve the talk page! Katr67 (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What?!? really? I would love to make that call! Where did you find the number? (Lumpytrout, not logged in)
Send me an email through Wikipedia's email funciton, I'll pass the information on. I figured you'd be much more interested than me :-) tedder (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is this one of those things like when your on the first day of a job they tell you to go look for a tool that does not exist just so they can laugh at you when you go look for it? What is the Wikipedia email function? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumpytrout (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page duplicates everything from its parent page, List of power stations in Canada#Wind farms, (the page also duplicates its own entries within the page itself). This is very similar to the deletion discussion which successfully ended (as redirection) at List of wind farms in Sweden. I propose a deletion or redirection of this page. Rehman(+) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This really is growing quite tiresome as this is another in a recent series of similar AfDs for Rehman, see [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Thankfully most of the articles which have been put up for AfD have been kept, as limited duplication is involved, and wind farms are a notable topic. The nominator appears largely unable to use Talk pages to initiate discussion and move things forward in the normal way, and so moves quickly to AfD. I have asked him to stop this disruptive behaviour and use the AfD process as a last resort, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Australia, to no avail it seems. Johnfos (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should have been taken to the talk page, but the problem of duplicate content is still there. The sortable unified list of the parent article is comprehensive, flexible, and concise. I just don't see the need for splitting it into a bunch of separate mini-lists and keeping them on a separate page. — Rankiri (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have many notable wind farms lists on WP and I would like to see this article kept as part of a series of articles on "List of wind farms in xxxx". The article is not mere duplication as, for example, it includes five images which are not included in the power stations list. This article could also be expanded further to include more detailed information about proposed wind farms, etc. as many wind farm lists already do. The article as it stands also allows more specific categorization, which is useful to readers trying to find this info. To trim wind farm info and then bury it in a mega-articles on power stations is not the best way to go. Johnfos (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rankiri. Please see my comment to Warrah below. Kind regards. Johnfos, (along with this message dropped on my talkpage), it is moreover turning tiresome to you because most of these articles happens to be articles which you think you own. Rehman(+) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rehman, I can assure you that I don't own this article, and see that it was actually started by User:Kurieeto in May 2005 [13] ... Please note that User:Warrah has said above: "This is an improper AfD. There is no clear violation of editorial policy, which invalidates the call for deletion". User:Beagel has said: "we should try to find the overall solution and consensus on the relevant project (in this case WP:Energy, I suggest) talk page". If you won't follow my suggestions please follow theirs. Johnfos (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here after your comment here. Please avoid scattering comments and keep topics relating to this discussion to this page. And i am watching this page, you dont have to duplicate comments made by users here to my talkpage. Thanks and regards. Rehman(+) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an improper AfD. There is no clear violation of editorial policy, which invalidates the call for deletion, and an argument for a redirect should be done on the article's talk page or through the WikiProject connected to the subject. Warrah (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Warrah. I am sorry that you misunderstood, but this is not a redirect proposal. I only propose that as a second option after delete. As mentioned in the nomination, the page duplicates everything from its parent page, thus suits for deletion. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to say this, but this sounds like Wikilawyering (no offense meant). If we look to the history of both articles, you could see that there was the List of wind farms in Canada, which was moved to the List of power stations in Canada. This move created a redirect (and I think that that kind of redirects should be in place). There was no request to delete the redirect this time. The deletion was requested only after the list of wind farms was recreated. So, the AfD is really about redirecting the List of wind farms in Canada to the List of power stations in Canada as proposed also by several editors at this AfD page. Also, please let me refer to the results of some similar AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Sweden – the result of this AfD was redirect; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Australia – the result was keep, without prejudice to a merge to List of power stations in Australia. There is a number of several results. Based on this it could be concluded that notwithstanding the fact if these nominations are technically AfDs or not, by their nature they are actually merging and redirecting discussions. Beagel (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In recent weeks there has been a number of AfD discussions about the different lists of power stations. It seems that going through all these discussions (which are actually discussions about merging and redirecting, not classical AfD discussions) is not practical usage of time, and that before continuing with single AfD discussions, we should try to find the overall solution and consensus on the relevant project (in this case WP:Energy, I suggest) talk page as proposed by Warrah. Beagel (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Beagel. Please see comment above. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rehman. I think you missed my point. What I said is that there are hundreds of lists on the type X power stations in country Y. We already had around ten AfD discussions on these lists repeating every time the very same arguments, and having quite different results. This is very time-consuming and just not sustainable approach. Therefore, my proposal was to have a centralized discussion find find consensus on the general approach what to do with that kind of lists—what are the criteria for keeping separate lists and in which case these should be merged and redirected to the list of power stations in country Y. And as already mentioned, the best place to do this is a relevant WP talk page. Beagel (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ow i get it. Yes i missed the point . That seems very reasonable. Will definitely post in the relevant Wikiproject in the future (since this has already been started). Perhaps we should start some sort of a "Manual of Style" for Wikiproject Energy? Would help, wouldnt it? Kind regards. Rehman(+) 07:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets start with some sort of guidelines for the energy-related lists. But as this is not the subject of the AfD discussion, I suggest to continue this discussion at the WP Energy talk page. Beagel (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Character that appeared in one issue of Captain America. Ridernyc (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single appearance characters are not generally notable, and I see no specific evidence that this one is. DES(talk) 17:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "first and last appearance" also known as: single appearance. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I cannot find any discussion of this magazine that can confer notability. Angryapathy (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Objectivist periodicals. I agree that it is not independently notable, but it is a useful search term and there is no reason why information about it can't be included in the larger article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Self published not notable journal. Maybe it has a place in a larger article. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Burials at sea is sufficient, an article based list is unmaintainable. RadioFan (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The list in Burial at sea has grown to the point of being unwieldy -- about fifty names and half the article. Moving the list to a separate page, leaving only a few, very notable names on the main page, is a logical step. It is certainly no less maintainable as a separate article than it would be if it continued to dominate the main article. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is far far too wide ranging to be of any use as a list article per WP:SALAT. Will either continue to be a tiny subset or will grow to extreme proportions. Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but then what happens to the main article? In effect, you're condemning the main article to being a tail to the list. Also, I read WP:SALAT to support this case -- if you can have a list of atheists or a list of Albanians (both of which SALAT commends), why not a list of people buried at sea? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can restrict the list in any way then it may have some utility but as it stands it is an inappropriate criteria for a list. Simply saying it has to be split from a main article is nonsense, the main article should also not have an inappropriate list within it. Also arguments of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are not appropriate, those articles may also be eligible for deletion, but that is a separate issue. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but "nonsense" is on the bare edge of civility, perhaps a little past it.
I certainly agree that it's foolish to have a long list either place -- beyond a certain point it loses utility. Certainly for the purposes of the article, a few very notable examples should suffice. So you're suggesting that I just gird up my loins for battle and keep the list in the article at more or less its current length (that is, the length to which I reduced it after creating the separate list)? I was trying to avoid that, but perhaps I shouldn't.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(see below). It's not exactly a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument if the examples are taken straight from the guidelines' page, is it? List of atheists is given as an example of how selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles.Every single entry on List of people buried at sea has an article and the topic of sea burials seems to be sufficiently notable to justify the existence of the list. —Rankiri (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, most of the listed articles don't mention any relevant details that could justify their inclusion in the list. of those few which do, most refer to the scattering of the ashes and aren't generally accompanied by any citations. — Rankiri (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list will not be filled up with random people nobody has heard of it, having an article is almost always a pre-requisite for appearing on a list like this.--Patton123 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of one person is ridiculous; I personally do not equate scattering ashes at sea with burial at sea, as (it seems) do most governments who regulate it. Furthermore, for a list list to be worth compilation, surely the persons should be noteable primarily for the circumstances of their burial - such as a noteable aquaphobe. RayBarker (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, for a list such as this, the burial itself must be notable. As I see several people arguing that a list of notable persons burial location is reasonable, consider this: Producing a complete (i.e. encyclopedic) list of notable persons who were buried at sea is as reasonable as producing a list of notable persons who were buried in a grave. Every shipwreck is considered a burial at sea, and this list would potentially have thousands of entries. As I can't think of a specific case of burial at sea to illustrate my point, here is comparison of two land-based burials: Andrew Carnegie was famous for several things, and his burial in a grave was not one of these things. Conversely, Horatio_Nelson died at sea, but despite naval custom he was notably buried in a tomb at St Paul's Cathedral. If this list is to exist, the circumstances of burial itself should be the notable factor. RayBarker (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs better sourcing, but it's a legitimate spinoff from burial at sea. Such a list should, of course, be confined to notable people, but I don't know of anyone who would be notable primarily for the circumstances of their burial. If there were one, somebody would probably argue that their article should be deleted under WP:ONEEVENT. Mandsford (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a clear difference between a proper burial at sea (the full body being deposited below the waves) and the scattering of cremated ashes across the waters. The lack of references doesn't help. Warrah (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep limited just as Warrah says, to those actually buried at sea. There will not be a great many on the notable people at Wikipedia for whom that can be documented. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without evidence this is a very speculative keep vote. Why will there not be many? By what source? Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"By what source" is the answer to your question. I agree with DGG that the list should be limited to notable persons for whom there is a source that states that they were buried at sea. Generally, the details of a person's burial are not discussed beyond a mention of where their grave may be found. Evidently, you have a source that shows that there have been many people who have been buried at sea, and that even a list of notable persons would "grow to extreme proportions". Such a source would make a good reference for this article. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think I needed a source to state the obvious but okay over 6000 US service personel were buried at sea during WWII alone according to this source. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC) There are currently 64 people in Category:Burials_at_sea but this is likely to be only a very small fraction of notable individuals burried at sea therefore appropiate for a category but not really for a list article. Polargeo (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say that war presents unusual circumstances that are not encountered in peacetime, and that there were reasons other than personal choice for those 6,000 burials at sea. There were more than 9,000 US service personnel who were buried at Normandy rather then being sent home. Up to and including the Second World War, burials at sea or on foreign soil were a matter of necessity rather than a matter of the decedent's wishes or the family's preferences. Mandsford (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad in scope. Dlabtot (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not inheritantly non-notable and kind of interesting. As said before, it should however be confined to notable people actually buried a sea, cremation doesn't count. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable fanzine for English football club. No sources cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The magazine/site is mentioned in passing a few times in newspapers, e.g. 1, 2, and 3, but only in passing in the context, "Dave Johnstone, the editor of CFCuk fanzine said ...." As to the article's claim that the magazine used to be called "Matthew Harding's Blue And White Army," I can find plenty of evidence that "Blue and White Army" is a fan chant for Chelsea, but none that it was the predecessor of this fanzine. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following remarks were left on my talk page after I wrote the above comment. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fanzine was formerly called "Matthew Harding's Blue And White Army" and is registered in the archives of the British Library. ::The front cover of EVERY edition of the cfcuk fanzine has the following printed upon it...
"Formerly Matthew Harding’s Blue And White Army, cfcuk is published in memory of Matthew Harding"
The above information also appears on the following link;
The fanzine is 'notable' because, while other clubs' fanzines cost £1.50 or even £2, the cfcuk price has always beeb and always will remain at just £1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can I just say that "being cheaper than its competitors" is possibly the weakest claim to notability I've ever seen......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text on the cfcuk entry was changed a couple of days ago. If you look at the log for Nawlin you will see when. Unfortunately, it seems I (mis)used the word 'notable', using it in 'general terms' rather than its use by way of Wikipedia terms.
As far as we are aware, the cfcuk fanzine is the ONLY Premier League and Championship fanzine which has a cover price of £1 which is regularly published (at least 12 issues per season)
Perhaps the word ‘unusual’ should have been a better choice for the first attempted entry as I suspect / hope this furore would not have occurred. As I said, the entry was changed the other day and I hope that the changes meet your criteria.
The ‘offending’ chapter of the article NOW reads;
“The cfcuk fanzine is unusual amongst football fanzines as it is now one of the only football fanzines that does not feature a full colour front cover and is famed for the fact that it only costs £1. It is on sale at every Chelsea Football Club 1st team match at home, away and abroad.”
Delete No indication of notability. Being archived at the British Library is not an indicator of notability, as the Library is supposed to archive copies of all UK publications whether they sell only two or over twenty thousand copies. I cannot check what is said in the sole reference, but would imagine that it would be not much more than a one-liner, given the scope of the work. Quote: "it is now one of the only football fanzines that does not feature a full colour front cover and is famed for the fact that it only costs £1." - hardly a real claim to notability in my eyes. Come on - prove me wrong. Produce some other references that are easier to check and probably) say more. Even, possibly, quote to us what is said. I would think that would count as fair use in this discussion. (Anyone: correct me if I am wrong there...) Peridon (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability issues, insufficient sourcing, COI on behalf of creator. GlassCobra 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of general notability. Haven't found any non-trivial mentions of the fanzine, the site or their editor in the mainstream media. Incidentally, its cover price isn't uniquely low among regularly-produced fanzines. The Birmingham City fanzine Made in Brum, new issue for every home game since 2000, also costs "only a pound", as its sellers make very loud and clear :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Struwaay2
It doesn't read 'uniquely low' but reads as follows; "The cfcuk fanzine is unusual amongst football fanzines as it is now one of the only football fanzines that does not feature a full colour front cover and is famed for the fact that it only costs £1."
cfcuk is mentioned (credited) in two of Mark Worrall's books – “One Man Went To Mow” and “Chelsea Here Chelsea There”, is mentioned in many web links including these below.
and is even mentioned on the Official Chelsea FC website by way of the following quote, “David Johnstone, known to many Chelsea supporters through his cfcuk fanzine, describes himself as playing the Makelele role in the book's creation. He adds:
'That goal, along with Peter Osgood's in the 1970 Cup Final replay, is one of the most iconic in Chelsea history. The whole club - players and supporters - all there in that one moment of magic.”
(link below)
There are, if one ‘Googles’ cfcuk, plenty of other mentions but I wouldn’t want to risk boring you (any more than I have done already) by listing any more.
Apart from what I have already written, I don’t know what else I can do to satisfy the Wikipedia criteria. That said, I hope that those asking for the cfcuk fanzine to be deleted from the Wikipedia pages are not doing so because of an anti-Chelsea bias…
Hello :-) my comment about the cover price was in reply to yours higher up, that "As far as we are aware, the cfcuk fanzine is the ONLY Premier League and Championship fanzine which has a cover price of £1 which is regularly published". But that's not relevant to its notability. What we're looking for is independent coverage that deals with the fanzine itself. Please see Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline for a definition of notability. In my opinion, "significant" coverage needs to be more than the media in search of a quick "what the fans think" quote, who always use fanzine/website editors because their name and contact details are public and readily accessible. Incidentally, you refer to an answers.com page above; you may not have realised that page contains a mirror of the Wikipedia article The Football Factory (film), so its mention of cfcuk is just a reflection of the sentence you recently added to that article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thanks for that and point taken reference http://www.answers.com/topic/the-football-factory-film-1 but please could you explain what the difference is between the following fanzines; Abandon chip!, Blue Moon, Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium, NAC Fanzine De Rat, The Oatcake, Red Issue, The Gooner, There's Only One F in Fulham, United We Stand and War of the Monster Trucks all of which are also football fanzines yet are not / have not, as far as I can see, been listed for deletion.
After a (very) quick perusal of the Wikipedia pages for the above listed fanzines, I cannot see why there is a question over the acceptance of a page for cfcuk.
Incidentally, the cfcuk fanzine has been mentioned in previous seasons within the pages of both Red Issue and United We Stand with the editor of the latter MUFC fanzine (Andy Mitten) knowing the editor of cfcuk.
Also, like United We Stand and TOOFIF, cfcuk was also a member of the now defunct Rivals network – albeit under its previous name MHBAWA (Matthew Harding’s Blue And White Army) and was, in fact, one of the first fanzines that the network – then controlled by Chrysalis records – signed up.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see WP:WAX, which explains that the existence of an article on one topic has no bearing on whether or not an article on a similar topic should remain. It may be that those fanzines are completely undeserving of articles, it's just that nobody's got round to nominating them yet. Also, at least one was nominated for deletion but kept (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chelsea F.C. - the article title is a plausible search term for the club's article, and the fanzine could be (briefly) mentioned in a "Supporters" section, which I notice that, highly unusually for a Featured Article on a football club, it does not currently have..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guys
Without (hopefully) being a nuisance, I am still persisting with my ‘appeal’ against deletion. I have read the AfD article concerning ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium)) and, judging by the judgement given there, I feel justified in asking that the cfcuk entry be retained. Could you tell me whether the following line, “A bit of RS and references could swing me on this, largely because of its longevity of publication” refers to the fanzine’s longevity or the amount of time that the page concerning it had remained on the Wikipedia site?
As well as that, I feel that I have answered or adequately replied to the majority of points that have been raised above with several including the following, “As to the article's claim that the magazine used to be called "Matthew Harding's Blue And White Army," I can find plenty of evidence that "Blue and White Army" is a fan chant for Chelsea, but none that it was the predecessor of this fanzine. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)” which is, in fact, incorrect in as much as “Blue and White Army” in itself is not a ‘fan chant’ of Chelsea as it is always preceded by a manager’s name or, in most cases when it is sung at matches, that of the late Matthew Harding.
The fanzine has had plenty of mentions on other Chelsea related fan sites such as http://www.CFC-Net.co.uk and http://www.ChelseaSupportersGroup.net and, as mentioned above, the link to the official Chelsea website mention is just one of several that has appeared there. The cfcuk fanzine is a ‘permanent member’ of the club’s Fans’ Forum’, a group that is made up of representatives of the supporters and meets with the Directors of Chelsea at least four times a season. cfcuk was the first organ of the supporters to be asked to join the Fans Forum when it was set up by the then Chelsea Chief Executive Peter Kenyon in 2004. The first recorded entry in the minutes for the Fans’ Forum is dated 20/11/2004 (http://www.chelseafc.com/page/FansForumDetails/0,,10268~1326849,00.html) that refers to the groups representing the Chelsea supporters names Gary Bacchus from “BlueAndWhiteArmy.net (which, as explained above, was the then virtual version of the then named Matthew Harding’s Blue And White Army fanzine, a website which was hosted by the now defunct Rivals network) as the fanzine’s spokesman.
A book entitled “The Special Ones: Chelsea by the Fans” and compiled by authors Martin Knight and John King (both of whom feature within the Wikipedia pages) features the match reports for the 2004-2005 Premiership season that were published in the cfcuk fanzine for that season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"could you tell me whether the following line, “A bit of RS and references could swing me on this, largely because of its longevity of publication” refers to the fanzine’s longevity or the amount of time that the page concerning it had remained on the Wikipedia site" - the former. How long an article has been on Wikipedia has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the subject. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thanks for that - the fanzine has been in existence for more than 10 years. It was first published in 1999 and is now in it's 11th season with issue 108 due out in March.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Taalman is an Associate Professor of Mathematics with low google scholar cited [14], no scholarly researh related awards - not passing WP:PROF, she is not there yet - kaeiou (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nom notes, citability in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks is negligible. The textbook she wrote is not widely held, per WorldCat data[15]. Nothing else in the record appears to indicate academic notability under WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 2 papers (query = "Author=(Taalman L*) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI"), one of which has been cited once for an h-index of 1. Nsk92 has also established that her book is only held by a few institutions, so subject clearly fails WP:PROF #1. However, the article does also claim several awards. The MAA Trevor Evans Award is evidently an "MAA Writing Award" for articles that appear in an undergraduate-level math-oriented magazine called Math Horizons. This would not seem to be a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", as described in WP:PROF #2. Likewise, the Alder award mentioned in the article is given for "Distinguished Teaching by a Beginning College or University Mathematics Faculty Member" – this seems also to fall far short of #2. There are no obvious claims on any of the the other WP:PROF criteria. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per above. Good work, all. StAnselm (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. notability questionable, verification lacking (happy to userfy on request) Scott Mac (Doc) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no claim to notability for this film. To be honest I'm sure where I would even start to look for sources for a gay porn. Ridernyc (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep: given the genre and subject matter of, i suppose that claim could be made of most--if not all--lgbt media, as well as a thinly veiled reason for purging all. [16][17] --emerson7 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um no offence but what do those serach results show, most of them are sights selling the DVD, and the second searcjh is so broad I'm having trouble finding any hits for the movie at all. Ridernyc (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Here's a site reviewing the porno.[18] (SFW; shows no penises) They discuss some plot details. —MikeAllen 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that's a reliable source judging by the disclaimer at the bottom: "Adult DVD Talk provides a public forum for consumers to post their DVD reviews. Adult DVD Talk does not edit these reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find much reliable coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea how many other male identical twins work with each other in gay porn. Yikes. Porn films do not get the coverage of their mainstream highly touted brethren, but this one has enough coverage for what it is. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author. While my thought is that twin males working together in gay porn is a unique circumstance for that industry, and so worthy of note, I can find litle beyond verification of the existance of the film. Perhaps the gentlemen themselves merit an article, and this film could then be set as a redirect to them. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes would you mind showing us this coverage. people keep saying there is coverage yet no one seems to be able to produce any. Ridernyc (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any reliable coverage for this. —MikeAllen 02:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I find 4 gay porn films with this title: "Twins" in 1977 (Christy twins), "Twins" in 1993 (Karlstadt twins), "Twins" in 1998 (the actual date of release of the film under discussion, Gabriel and Oscar) and in 2007 "Twins 3.0" was released (Hawke twins and Fisher twins). An article about the theme of twins in gay pornography might be justified, if it does not already exist (around 20 such films have the theme of twins in the title), but this film is not notable for being unique in the genre and I find no awards specifically for Gabriel and Oscar. Ash (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is an article on incest pornography, though I don't think that any of those films contain actual incest. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with what? Epbr123 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incomprehensible, tone inappropriate for Wikipedia, OR, multiple issues which haven't been addressed in almost a year, poor article, writer may be trying to describe a game design document, but it's impossible to tell from the text. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an original research essay which should be deleted because of possible WP:Synthesis. It is just not possible to tell for sure without any inline refs or access to the original texts. Polargeo (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is someone's personal essay. Edward321 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. As an article about an eatery, there is no assertion of notability and the article would have qualified under WP:CSD#A7. However, as an article about a building from the 1930s that has been rehabbed and renovated, there was the possibility of notability, if this particular rehab had received any significant coverage. Unfortunately, no sources could be found to say that it had received any coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom: part of the article is interesting but non-notable, the remainder is spam for the bistro ("We also host a wide range of themed nights including Jazz evenings" etc) and surrounding area. I42 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting != notable. Not seeing how this one might be able to meet notability guidlines. I'm having problems finding coverage as well RadioFan (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Find somewhere to merge it. I think it is saying that Northstead Manor Gardens is a park in Scarborough, North Yorkshire. If so, we probably need an article on the park and a paragraph saying that the former glasshouse has been preserved and turned into a "bistro" (a cafe, kiosk or snack bar). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I dont doubt a good article could probably be written about Northstead Manor Gardens, there isn't anything worth merging from this article there. The article has zero references and could be original research for all we know.--RadioFan (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am editing the article to emphasise the building, rather than its current use. Biscuittin (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you will note, the nomination of this article already considered the possibility of rewriting the article about the building rather than the company occupying it. Unfortunately, while an interesting local tidbit, there is not enough significant coverage to verify the notability of this building. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could give me a bit more time to gather evidence of notability. Biscuittin (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page was nominated on 4 February. Nominations are normally allowed to run for 7 days -- that should give you a couple of more days. If the article is deleted, and you find more sources later, there's nothing to stop you from recreating it with your new sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more references. Is this sufficient? Biscuittin (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the normal relisting rules would suggest that this debate should have been closed at this juncture. However, as there has been no !votes or revisions of !votes since Biscuittin's addition of references, it appears fairer to allow a relisting period. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was surprised to see the discussion re-listed, it should be closed as a delete. The recently added references dont do much to establish notability here. Only 2 are close to being reliable sources and in total haven't demonstrated significant coverage of the topic.--RadioFan (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with RadioFan: the recent revision makes the article less spammy, but it still does not assert the notability of this building. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still see borderline spam / non-neutral prose ("The Glass House Café/Bistro provides breakfasts, coffee, lunch, afternoon teas, through to fine dining on an evening, along with catering for special occasions", "Nearby is Peasholm Park, which has delighted families for centuries with its lovely walks, lake and miniature golf") - but that is fixable. What has not been established is that the bistro is in any way notable - the 3rd party refs barely mention the building (one doesn't even mention it at all). So my delete recommendation stands. I42 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently notable, and not reliably and independently referenced.
Did win an award as "Best Plastic Surgeon", unfortunately not from any medical body but from the readers of a fashion magazine. Is in the list of best 418 doctors of Orlando (if and only if he is Alan D Jonston). Sources are wanting, unless we want to accept that a local fashion magazine can establish notability for members of the medical fraternity.
(Also partly copyvio of http://www.seshaskin.com/) --Pgallert (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He is not Alan D. Jonston. He is Dean L. Johnston per his website.--MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more notable than hundreds of other locally-prominent doctors; written like an advertisement. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless article, part puff piece, part resume. Google search turns up nothing to establish that he is any more notable than tens of thousands of other physicians. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Un-released computing device with no clear evidence of its notability. The article was subject to a Proposed Deletion which expired and was removed by the originating author. If the device is marketed and becomes successful the page can be re-created Malcolma (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nova Navigator no separate coverage sufficient for separate articles. Notability of Nova Navigator is another issue. Polargeo (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Merge to Nova Navigator which looks quite notable. Polarpanda (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A collection of non-notable fictional spells which runs afoul of the principle that Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivia and fancruft. My PROD was removed by an IP, who at the same time added the introductory text about the "Ancient Language." Some of that material might have been appropriate for an article called Ancient Language (Inheritance Cycle), but that's just a redirect to Inheritance Cycle, where the topic is only briefly discussed, apparently because it's not particularly important. I'm not suggesting a merge because this article appears to comprise only OR. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire- nothing but fancruft. The nominator is correct in saying none of this stuff is salvageable in any way. It's pure original research and excessive trivia. ReykYO! 08:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I seconded the prod. If anyone wants to add some of the intro text to Inheritance Cycle, fine, but I see no need for it there. In general, and as per WP:FICT, individual plot elements of fictional works should not, IMO have separate articles unless they have quite high notability, or have become significant outside the fictional context. This is also more-or-less OR, although I suppose it could be sourced to the actual books, but then would rest entirely on primary sources. DES(talk) 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:FICT: "However, the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage. ... avoid splitting articles if the new article cannot meet inclusion criteria for topics about fiction." DES(talk) 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wold recommend that this should ne Merged with the article - ' Inheritance cycle ' .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Working Class Poet is simply the pseudonym of 21 year old History student Russell Clarke. He is currently unsigned"
That's no indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep As well as the previous justification in the last deletion nomination, using the guidance of ARTIST for his notable and multiple award-winning body of work, he passes PORNBIO due to multiple nominations in multiple years. Additional sources now added. It appears that "special" rules apply to gay porn actor biographies, based on the recent spate of zealous AfD nominations of porn stars of the 80s/90s a number of editors are pushing for deletion in disregard of the guidance of BEFORE or ATD. Such enthusiasm for deletion of reasonably sourced articles with reasonable prospect of improvement does not benefit Wikipedia. Ash (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources found are either trivial or non-independent. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO as the awards went to the films, not him. Epbr123 (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be ignoring the sources referenced here in your enthusiastic deletion campaign. The nominations were for him, not the films. Reports by J.C. Adams are independent of the publishers or the porn star and the nominations that satisfy PORNBIO were for well-known erotic industry awards. Considering how many such articles you have raised for deletion and !voted for deletion, I guess that for whatever reason, you are beyond logical reasoning when is comes to gay pornography. You may find the guidance of NPOV helpful. I genuinely believe that when biographies such as Paul_Carrigan, the second most credited actor in the history of gay pornography, are removed with your over-literal interpretation of PORNBIO, then something has gone seriously wrong with the process for assessing notability and it needs discussion and refinement. Your hard-line approach of purging Wikipedia of these icons of gay sexuality of the 80s/90s does not make for a better encyclopedia. Ash (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you've now added some nominations, so change to keep per PORNBIO. Just for your information, cast listings and sources that solely consist of "Alec Powers appears in three separate ads, one for a local video outlet, another for a homo bookstore and the last pushing trading cards featuring gay porn models" do not count as significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for nominations existed in the article before you made your delete comment, it would help if you based your comments on the facts of the article rather than your impression. As a clarification, I made no claim that his work as an advertising model was "significant coverage". The particular reference adds value to his biography and gives an impression of how his modeling work has some (gay) cultural impact, albeit probably limited geographically. Ash (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You added the nominations while I was assessing the sources and composing my comment. So you don't deny the sources are either trivial or non-independent? Epbr123 (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be creating argument for the sake of it. AfD discussions are not a forum, I do not expect to have to point this fact out to an admin. My previous statement stands, the sources supporting notability relate to well-known awards, are independent of the publishers and actors involved and written by independent journalists. I suggest you take a rest from your obvious deletion campaign (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion) and rather than damaging Wikipedia do something that improves the articles that exist here. Ash (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article show that he passes WP:PORNBIO. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequately sourced and notability demonstrated. ~ mazcatalk 20:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content and sourcing indicates notability has been met. -- Banjeboi 15:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Ash and others. He has a notable body of work, thus meeting the requirements for an article. DreamFocus 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied but then removed my own speedy because the hangon suggested involvement by N.E.R.D., and other indications.
I don't see any of those, but I would rather take the time, particularly since the user immediately removed the CSD tag after that comment. Easier to have one place for discussion though.
Possible COI given "Mikey Hall" and username "Mikeyhall88". Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editor User:Mikeyhall88 posted the following as a {{hangon}} on the talk page before I removed the speedy and transferred here:
This article is NOT to promote a business or person. It is a credible, legitimate company worthy of encyclopedia recognition as the purpose of this article was to distinguish itself from other companies named LimeLight Events. LimeLight Events is Virginia Beach's biggest, most demanded entertainment company that has collaborated with top musical acts such as Vedette, The Influence and others. It's founders are long time friends with musical act NERD and they have collaborated with filmmaker Michael Hall
LimeLight Events has had collaborations with Virginia based musical groups NERD, Neptunes, Clipse, Missy Elliot, Timbaland, Vedette, and the Deloreans among many others. They host monthly events for other high profile venues around the area, such as nationally known The NorVa, The National (both notable enough for Rolling Stone magazine), and the Virginia Beach Oceanfront. LimeLight Events has also worked with filmmakers Michael Hall (who has worked for Disney, Universal and Lionsgate films and is a different person than the creator of the page) and Scott Hansen (over 100 music videos broadcast on MTV). LimeLight Events also donated a considerable anonymous sum to Wikipedia when it was begging for donations.....did shadowjams? Unsigned edit made by 08:12, February 12, 2010 User:Mikeyhall88
It'd be hard to know about who donated if they're anonymous. In any case, the important criteria here is Reliable sources, which include major publications, whether online or in print, that indicate somehow that the subject is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone comes up with sources demonstrating notability. Saying that the people involved have "worked for Disney" (or whatever) goes nowhere. Hairhorn (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a track off of an album that doesn't have a page yet. The individual track isn't notable. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete
The only 'keep' is not enough to provide a claim to notability for this drink. The 'delete's demonstrate that the consensus is clearly that this drink is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one at least claims to have been created in the 1980s, but I don't see any references that would establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shadowjams -- I can't find any independent sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG; just because it exists or is well-known in one city does not make it notable. We'll need very good sourcing for this to be kept. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although a few sources contain recipes for a cocktail called the snowflake, e.g. [1], [2], and [3], this is not "significant coverage" of the cocktail, and the information contained in this article, e.g. about a "John Ralls" who supposedly invented it, is completely unverifiable. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep: a) the entry provides facts about an actual drink; nothing stated is fictional; b) the primary utility of this section of Wikipedia seems to be users looking to learn about cocktails made from vodka and indeed recipes for actual vodka-based drinks. Given the facts and utility of the entry, it seems worthy of keeping. Rathskellar (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)" Copied from article talk page in the interests of fairness by Peridon (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delete John Ralls? Can't find him in connection with Snowflakes (or snowflakes either). Peridon (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources either. There may be a variety of cocktails called the Snowflake, but none of the recipes found by Glenfarclas match the one described in this article. --Metropolitan90(talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no real definition of what constitutes a "monster". It could be a list of serial killers, or a list of Pokemon. I can understand lists by type of fictional species (for example, List of fictional extraterrestrials), but the term is too vague to create a list from. The items on this list range from ManBearPig to Basilisk to Pikachu with no clear sense of organization. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, too vague and ambiguous to be useful. RFerreira (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are inclusion guidelines in the article talk (in particular it cannot include most serial killers). Monsters occupy a part of human thought since antiquity, so there is value in aggregating them. Eldar (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But who determines these inclusion guidelines? They were created by the article creator, OtakuMan, so it is clearly original research. They are better off in more specific lists.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed these are not in the article itself, but part of the discussion on how to go about the article. In particular it shows that such a discussion can take place (which could not have happened with a truly vague term). Should the methodology that the article editors adopt be devoid of original research? That would be hard because I know of no outside article on how to make a list of monsters. Should the WP:OR policy itself not have original research in it? Eldar (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Addressing the concern of being useful, I've actually found this page to be a useful as starting point on doing research and used it recently to track down list of Japanese monster for a graphics design project I was working on. Granted that doesn't say it's in general useful, and I could have used List of legendary creatures from Japan but it was at least useful to me at one point. Next concern, vague: Perhaps the terms are a bit vague, but as User:Eldar states there already are inclusion guidelines. Finally on the organisation point, the list is organized into both culture/region for monsters of mythological original and by region for modern fictional. That said I am surprised it doesn't point to more of the specialized list, I would expect to see main articles header for each subsection pointing to more specialized lists, for example the sublist List of monsters#Japanese mythology should probably have List of legendary creatures from Japan as a main article and so forth. I do fear that if this list were to be truly inclusive it would grow to an unwieldable size, and might need to be restricted to the more notable monsters will leaving the focused lists to be more exhaustive. PaleAqua (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentList of legendary creatures from Japan is a more specific and useful list. As I said earlier, the definition of monster is up for grabs. Legendary creatures are not necessarily monsters and one that defines them as such is being subjective. Some people might worship legendary creatures. I'm sure a Hindu wouldn't call Ganesha a
"monster", but it is, in fact, in the "List of monsters".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think that the true problems with this list are that it needs to be better sourced and that it needs to provide more than a list of blue links. I can only say weak keep because I think that it's clear that this would work better as "Lists of monsters" and broken down into separate lists or incorporated into other lists of frightening mythical creatures. However, the rationale that "There is no real definition of what constitutes a 'monster'" doesn't justify deleting an article. If that's the problem, then add some context, or move it to a more politically-correct title that doesn't offend other monsters. Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, it's not that the term monster is undefined, just that it is relative to the person's views and does not describe a specific set of fictional or non-fictional creatures.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how there's any objective criteria for inclusion. Even if there was one, like List of Fictional Monsters or something like that, that list is so unmanageable, it's a lot like having the old List of actors with brown hair but blue eyes. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I changed after looking a bit more into the above arguments and the other lists. This list is huge, but I would be a bit remissed to remove all of that content and useful work. But I find the article title generally problematic. I would be a lot more comfortable if this was a disambig page that led off to the more specific categories. Shadowjams (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of this list, I formed it over two years ago as a means to make a place for those interested in mythical and fictional monsters to find information about them. It has proven to be very popular to the point where Google lists this page first and foremost when you Google search "List of monsters". I had originally participated in making a list of monsters in Castlevania, but found that the monsters included went beyond the normal monsters we think of on an everyday basis. I decided to do some research in order to gather some more information, but I could not find any other List of Monsters online. So, I created one here since I don't own a web domain, and I figured that by linking to other Wiki pages about monsters would make for an invaluable resource. And, to my knowledge, it has. I myself have spoken with the creator of the webcomic "Castle of Cards" who has said she has used this list for research for her comic. I claim that this list does serve a valuable purpose and use for those interested.
Addressing your concern about definition, I actually went to the web page for Monster here on Wikipedia, and found it lacking. The first sentence on that page says "A monster is any fictional dangerous or hideous creature, usually in legend or horror fiction," which is actually incorrect. Going to the online dictionary of Merriam-Webster, I found their definition for monster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monster. Their definition of monster as a noun is given as:
"1 a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2 : a threatening force
3 a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape b : one unusually large for its kind
4 : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty
5 : one that is highly successful"
Therefore, if it's Objectivity that you are looking for, I believe my list is quite objective. The definition of Monster on its wiki page, however, is subjective as it does not abide by the dictionary definition.
In the guidelines I posted on the Discussion page for the List of monsters, where they belong, I gave what I felt was easily understandable criteria for the inclusion of monsters. I gave examples, details, and tried to make it follow the dictionary definition as close as possible. From my understanding, User:ZXCVBNM claims that legendary creatures are not monsters. I disagree, as by the definition, all legendary creatures ARE monsters. Are they an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure? Are they an animal of strange or terrifying shape? And furthermore, for creatures that were once human, note the 4th definition line that says "a person of UNNATURAL or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty". The key word here is unnatural, and all mythical and legendary creatures are unarguably unnatural, abnormal, or strange.
Another concern given was the size of this list when so many monsters are added. I have believed that the best solution to that is to list the more well known monsters of a certain category, and then also give a link to the list or Wiki page that has the rest of them. For example, not all 72 demons of the Ars Goetia are listed on the List of Monsters, only some of the more well known ones, such as Forneus. If the person browsing this list can not find the monster they are looking for, then they can follow the link to where they can locate the more obscure demon they are looking for. Granted, as of late, I've noticed someone removed this category much to my dismay, but before it was removed, it worked as such.
Now, if anyone feels that I am being subjective in the definition of monster I laid out on the discussion page, then I would appreciate it if they explain how it is subjective. From my perspective and based on what I am reading on the comments from others, it isn't. Bear in mind that I am not naming any real people as monsters in this list. Hitler is not a monster. A cruel human being, sure, but to call him a monster would be a subjective derogatory term as someone out there may disagree. This is why I made a point that, "evil humans are not monsters, but creatures that were once human can be monsters". However, legendary creatures, mythological creatures, cryptozoological animals, and fictional beings that even identify themselves as monsters are beings that I believe everyone can agree on as being monsters.
On another note, I want to point out that I do not list Gods, deities, or divine beings, as there is a separate list for that. If someone feels an entry here belongs in the List of deities, such as Ganesha (which I am not sure if I entered as an entry or not), then they can move them there, by all means. I don't mind. Also, it should be noted that the definition does not say that all monsters must be evil. A monster could be "an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure", and not be evil. Therefore, I made the point when laying out the definition in my own words, that monsters could be both good or evil. Or in some cases, even neutral. Likewise, not all mythical Gods are good, as I believe it was Athena that turned Arachne into a spider.
Lastly, my perspective on this nomination for deletion is that it is an over-reaction. Instead of making edits or changes to fix the flaws that have been pointed out, User:ZXCVBNM would rather see the entire page deleted. All counter-arguments to each "Keep" statement has been made by them. I have put quite a bit of effort into this Wiki page, and while it may not be perfect, it's still come a long way since I originally started it in 2007. Many users have added monsters and new categories to help expand the knowledge of monsters as a whole. To see all that work go to waste due to deletion would be a terrible shame in my opinion. If you wish to make changes to improve the list, whether it be renaming, editing the categories, or adding and/or subtracting entries, then that's okay by me as long as reasons are given. I would rather see this list improve than be removed. After all, there are a number of lists on Wikipedia that are useful, and those aren't up for deletion.
Comment It can be sourced and it can be more informative than it currently is, as can be seen by my attempt to add some content and footnotes on the first few entries, but it would be a major undertaking and would work better if split up into several lists. I think that if people were to break this down into several articles and then to summarize the sourced entries, then some of them would be found to not qualify as fictional frightening creatures, such as the Mimi (folklore). I agree that too much work has been put into it thus far to simply eradicate it. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I take it you're voting Keep then, I presume? Thank you. If splitting it into smaller lists, and then having those lists gathered and summarized in the List of monsters is the way people want to go, then I have no problem with that. I'd be glad to work on tidying up the list and make it more manageable. I'd rather undertake the effort to make changes than to start from scratch. OtakuMan (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete while the POV issue of "monster" could be fixed by renaming to "List of legendary and fictional creatures" such as list would be indiscriminately broad to the point of becoming a directory (something Wikipedia is not even though directories are "usefull"). Eluchil404 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 07:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk, Abductive, et al. This is a profoundly indiscriminate can of worms. The Merriam-Webster definition of Monster listed above by the article's author is a case-in-point. We could include everyone from beezlebub to John Popper in this list. The only way to fix this that I can see presents its own problems, per Eluchil's points above. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk. Way too vast in scope and subject to POV. Pcapping 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hopeless hodgepodge, recklessly clumping religious folklore and pop culture fantasy. A major POV problem. Warrah (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no way on heaven or earth that such an indiscriminate list can be maintained.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean to be "subject to POV"? If it means "it is easy to fall into a POV trap", then the answer is to try hard not to. If there is existing POV, please point it out so we can learn from mistakes. I must admit that the large scope is a concern (though I would not use the term "indiscriminate" for this instance). Eldar (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Eldar, I was beginning to wonder if I was going to have to fight off this gang myself. I find many of these so-called "deletes" to be baseless, using nothing more than foundation-less claims that the list is "indiscriminate" when I made it clear that it wasn't in my previous post. It's as though they aren't even trying to read, from my perspective. OtakuMan (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The meaning of the list is clear enough for the items included: monster has a rather particular meaning in fiction and mythology, and the examples make it clear. I'm not sure examples should be included which do not have even a section of an article, but that might be more a question of writing the necessary sections. Not being paper, we can handle broad scopes--if preferable we could divide it up into mythology and fiction, and then different types, & I think I would suggest doing just that. But a deletion based on "too long" does not apply to our project. It's like saying "too much information is available, so let's skip it." DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although the defintion of what a "monster" may be clear in the minds of some editors, without a verfiable defintion, it is not clear to anyone else. Without an external source, there is no rationale for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but that is not a free pass to inclusion for lists of loosely associated topics. List articles that have not been externally validated in any way are listcruft, not encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. This article was deleted by way of AFD before, and a DRV endorsed later endorsed that deletion. Time passed, and someone rewrote the article without bringing it up before deletion review first, which I find odd (db-repost?) -- in any event, I am not seeing the non-trivial coverage that we would require for this or any other software application, especially one that has been deleted by community consensus. JBsupreme (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't have a particular problem with the new article being posted more than 2 years after the AFD, and it's clear that the author at least made an effort to add sources, a lack of sources being the reason for deletion in the first place. But the references offered here don't appear to do more than confirm that the software exists. Is there coverage in a reliable source that would show why this software is notable? I don't see it. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.When I wrote this article I did not know that there had previously been an article about Milkytracker on Wikipedia before. How does one find articles that have been deleted from Wikipedia? I do believe that this is notable software because it is the only AudioTracker for the PocketPC/WindowsMobile platform. Chipmusic, 8bit music etc. is a an emerging genre of electronic music, and at current, this is one of the premiere and most powerful programs for enabling this type of composition on various modern platforms. It has recently been included in many linux distributions. It is hard to think of any program of such significant capability for audio composition that will run on Windows, PocketPC, Mac OSX and Linux. I put the page up because there were dozens of links in other tracking articles referencing Milkytracker with no link. I have recreated some of the outside references, such as "Create Digital Music", I will add others as I find them. Obviously non-commercial software does not get the same kind of press that commercial and professionally promoted products do. Milkytracker has this in common with all open source software. Milkytracker is notable for several reasons: First it's the only tracking software for the PocketPC/Windows Mobile. Second, it's the most ported full fledged music creation application today. No other music creation application comes close to the software/platform support of Milkytracker. Third, it's the most accurate FastTracker experience one can experience outside of emulated environments without using legacy hardware. The demoscene/tracking scene may be underground, but it is legion. Milkytracker has been released, promoted, tested and used. It is actively developed and full featured. Youtube is filled with videos of songs and performances created with Milkytracker. It's a mature tracking environment with wide tracker community support. What is the benefit of removing useful information to penniless musicians from Wikipedia? I will be happy to make any suggested changes, I think it'd be a shame to delete an article referenced in so many others. Please give me some time and I will find more articles that reference it. Can someone tell me what kind of references Wikipedia is looking for? Every time I add a bunch of references they get deleted.DasKreestof (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.(repeated recommendation — Rankiri (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)) I have added additional academic paper references, and references from other magazines and sites. The references now total at 17. I read about Milkytracker first in a hard copy magazine, but I can't remember which one. This software is notable because it's the most widely ported music app, and no one here will be able to name another music application that has been ported to Windows, Linux, MacOS, PocketPC Amiga, and even sharp Zauros. In fact, I'll bet no one can name ANY app (not just music) that has been ported to so many platforms. It's true there aren't hundreds of articles in the Wall Street Journal about it, but that's true of all non-commercial software. It sets a bad precedent for wikipedia to deny coverage to anything that doesn't have significant commercial backing and press behind it, especially in an age where open source can become a source of liberation and innovation. This page has 17 references, a google search came back with 128,000 results; if you look at the page you'll see that it has a significant edit history (not including me) which means that it's clearly of interest to many individuals using wikipedia. It's also referenced in many other wikipedia articles. DasKreestof (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 06:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see significant, non-trivial coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not that sure that Create Digital Music can be considered a reliable source. A somewhat glorified blog is still a blog, and being included into one of "the Top 100 Blogs We Love" and "the Top 100 Undiscovered Sites" by PC Magazine is hardly a dependable way of establishing reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and journalistic integrity. — Rankiri (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have managed to find an online review of this software at Orju.net, a site that is "geared towards electronic and computer based musicians". This software is special interest and finding mainstream media coverage is very difficult, however the software is widely known and is indeed notable in the Demoscene and is a popular application for creating music in the XM (file format). 82.69.1.239 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. what on earth was I thinking when I was relisting this? SpartazHumbug! 07:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is in-universe, has no real world notability, and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Fail to the extreme. JBsupreme (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fail is a bit harsh, isn't it? Someone spent time on this, whatever its fate. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Discworld or some similar target, as appropriate. Given its importance to the fiction, this title will absolutely be a useful search term, so it makes sense to preserve it as a redirect. There is no particularly objectionable material in the content, no violations of BLP or such that I can find, so redirecting without deleting seems to be an acceptable alternative. Someone spent a lot of time on this content, and it is well-written and clear - but it's also unsourced and in-universe, which doesn't work. Is there scholarly analysis of the discworld novels? Such a source might provide some real-world notability to the concept, which might in turn shift this to a keep (with significant cleanup). But, for now, a redirect seems to be the best option. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources below, changing to Keep. The tangled chain of redirects to this article also complicates matters. I will say, though, that the in-universe content must be trimmed severely, copyedited to speak in neutral fashion from a real-world perspective, or removed entirely. Concur, though, that notability is evident from the sources. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 13:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notable fictional organization that appears in multiple novels (and a film based on one of those novels) by the second-best selling UK author of all time. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that only three months have elapsed since the first nomination. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are trivial to find. Following the Google Books link on this page we find not only Pratchett novels which reference UU, but also...
Overall, BEFORE appears to have been completely ignored. There's plenty of sources here. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this fictional topic has ten interwiki references. While anecdotal, that certainly seems to be well above the norm for fictional topics, and demonstrates in my mind that we need to have some sort of an appropriate article at this name. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of locations in Discworld (I know such a list exists, just don't know exact name to link here). Discworld stuff is a tremendously cruftfull walled garden at Wikipedia; needs a serious overhaul. (I say this while, sublimely, listening to the "Making Money" audiobook :-) ). --EEMIV (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative works Jclemens points toward seem a sufficient starting point for stand-alone article. So, changing a redirect to a unabashed, unreserved, and overwhelming stubbify -- the article is, quite frankly, utterly awful and wholly unreferenced. It regurgitates plot and is laden with original research. Nuke from above and rebuild from ground up. --EEMIV (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Do you mean that you want to keep the article but dramatically reduce its size somehow, or is "stubbify" WP jargon for something else? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"stubbify" means to the excise a huge portion of the content and essentially start over -- the idea is that the topic warrants standalone coverage, but that the current content is overwhelmingly awful. --EEMIV (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many articles redirect here already. Deleting this one article will also delete about 10 others. And I don't particularly want to rewrite them. And why is this article, of all the unreferenced, in-universe Discworld articles, being repeatedly targeted for deletion? Serendipodous 08:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does deleting this article "also delete about 10 others"? If you're speaking of the redirects you've mentioned, there's nothing really to rewrite, is there? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a specious contention. There are, I think, some lists of Discworld characters, for one thing. But, the broader idea that an article needs to be kept because of all the redirects that point at it doesn't fly. At worst, it's a matter of fixing double-redirects; non-notable characters, e.g., can be redirected to the work in which they first appear. Even if/when this article is kept, we should reexamine those redirects: the plotcruft to cover these amusing but real-worldly-insignificant fictional subjects should be cut from this article, and they might be more appropriately covered at work of first appearance, list of characters, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is itself unreferenced, and these component articles are still available in their edit history. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an article is currently unreferenced, much to many editors' surprise, is not a reason for deletion. Instead, the fact that no sources exist for incorporation into an article is a reason for deletion, but an article's current lack of (extant) references is instead a reason for cleanup and/or sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what is user:Serendipodous's point here? Is s/he endorsing user:EEMIV's "liposuction" proposal as preventing 8 more discussions like this one, because it doesn't seem difficult to restore the component articles from their histories? Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is seriously considering restoring eight other just-as-awful articles. --EEMIV (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so either. I think it's a way of voting to keep the article but leave it substantially unchanged, which WP:notability won't allow. user:Jclemens's third-party references are very good, but they aren't really consonant with the article as it exists now, analyzing the UU rather than explaining it as the article does. If the article is trimmed to fit the available secondary sources, it will be a satisfactory WP article, but it won't be this article; that is, the subject won't nominally change but it will be a different subject. Given that, I'd like to understand what is to be kept by !voting to keep. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one Discworld character list and it is pushing 100 k in length. I've been trying to reduce the number of in-universe Discworld articles through merging but there is only so much I can do. It is difficult to define what constitutes a "notable" Discworld character because the Discworld series doesn't work that way. A character like the Dean of Pentacles may not have much time in any one book, but he will appear in 20+ novels. Thus merging with "first appearance" doesn't really make sense or explain anything. Anyway, the Unseen University is a major plot thread in over 20 Discworld books. If this article doesn't deserve to exist, then no Discworld article does. Serendipodous 09:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is notability; referencing is referencing--Don't confuse the two. An unreferenced article on a notable topic is still notable. It may be more difficult for editors not personally familiar with the topic to understand its notability if the article is unreferenced, of course, but unreferenced != unnotable. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is in-universe fanspam far longer and elaborate than that found in any independent coverage of the topic, which has only passing mentions to this place in the context of plot summaries. I don't see any critical discussion of the significance of this fictional element in the links provided above. If someone can write an encyclopedic entry for this topic, please do so, but you should almost certainly start from scratch and use WP:SECONDARY sources. Pcapping 05:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When merging character ariticles, there are frequently growing pains. Let Serendipodous keep at it (and good job). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Jclemens has shown, multiple sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Clearly user:Jclemens' references demonstrate that the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. However, I don't believe that those references have much in common with this article. The article should be kept because it's a de facto important adjunct to many other articles, as shown by the number of links to it from the body of other articles and from the number of interwiki links. Since that's not possible, keep it because it's de jure notable. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the material that is OR should be removed. Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 06:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I believe an encyclopedic article on Unseen University is possible, given that reliable secondary sources exist. However, as it stands the article is cruft from beginning to end. Terry Pratchett deserves better. I agree with Pcap that the best thing to do is nuke it and start over. ReykYO! 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources provided above establish notability for the topic; I also agree though that the best way forward is probably to remove the current content and start afresh. The latter doesn't require actual deletion, although doing so may well be the best way to spur someone into actually fixing it rather than just letting it sit in its current undesirable state. While I can see that POV, my personal preference is to keep but stubify; then the old material's available in the history in case anyone finds sourcing which justifies re-adding some of it. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly demonstrated. There is no 'harm' being done by the article so I do not think its perceived bad state is a reason to get rid of it. Quantpole (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable unsourced BLP of a Saudi royal. Notability is not inherited. UnitAnode 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A son of a king is likely to be notable, even if he does not take an active part in politics. The Arabic Wikipedia article says that he is now blind and writes poetry. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see that earlier versions of this bio had more info, but nothing earth shaking. Apparently Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia had at least 37 sons and 22 wives, so that kinda counts against him.--Milowent (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to House of Saud#Sons of Abdul Aziz ibn Sa'ud. Probably nn in his own right, but no need to delete article history, and such information as we have can be usefully incorporated there. RayTalk 07:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Saud#Sons of Abdul Aziz ibn Sa'ud. Doesn't appear to be any significant additional content to merge. Doesn't appear to be notable in own right, but as his father and a son are both notable, I can imagine people searching for information on his, and the redirect would be useful. Warofdreamstalk 14:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge as suggested by others above. There is not enough notability established to support a stand-alone article. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD #G11 or any of the other criteria discussed in this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I tagged this db-a1, and stand by the view that the article conveys no idea of what it's talking about. To the extent one can tell, it's almost surely blatant advertising for Spiraldesign.net, the cited source, which is a non-notable website for a non-notable company. For what it's worth, I only picked a1 instead of g11 because it leaves a more polite Twinkle notification. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as spam. The only reference is to a company with the name Spiraldesign. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, {{db-web}}, besides blatant advertising for Spiraldesign.net. Anna Lincoln 08:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pure spam for Spiraldesign.net. Warrah (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Obviously no consensus to delete. However, if editors feel that the scope of the article needs to be clarified, it might be an idea to continue that discussion on the article's talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for this list is far too indiscriminate: an intersection of one of the largest ethnic groups in the US with one of the two dominant political parties in that country. (And for the first century of the Republican Party's existence, prior to the New Deal coalition, it enjoyed near-universal support from African-Americans.) I'm not aware of any other lists of people of a certain intersection of ethnic group and political party; it doesn't seem like a worthwhile list topic. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That article has all the same problems; I'd advocate deleting it for the same reason. Fran Rogers (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a slippery slope. However, I do understand your argument. I don't personally see a good reason to delete here. Difficulty maintaining an article isn't reason enough to delete, and as long as the list incorporates only persons who are verifiable Republicans it seems to me a worthwhile topic. I'd personally prefer it to be a list of exclusively -politicians- who are African-American and Republican (ie card-carrying party members, current and former), which would make everything indisputably discriminate, but this seems to me to be a useful list from a scholarly standpoint and one which while difficult to maintain isn't fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia rightly notes as fact far less immediately/easily verifiable things than one's membership in a political party. I'll keep my keep vote. Interested to see how others fall on this -- this has more grey area than most AfDs so...interesting! :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, but this article concerns me. Am I to understand it's a list of every Republican party member of African descent? Certainly it's limited to those that hold office. I would assume that the basic limit is to those that hold government office, but that's not clear in the article.
In addition, there are plenty of South African whites, or North Africans that are not considered "black" for most purposes, that hold offices in the U.S. This list would need to be substantially tightened up, and I think that whatever the style guide about "African American" versus "Black" or whatever other nomenclature is preferred, is secondary to the title of this article which I would assume doesn't include, for instance, South African immigrants to the U.S. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a significant concern with respect to this article. The term African-American is normally applied in the United States to persons descended from black Africans, and only rarely applied to persons descended from non-black North Africans or from white South Africans. Furthermore, relatively few American politicians are of North African descent or of white South African descent, as far as I am aware. There are other issues with this article, but I don't think that defining who counts as "African-American" is the problem here. --Metropolitan90(talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it's a common term of art in the U.S., and I didn't mean to try and start a debate about the term either, but I am a little concerned someone from outside the U.S. might be confused. However since by definition almost all will be Americans (since belonging to a party in which you cannot vote would be a small minority of members), I'm less concerned in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Edit The list would be efficient as a list of prominent African-American Republican politicians; the inclusion of sports and entertainment stars is irrelevant unless they are also politically active. Warrah (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with a list limited to politicians, which would be slightly larger than those that hold government offices (for instance, Michael Steele is the paradigmatic example). Shadowjams (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting + Avoid a rush to judgment. I've enjoyed reading the discussions above. Will think some more before casting a definite vote one way or the other. Rammer (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify scope to Republican Politicians as Warrah above - this was my thought as to what the article actually was supposed to refer to (i.e. abbreviate "repulbican politician to republican"). Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems well written, but content is unencyclopaedic and it features a non-notable school magazine. Almost no reference (the only ref in there is simply a link to wiki article of the school). I can't see how it can be improved to make it stay. — Yurei-eggtart 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the primary author of the article and I would like to kindly recommend to Keep this page.An additional reference has been added. The primary creation of the page is to educate the Malaysian school community in general as well as the community of the particular school on the process that goes through the production of a school magazine. I intend for the article to be an integral, if not helpful inclusion in Wikipedia's ever expanding Malaysian school/education-related articles rather than one of a discursive manner. ChesC (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The additional reference you added is a mirror page of Wikipedia - in fact it's an older version of it with some obvious vandalism.
Comment Thank you for shedding light on the matter. Reference link has been deleted. Kindly refute the point below if you have any reasonable arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.113.14 (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the matter of the notability of the publication. The magazine will be distributed to several secondary schools and prominent higher learning institutions (private colleges that are recognized by the Malaysian Higher Learning Ministry) within the states of Selangor and Penang in Malaysia. I believe that the article will be an invaluable reference for the administration and also community of the other particular schools and colleges. Hope this will be kindly taken into consideration. Thank you. ChesC (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When will that be? Which secondary schools? Which learning institutions? Was this in the news? If so, please provide the link. All these questions aside, I've took the liberty to Google jejak utama breaking conventions smk bandar utama -wikipedia, most, if not all, results obtained were unrelated to this magazine. If it had some notable news, there should've been something on the Internet. Uh, if it does get distributed somewhere as you say, I don't think it's of any importance anyway, unless there's a special reason (certain contents/uniqueness attracted media/renowned educational facilities? Published nationally/internationally? Won certain awards?). — Yurei-eggtart 08:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi yurei-eggtart, thanks for your insight. As 'The Star' newspaper education desk's seasonal writer, I've submitted an article on this publication. Do look out for it on The Star's education pullout in the coming weeks. Again, I would like to stress that the base of the creation of this page is one of sense rather than one of a frivolous nature. Until then, I'm signing off and hope the administrators will take good consideration on the matter and fellow wikipedian editors to debate in good faith, well manner and most importantly; civil demeanor. Thanks! ChesC (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously isn't notable. Even if The Star publishes an article on it, that won't be significant coverage in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing current to suggest this is notable. I respect both the good faith and non-frivolous nature of the article's creation and the good faith nature of the author's contributions to this conversation, but if our best argument for notability is a potential future article in The Star, that isn't cutting it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources have been provided. Furthermore, I can't think of any circumstances in which a single issue of a school yearbook would be considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. It would be rare enough to see a single issue of even a professionally published magazine become the subject of its own Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90(talk) 14:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. Looks pretty spammy. Very similar to New Paradigm of Police Firearms Training, which is also up for AfD. Only one reference can be called a reliable source (Police Marksman); others are either WP articles or not otherwise reliable sources. Originally PRODded, removed by original author twice. All of this author's work has been related to these two articles. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Pcapping 09:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
I occassionally assist the author and owner of the title Police Pistolcraft with the website used to provide information about the book and make it available to those who wish to purchase it. I understand your ceoncerns about it being SPAMMY. The book and the information it provides, however, I feel are deserving of being noted and included in Wikipedia. There is coverage of "The Modern Technique of the Pistol" in Wikipedia, and "The New Paradigm Police Firearms Training Program" was created to provide a counter-balance to this program. I also contend that while Conti's work in the private sector is always kept separate from his work as a member of the state police, the official state police website does note both his contribution and the use of the "New Paradigm" training program. Link provided here:
As a final note, Mr. Conti asked me to just go ahead and remove the entries after being told they were being contested. I tried to do so but obviously used the wrong process. I would like to see these two articles remain and Conti has no problem with that if you allow them to. I would also like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia for I believe I can do so for other topics as well. Regards, H. Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaylorTime (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your remarks. We appreciate your honesty and explanation. Unfortunately, the promotional nature of these article make it likely that both will be deleted. Be advised that this is not passing judgment on the subject itself, its qualities or usefulness, but merely its notability and the use of the article as a promotional vehicle. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page is spammy... WP:SOFIXIT. It shouldn't be deleted, as the book meets the general notability guidelines by having significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources - see here, here, here, and here. Although the article may need a name change to correctly reflect the title of the book. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can only chime in with Dust. I've moved the page to the proper title since I have no doubt that it will be kept--now let's fix the article. The references are there. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you! And I decided to start the work on expanding and fixing it myself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Gah! That move may have been premature; Police Pistolcraft and The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft now appear to be two separate books, written by the same author, with different content. I at first assumed they were two editions of the same text but now I'm thinking they're actually quite distinct. Not sure what to do about that from an AfD perspective although I'm happy to keep working on the article in its current location and with its current subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it has enough independent notability. There are a massive amount of pistol instruction books out there, and I see very little indication that this one is uniquely notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The few number of sources do not indicate notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Two book reviews have been added, but only one might qualify as WP:RSofficer.com, the other is forum/blog post without a byline[21]. The editorial policy of officer.com is unclear as well (no "about us" link on their page that I can find, only how you can advertise with them). They also take user-submitted news stories. This could well be one or be an advertorial. Pcapping 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence of notability at all, one of many thousands of pubs in the UK? Fails WP:N. Paste Let’s have a chat. 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't the major problem. The problem is that the article is full of non-refrenced. Without more specifics (date, page no) "Cumbria Library Service Newspapers Archive" and "North West Evening Mail" are meaningless. The inflation calculator is OR. So all we've got is the claim it is mentioned in "The Victorian public house" (again no page number) and a website. Can we get any more sources?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I managed to make a couple of the refs a little more specific. ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure that we could find refs on most pubs and hotels in the UK, however that surely does not mean that we want/require an article on each of them? Paste Let’s have a chat. 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If those references demonstrate notability, yes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, I'm sure that we all understand that, however in this case there is no claim to notability and no refs that illustrate notability? Paste Let’s have a chat. 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the nominator has misunderstood the meaning of "Notability" in Wikipedia. Please read WP:GNG and then state here which of the five requirements for notability the article fails to meet. -Arb. (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that I do understand WP:GNG and this pub fails. The refs in this article in no way are evidence of notability or of satisfying WP:GNG. The first is a small local website that indicates a couple of sale details for the pub, no more no less, the second one is not an online ref so we are unable to view it, the third is not about the pub at all, the next is a local piece that is in actual fact more of an advertising promo' and the last is a book review of a book that looks at victorian pubs in general and makes no mention of this pub/hotel. Thus we are left with evidence that the pub exists and has some history and that it has been advertisied in a local paper advertorial. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A historic building, now with a couple of good, detailed references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbus Driver (talk • contribs)
Delete Not enough outside coverage to distinguish it from thousands of other hotels in oldish buildings. (Heck, in Britain this building might count as a relative newcomer, "only" 150 years old!) Google search provides only directory listings, travel sites, blog reviews, etc. - no actual coverage. In fact there is a similarly named hotel in Santa Monica that generates more ghits than this one does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Historic building, historic content, clearly notable, passes WP:N, and is even well sourced. If there are thousands of such buildings, we'll cover them all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Just another pub/hotel. No real sources outside of a article citing a 2-1 happy hour. Merge to Happy hour?
Delete not notable and not that old for England, would really need to be a lot older and perhaps a listed building to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There's sufficient concensus among participants that the subject is non-notable, whether or not the article is a hoax Olaf Davis (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user has created 14 articles [22] that have not so far been deleted as hoaxes. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this will end up being deleted as unverifiable per WP:V or possibly non-notable per WP:BIO, although I also suspect that if the right sources could be found this person might be able to remain so I will hold off voting for a bit. Polargeo (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if this person was a politician they would easily get third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if you apply that today or for a US politician. But unless the politician was very important a mid ranking Lebanese politician who died in 1977 may well be difficult to find in a google search. That does not mean third party coverage does not exist. As I said this will probably end up deleted because we cannot verify, I am just trying to note that it is unlikely that this is a hoax. Polargeo (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
given that the article creator was able to supply photos of this individual you would think they would know sources. there is also no Arabic article for this individual which also made me suspicious. LibStar (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing against you. If you look at the article creator's name, I suspect that the article creator is related to the individual hence the photos. Unfortunately the article creator is not around anymore and so the sources that we need to keep are unlikely to be available even if the creator has them, hence I have not posted a keep !vote. For Lebanese history it is sometimes better searching in French than Arabic. Polargeo (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
google news and google searches French sources as well, and I still can't find anything to verify his existence. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable. Polargeo (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't matter whether it's verifiable, or a hoax, because it fails on more basic grounds. The article doesn't make an assertion of notability, it doesn't provide reliable sources justifying any such claim, and it doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:N or WP:POLITICIAN. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need to relist this. My only argument above was against the nom calling it a hoax and that we should see if sources came up. They haven't so delete. Polargeo (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable. No independent sources. Only source does not even mention the word Fir-Tex, so does not support the sourced fact. Promotional. Contains non encyclopedic manual like facts. User also tries to push the article on :nl. — Zanaq (?) 10:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to find sources, you shoud try "toverhesje" (translated "magic vest") as the press and many instances called it initially before it was introduced, VU (Dutch University), News agencies, Runners groups and more mention it, independent? Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL
How come that the same person can keep putting tags on the same article without any new reasons, this is against the policy of Wikipedia! It has been reviewed the previous time by a moderator and found in accordance. This same person tries to do the same thing on the :nl wikipedia where it has been put back because nobody comes with contructive or even the right arguments. Are the Dutch Olympic Committee (NOC-NSF), the Dutch Handbal Association and the different Dutch, Turkish, English or Spanish news agencies no independant sources? You must be joking? I do not try to push the article on :nl, some people try to kill it no matter how, without ANY founded reason! The article does meet all the Wiki standards and has been adapted accordingly. (Dicky747 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) — Dicky747 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Non-notable. The references given are so unhelpful as to be almost deceptive. Three are dead links. The links to Dutch, Turkish, and Spanish news reports are about a "magic vest," but do not mention the name Fir-Tex, thus do not support the article. Google search yields nothing of note (and shows that there are at least two other, unrelated products - a construction material and a software product - with names that are variations on Fir-Tex). --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"magic vest" is using FIR-TEX fabric! (Dicky747 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
That may be true but it is not supported by any of the references. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the language is also not quite error free. — Zanaq (?) 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So please tell me where so I can correct it! (Dicky747 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I have cleaned up the language. Language errors are no reason to consider deleting an article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable product. This is apparently about some kind of fabric used to make clothing used in sports, although you have to scroll to the end to learn that this is the point. Contains rather extensive "how to" type material on fabric care. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Notability asserted, but no third-party sources used. The deprodder claimed that it was a translation of the article on the Spanish Wikipedia (rather spammy), so if anyone is familiar with the deletion process over there, please do so. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable organization, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google "Miha C64S" [23] for historical information. It is now very hard to find information on this historical software. It was written in 1992-1993 by Miha Peternel, so this software was pre-Netscape era, before the consumer Internet explosion. I'm not opposed to deletion, but I will let everyone else vote, though. Mdrejhon (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None in the first few pages of hits looked like a WP:RS. Pcapping 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst it's possible that paper PC magazines covered this software at the time, such sources need to be cited from the outset, not left to find at a later date. Particularly for self-published software. Marasmusine (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After investigating a bit more, it looks like this emulator may have some historical significance. The manual for VICE (a modern and notable C64 emulator), says that "The T64 File Structure was developed by Miha Peternel for use in the C64S emulator."; T64 is the tape image format used to digitize old games/programs. T64 is one of the two formats used by C64 emulators today, the other, G64, was developed in cooperation between the VICE authors and CCS64 authors (this is another notable simulator). So, it does seem that C64S has a technical legacy. Perhaps the article should be userfied for further work. The problem is that claims like "was one of the first practical Commodore 64 emulators for the PC platform", which are made in the article, need to come from a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, they cannot be written from lore; it's worth discussing if any of the fan sites that do have a page about this software qualifies as such (and supports that claim). Pcapping 16:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Miha invented the T64 file format that is stil used to this date in all modern Commodore 64 emulators inclding CCS64 and VICE. Unfortunately, it's had to find reliable information now, and I will have to pass the mantle of this article to someone else if this article is to be resurrected. As a compromise, I suggest merging such footnotes to other emulator articles (i.e. a 'History' section in VICE article, as VICE has existed since around the mid 90's). Also, C64S is the first emulator I saw that used D64, so some research is needed if Miha also invented the D64 format, too. Mdrejhon (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No assertion of notability, no sources, implausible redirect. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a fictional spaceship that seems to consist of no more than original research and plot summary. All I can find for this spaceship is Wikis of various kinds and primary sources, ie. nothing that can establish notability. ReykYO! 03:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge Completely "in universe". No notability no references. A pretty useless thing to leave as a redirect. Polargeo (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information: There are over a dozen artiles which link to this one, which is why I consider a redirect a better option, since it would give those links a place to go. Mathewignash (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree. When something is linked from many places, it's always best it leads to something, even if it's only a redirect to a brief mention. JIP | Talk 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that links to a redirect would have to be dealt with to give it a better target or just unlinked anyway, therefore keeping as a redirect is not a solution. It would only be viable if this was a valid search term but it is not a likely search term because of the parenthesis. Polargeo (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not likely to ever make a viable article and so in this case links to it are not useful and also it will not help someone when they are redirected to your suggested target Transformers: Generation 2 (comics) which has no information whatsoever on "Warworld"Polargeo (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per User:Mathewignash, worthy of at least a mention, even if the plot summary is too much. JIP | Talk 08:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is unsourced so per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the information cannot be merged. Additionally, this page is an implausible redirect due to the parentheses in the title. Cunard (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A fairly even debate, but I am swayed by the arguments that this person is barely notable, together with the negative aspects of the biography convince me that in this case deletion is called for, and it is within my discretion to do so. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was removed by article creator. Asserts notability but doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTE. In fact, most results I can see on Google that aren't from the subject's own website or related projects are about a sexual assault charge. XXXantiusereh? 23:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he was convicted of a crime. What is notable about that? The coverage other than the court notes is so minimal that it is not notable. Polargeo (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not notable.--Karljoos (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced stub on what appears to be a non notable record company signing non notable musicians. Does not assert its importance and notability. Distinct lack of solid sources, google hits show mosty 12 inch records in terms of size not the actual company.‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is Poster Children's own record label, so there is some sensibility in redirecting to them, but most people would actually be looking for 12-inch single instead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no improvement in a year. Stub of an article, not much more than a list. Neologism to boot. Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based only on primary sources, and those appear to be poorly represented as well. Pcapping 00:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JujutacularT · C 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a WP:BLP1E for having running a one-time RNC convention. MBisanztalk 19:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may be considered BLP1E, though I see that he has been slightly known for running these 4-yearly since 1988. The issue is that there is only the one article, and that it already used as a reference, talking about him. I've searched around and his other activities—Civil War buff, dove hunting, being chairman of part of the party in Alabama (1970s, 1980s)—do not seem to have attracted sufficient interest. There is a lack of secondary sources discussing the subject - Peripitus(Talk) 22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Some further searching indicates that there may be some article's on the previous year's conventions that do more than mention him, but as they are behind paywalls I cannot verify. Snapshots I can see indicate that he is just mentioned in passing - Peripitus(Talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least three sources, all good. He's been in the news since 2004, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Bearian (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is short, but sources more than adequate to establish notability. Note that the sources listed are ABOUT him, not merely mentioning or quoting him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable. Someone who consistently does the same thing every election is not doing a single event--doing a search for "Bill harris" convention there are 571 GNews archive items,. almost all relevant. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Other than the nominator, there were no 'delete's, so consensus is to keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author, sources are self-pub bio, bio from a family run fan database, and a possible mention in a larger piece on mystery novels. Not seeing the unique contributions to the field or the award winning work that usually indicates notability. MBisanztalk 19:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Simon and Schuster's website is not a fan run self publish bio site. And winner of a notable award. Canterbury Tailtalk 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, the award indicates notability then. MBisanztalk 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually I can't find that much of the award. Is it notable? Could change things. Canterbury Tailtalk 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Winner of Mary Higgins Clark award is notable. LotLE×talk 19:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
With no 'delete' comments other than the nominator, consensus is to keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable computing experiment from the 1980s. Three listed sources in external links are a wiki (same one twice) and an archive of a 1990s hosted website. Miami33139 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No shortage of coverage in the printed press (book search). I agree that the sources used in the article could be of higher quality though. Also, the original paper has 125 citations in google scholar. Clearly significant. Pcapping 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BLP1E. Paparazzo who is only notable for suing Keanu Reeves. As such, I suggest a deletion, or redirect to relevant section of Reeve's article. Angryapathy (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, WP:BIO1E only one minor event, which doesn't establish notability. CTJF83chat 05:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E pretty much sums up this case. JamieS93❤ 22:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No arguments to keep Kevin (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable psychologist Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like bootstrapping notability to Albert Ellis, as all of his major achievements relate to Ellis. Angryapathy (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. merge can be discussed further on talk. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No other pages exist for other specific UK shadow/opposition front bench posts, and this one is not even a "real" shadow post, in that there is no UK government minister for Cornwall, and the creation of the post has been for the most part criticised as being a party political move by David Cameron. Whatever material here that is not deleted altogether can - and should - be moved in some form to any of Mark Prisk, Official Opposition frontbench or Constitutional status of Cornwall, with this name itself probably simply a redirect to the second of those, as Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs is. Nickhh (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for the moment. Although most if the info contained within could be merged with other articles mentioned, I envisage that the reader would then want to refer to a unified article on the subject outlining why the position came about, roles and responsibilities etc, especially as there is no actual equivilent government position - this also makes it somewhat notable by default. I think this is all the more important as this is a UK election year - as people become more aware of politics, policies and positions on all sides, they will ask questions and some undoubtedly will turn to wikipedia for answers. Also as it looks somewhat inevitable that the Conservatives will be forming the next government, this article and content could be useful should this be turned into a ministerial position. Zangar (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteMerge and redirect to Mark Prisk - The article is a clear breach of WP:NPOV. With no minister of Cornwall to actually shadow the post (and the article) appear to be simple electioneering. - Galloglass 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the better elements with Mark Prisk as Warofdreams suggests is probably the best solution. - Galloglass 11:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to clarify how this article is in breach of WP:NPOV please? As I read Section 2 "Achieving neutrality", it would appear that the article could only really be in breach of Undue weight due to a large section being dedicated to controversy of the position (and is not really a reason for deletion, rather a need for clean-up). But I think the inclusion of this section counter-acts any undue weight given to the Conservative Party and therefore could not be seen as electioneering (especially as this article was started well before any election). Zangar (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zangar simply this, only one of the 3 main parties have an 'minister for Cornwall' the fact that the party (LibDems) who hold all five seats within the county have not made any such appointment demonstrates this was done by the Conservative party for electoral purposes and we on wiki do not engage in support for one-sided, decidedly non-neutral electioneering. I hope this makes things clearer. - Galloglass 11:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument sounds more like it is based on Not a soap box than NPOV. NPOV is a policy on presenting the facts of a case in a neutral way; that the Conservative Party created the office is a fact, that the Conservative Party was criticised for the creation and their motives questioned is a fact. NPOV is concerned with presenting a neutral blend of those facts.
What you are saying seems to be that because the Conservatives most likely created the office in a cynical attempt to win votes then our reporting of the facts of the case is a soapbox for Conservative propaganda/campaigning. Is that an accurate assessment of your argument? (Road Wizard on a mobile connection) 82.132.136.199 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on the existence of the other pages - I'd noted that typing in "Shadow Minister .." in the search box, the foreign affairs one was the only one that came up as an actual page or redirect title. Also, I checked the main Shadow Cabinet page, in which all the wikilinks attached to the individual Shadow Cabinet posts are to the pages for the actual Cabinet position that they shadow, which implied to me that pages for the individual shadow posts themselves did not exist.
However, two issues remain - 1) the pages that do exist are for Shadow Cabinet posts, where the post-holder shadows the Secretary of State, not for every junior shadow ministerial position, none of which, per my research, have their own pages here, other than currently this one; 2) this is also a (junior) position for which no official government equivalent exists.
There's a better reason for keeping now, but it still seems weak to me. --Nickhh (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this office was created in the absence of an equivalent government post is probably more of a reason to keep the article than delete it. While the average junior Shadow office rarely raises enough attention to be notable, this one appears to be somewhat unique.
The Shadow Cabinet page did link to the correct articles in the past, but they were removed without explanation by an IP-editor in June 2009.[24]Road Wizard (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that definitely makes it broadly more notable/interesting (speaking in a non-WP sense) in terms of UK politics and UK news, especially for the brief moment of its creation, but I'm genuinely not sure that this means an encyclopaedic treatment of UK government and opposition posts would see this position having its own page, when no other - long-established - junior shadow posts have them. All sorts of policy statements and political appointments gather media attention of course, but there's always WP:NOTNEWS, and information about them is often much better placed anyway in context on other, broader pages. --Nickhh (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, I would be willing to support a merge to a 2007 equivalent of British Shadow Cabinet 2001–2003. Merging to Official Opposition frontbench or any other general opposition article would not be a good idea, as it would be giving undue weight to a minor role as compared to the other Shadow offices; a date specific article would allow the creation of the office to be placed in the political context of the time. Road Wizard (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mark Prisk, its only holder - there are a whole series of these Shadow Minister for [area] posts, barely anyone knows who they are, and there isn't enough material to write a reasonable article. Beyond things published by the Conservative Party and perfunctory mentions, the only coverage of the post I can find is coverage of the occasional criticism of it. Still, someone might search for the titles, so a redirect makes sense. Warofdreamstalk 23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge. I don't think there are really any NPOV or notability problems - the article appears to be presented neutrally, ie. not pushing any party's line on the appointment (whether the appointment itself is neutral or just "electioneering" is irrelevant to WP:NPOV). If "the creation of the post has been for the most part criticised as being a party political move by David Cameron", that seems like enough to make it notable in itself. Although the content could be merged with other articles, I don't think it should be, as the post itself is separately notable from any of the other suggested pages - it is specifically the creation of this post, and the ensuing controversy, that has led to the notability -- Boing!said Zebedee 09:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as noted above, WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that all policy or political statements or announcements create brief notability. Following the logic that this post is (vaguely) notable in so far as, and because, it represents such an announcement (which I don't disagree with, indeed it was precisely my point), it should be renamed to "Shadow Cornwall Minister appointment/controversy", and we should also have pages on "Conservative party April 2008 arts policy statement" and "Dispute over Labour government 2009 benefit uprating" etc etc. One certain fact is that the actual post is not, in itself, a notable thing of any substance. Or certainly less notable than the other junior ministerial shadow posts that have existed for years and had hundreds of post-holders but do not - probably correctly - each have their own individual page. Any usable or relevant content here can, as suggested, go to the page on Mark Prisk himself or to Constitutional status of Cornwall. N-HHtalk/edits 10:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good points, you've changed my mind - I now think some of the content should be merged elsewhere, and the article deleted. Should the post itself become notable in time, it can be recreated -- Boing!said Zebedee 10:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. As indicated, this is a duplicate of Tyntchtykbek Tchoroev (note the reversal of names). A redirect would suffice, if the subject is known with his name going both ways, or if there's some cultural reason to invert names - but, if there isn't a good reason to redirect, I'd say delete. But the issues of COI and mild notability apply to both this article and the original - and might indicate that both should be deleted. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a formality I am bundling Tyntchtykbek Tchoroev with this AfD due to the fact that both articles are on the same person:
If consensus is to keep, the content should be merged into Tyntchtykbek Tchoroev, as the article indicates that Tchoroev is the surname and Tyntchtykbek is the given name. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best GS cite I can find is 4. Looks like a delete at present.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep but merge two name variations. I don't know which name order is canonical, but keep one and let the other redirect there. In any case, this is an overwhelming keep on content, under WP:PROF, WP:AUTH, politician, and generally a slam dunk as WP:GNG. LotLE×talk 19:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. Definitely needs inline refs (there are general refs at the end), but he seems one of the authors of their constitution (not sure what the deal is with the alternate draft), and apparently wrote most of their history textbooks. Seems notable for his political activities as well. Has a page on the Russian Wikipedia as well. As for the duplication, redirect Tchoroev Tyntchtykbek to Tyntchtykbek Tchoroev, as the latter appears to be the canonical name. This an auto-biography unfortunately, by User:Tynchtyk Chorotegin. (Chorotegin is some sort of nickame of his, see his byline in the UNESCO book for instance)Pcapping 01:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Tyntchtykbek Tchoroev would be his Russified name, 'Tyntchtykbek Chorotegin uulu' would be his full Kyrgyz name (son of or tribe of), Tynchtyk would be his nickname. I lived there, OR on my part, just clarifying. My concerns are just the duplication of articles and the blatant ongoing COI. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep " Director of Kyrgyz Service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is sufficiently notable--equivalent to the editor of a major political publication. He may even be notable also under WP:PROF as having written many widely used textbooks. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have secondary sources to back up the assertion that being Director of the Kyrgyz Service means being editor of a major pub? I highly doubt that the job is full-time. Also, there are no textbooks that I can see. It just seems so implausible; how many universities even teach a class in Kyrgyz Studies or Kyrgyz History? Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless "widely-used textbooks" assertion is demonstrated. Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (after fix to title capitalization). Needs expansion, but books authored contain original scholarship with an affect on their (non-academic) field. LotLE×talk 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Steve was a significant presence on the L. A. radio scene for a number of years. I'm not familiar with his books, but it sounds like he made some real contributions. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some referencing, but definitely notable personality in music, talk show radio, and a good music writer. sulmues --Sulmues 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamieS93❤ 21:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged as {{db-spam}}, and so I deleted it. However, the original editor who created the article has asked this to be taken through AFD. Sending here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertising for a non-notable product. All references and ghits are to blogs and similar unreliable/non-mainstream sources. Undoubtedly a real product and useful to many, but does not satisfy Wikipedia requirements for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete spam RadioFan (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep Fulfills WP:ENT criteria 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable, stage performances. This can be seen because as an actor with the Royal Shakespeare Company mention of his appearences in stage performances from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s can quickly be found in gnews here from coverage in newspapers such as the New York Times, The Independent, Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several more gnews hits if you use the alternate spelling of his name given at the beginning of the article, see Jeffrey DenchPolargeo (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the wording of the criterion Has had significant roles..., as far as I can tell, his appearances in notable performances have been in minor roles; Richard Scroop in Hamlet, Robert Shallow in Merry Wives, chorus member in Henry V, etc. Had he played the role of Prince Hamlet, Horatio, Falstaff, Mr. Toad, or other significant roles, I never would have considered nominating this article. His TV appearances seem similarly insignificant. Regarding the Gnews hits, the vast majority are trivial, i.e. his name in a cast list. Others are when he is quoted or mentioned in articles about his sister, including several when he was acting as a family spokesman after a man committed suicide over unrequited love for, again, his sister Judi Dench. Wine GuyTalk 07:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a one sided summary. It ignores the fact that he is clearly mentioned in roles in his own right and not just in listings. He is also mentioned in several local news stories, which on their own may not confer notability but summed together show this guy has notability as an individual over the course of his career. Polargeo (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not that this is a strong argument but it sways me firmly to a keep vote, is that for anyone to have coverage over this many decades "online" suggests that we are clearly seeing the tip of the iceberg. How many sources from the 1960s,1970s,1980s and 1990s are actually available per a quick google search? Yet Jeffrey Dench comes up consistently in gnews sources from each decade. Polargeo (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Someone has taken the trouble to type in and source a good article. The subject of the article has self evidently left a mark on the world over and above his family relationship to another person. As far as I can see the only reason this article is marked for deletion is because the subject of it doesn't meet the nominating editors personal internal scale of importance. If enough deletions like these slip by then at some point Wikipedia will consist of only Hollywood A-list movie stars and world leaders and then everyone can get down to deciding which of those aren't as important as the others. The nomination did make make me actually do something on Wikipedia finally, this is probably the only thing to be said in it's favour.Amentet (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to AfD, and thanks for your input in this discussion. Just to let you know, my nomination is not based on a "personal internal scale of importance", but on the Wikipedia notability guidelines, specifically this guideline for actors and other entertainers. We use these guidelines to help us determine what topics should be included in the encyclopedia. When there is a question of whether or not a topic meets the guidelines, an article may be discussed here so that the community's consensus can be determined as to keeping or deleting an article. Regarding the editor who "has taken the trouble to type" this article, that editor has a conflict of interest. Wine GuyTalk 08:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your welcome and thank you for pointing me to the notability guidelines. I first read the article in a woozy frame of mind after having returned from recovering from a general anaesthetic in hospital, rereading it now it doesn't seem like a "good" article, but it does seem to be a properly referenced one in need of some work.
I'm not sure this is the place to say this, but since this is the first time I've actually got involved in Wikipedia I'd like to briefly explain why. I've been using Wikipedia casually as a reference for a number of years, a few weeks ago I looked up an entry I'd previously referenced, only to find out it no longer existed and now redirected me to to another article that had almost no information at all except for a couple of words. I began wondering why something that many years ago had seemed like the idea of the sorely missed Douglas Adam's HitchHikers guide to the galaxy made real, something that seemed to be striving to contain the sum total of human knowledge, now had less information in it than it had previously. Curiosity over this is how I came to be looking at the articles for deletion page.
Why I noticed the name Jeffrey Dench in particular is because I remembered many years ago seeing him play Andrew Aguecheek in an RSC production of Twelfth Night, this is by no means an unimportant role, though it doesn't seem to be one of the roles referenced in the article. (I just found a source for this which I've now included in the article, in the process of which I've had to learn to edit Wikipedia, though I don't quite understand how to properly provide the reference, so if someone could possibly tidy that up I'd be grateful, otherwise I'll do it myself at some point when I've learned how to.) As a coda to this, I'm sure that if I look more on the RSC site that I could find other roles, I don't quite understand their site navigation system, having arrived at that page by googling Jeffery Dench Andrew Aguecheek.
As I said, Thank you pointing me to the notability guidelines, having now read them and the ten pages of archived discussion about them I note that these are only guidelines and not the policy of Wikipedia and that even the concept of notability seems to be a contentious issue. Personally I think that even if one person from now until the end of time would like information about something, and that something is properly referenced, then it as good enough reason to be in something that once aspired to be the sum total of human knowledge. However that is just a personal viewpoint and I understand the point that Wikipedia is arrived at through consensus between everyone working on it.
I'd like to apologise if my remark about a personal internal scale of importance was perhaps a little terse, nevertheless after reading the guidelines it does seem to be true to an extent, in that anyone nominating an article for deletion for reasons of notability is making a judgement call about what they consider to be important. For instance it seems to be a rule within those guidelines that someone is notable for possessing breasts and having shown those breasts in the pages of the magazine Playboy as a "playmate", and having done this only once, and is notable for doing this even if they have done absolutely nothing else in their entire lives.
As the above is part of the guidelines then I don't think it unreasonable to think that someone who has spent sixty odd years as an actor, contributing a lifetimes body of work to the theatre, is probably more notable than someone who has shown their breasts once in a magazine. I'm sure there are people whose sole claim to notability would be being related to someone "famous". From the Sunday Times article linked Jeffrey Dench is described as having "built a reputation as a respected character actor". If someone has spent 23 years in the Royal Shakespeare Company I think that fact would be notable in itself, no one is going to spend 23 years only playing fourth spearman from the right.
As for someone not be included because they're less famous than their relative, I think the words of the relative in the same article sum up the judgement call of not being notable nicely.
"For me, acting was like catching measles. I caught it off Jeff. That’s why I hate it when somebody says to him: “Are you anything to do with Judi?” Because acting was his idea in the first place, so I think that kind of comment is very unkind"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep true he's not as notable as his sister, but with the sourcing we have he's noatble.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Page deleted in January after AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan delle Piane), but since some supposed sources have been added compared to the first time, a new AfD may be needed instead of speedy deletion as a recreation. This "Italian aesthete, painter and socialite" or "Italian beauty, aesthete and painter" (depending on the version of the page) has a lot of page filling info on his family, but very little on himself. Sadly, there is no evidence available that such info can be found in independent reliable sources: only 25 Google hits[25], none of them very impressive (most oif them blogs or facebooklike). No Google news[26], News Archive[27], or books hits[28]. PRod removed with claim that he has been featured in Italian and Spanish art magazines, without further info. Article claims being referenced from or in Connoisseur magazine (probably not this one[29], if it is this one[30] we will need an issue number), and in Prestige Magazine (nothing found in here though, we need to know which of the many prestige magazines, and what issue). So, as far as I can tell, this article still fails WP:BIO, just like it did one year ago. Then, it was claimed by the author of the article that "he has decided to go public and to make his first public exhibition in the summer of 2009 with press release in London." No evidence of this claim could be found. Fram (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morgan delle Piane was published/printed in:
Fine Art Connoisseur Magazine, Issue XXXII, October 2007
Can't find evidence of it[0=content&option=com_search]. The magazine, founded in 2006, seems to have received very little attention in itself (has e.g. only 14 Google hits[31], making it not notable to be presented in it. As for Fine Art Connoisseur Magazine, this is the October 2007 issue. There is an article on "ARTISTS MAKING THEIR MARK: Three to Watch. Discover the immense talents of", but sadly it are three other artists that are highlighted, not delle Piane. If someone else has this issue of FAC magazine, they can shed some light on this. Fram (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simple enough, actually. Plainly non-notable. Perhaps salt this time. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This company does not appear to meet the guidelines detailed at WP:CORP. There sources I have been able to find are not very detailed and are mostly the sort of coverage that every company could expect to get; therefore I do not feel that notability is established. ReykYO! 05:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more of the same: a software and services company ... a software platform for manufacturing operations execution. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
With no editors suggestion deletion other than the nominator, the consensus is clearly to keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd piece of fan merchandise that fails WP:PRODUCT. The item, which is discontinued, has been mentioned in some reliable sources, but the coverage I saw was not significant in nature. Usually it was either a mention or maybe a couple of paragraphs. Of the 3 sources in the article, 2 are from the company/seller. 1 is a mention of someone being buried in one. The lack of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources and the fact that the company itself doesn't have an article to redirect this to leads me to the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- needs more sourcing, but given the unusual nature of the product, plus the fact that the late great Dimebag Darrell is buried in one gives it some notability over and above just being a simple piece of fan merchandise. I say weak keep, however, because it could certainly use more sourcing. I also wouldn't object, assuming there's such an article, to some kind of merge into an article on KISS merchandise. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone would mention that. Do we now make every shoe, pair of pants or sunglasses a notable person uses notable in its own right? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I weren't at work currently, I'd try to dig up some more sourcing. That I currently cannot is why I qualified my Keep as a weak one. That said, (warning: OR coming up), I know I heard about the thing well before Dime's death. The notability doesn't stem from the fact that he was buried in it (although that doesn't hurt), it stems from the fact that a rock band put its likeness and logo on such an unlikely product as a casket. I realize my arguments are really just a variation of WP:ITSNOTABLE, however there's little I can do at the moment to provide concrete sources. If I can find some time this weekend (and if nobody else does it), I will certainly try to find some sources and add them to the article.Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought an interesting part of their sales pitch was that since it was waterproof, it could be used as a big ice chest and filled with beer. Novel without a doubt, but I couldn't quite call that notable, even if someone wrote a paragraph about it (which I found). As a side note, one of the articles I found that mentioned it did pose an interesting question about what archeologists would think a couple hundred years down the road when they dig it up. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found some sourcing, this: [32], possibly this (although its in spanish, so I'm not sure),[33], this [34], this [35] (interview with Stanley & Simmons discussing it), [36] (admittedly may not be a reliable source, I'm not sure), and this [37]. Should certainly be enough to prove the notability of the item. There does seem to be more out there as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found those (well, not the spanish one) before the nom. The closest one to being significant was the BBC one, but that was really only 3.5 paragraphs, then it talked about their other merchandising. I don't incredibly strongly about this, but I would like to see at least one reliable source that is obviously significant in it's coverage. If that happened, I'd consider withdrawing the nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Umbralcorax. Agree, we need more sourcing, but I've seen this on TV and in print both. Not sure how we can cite TV reports on it, but I can confirm that such exist, somewhere. So, it's sourceable, and the notability is thin but clear. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 13:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it were that clear, I wouldn't have nom'd it. There is no dispute it existed (not in production for several years), but what is lacking is significant coverage. I can find trivial stuff and proof it existed, not anything significant though. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- Certainly this is a piece of Americana Rock'n'Roll and as such has cultural value pertinent to the time of production. Come on folks. It's not like we're running out of space and need to clean house. You can't tell the complete Dimebag story without referencing the Kiss Kasket. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabarge (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is talking about altering Darryl's story. Redirecting the term to his article would increase traffic to it. But his use alone shouldn't justify a stand-alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an entirely non-notable writer. The author has published a number of exciting books with a vanity press of sorts (see this, for instance), and that's all there is. Actually, I'm holding out: one reliable mention is here, where our subject is thanked as one among many for submitting a story for an anthology--but the story was not accepted. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: one of the article's editors (and the subject, I assume, from one of their earlier comments) created the same (or a very similar article), Martin-In-The-Fields, Frederick. I have lifted all the "references" from that article and pasted it into the one under discussion here, and redirected that article. Perhaps we shall go through the external links one by one:
Then there's the "references"--well, they aren't references to anything relevant, and they aren't reliable sources. I could explain, but I've already spent half an hour of my life which I'll never get back on this article. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Note thaty Martin-In-The-Fields, Frederick was created as a duplicate of this article. It has now been, quite properly, converted to a redirect. Should this AfD close as delete, it should be deleted also. DES(talk) 15:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Since the nominator searched for the author, I searched for his novel, Chronicles of War and a Wanderer. Amusingly, I found this, wherein the author complains bitterly that Airleaf, the vanity publisher which published the novel, "made a fool of him" by charging $10,000 for their services but failing to "turn his book into a best seller"! --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Don't see the need for a relist here, though I must admit that I have nothing to add to Drmies' and MelanieN's investigation. --Pgallert (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whilst it might have been established in 1921 it fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage, seems to have gained little interest outside the university. very little gnews for current name or former name. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the volume of referencing material on the internet may not be large, I would contend that the period that this society is most notable for, being that in which (Dame) Ngaio Marsh was heavily involved, has been described in numerous worthy print sources (histories of Christchurch and NZ, and presumably any biographies of Ngaio Marsh herself). I'll concede that the article itself is woefully lacking in the references department, but I would argue strongly that the subject is notable and should not be deleted. I will attempt to reinforce the article with further references to help this case. Genedecanter (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While ostensibly about their first venue, Glyn Strange's book The Little Theatre (ISBN0-9583706-9-9) is a history of the Society's first 45 years, and highlights their significance in the History of New Zealand theatre. Two other Histories of New Zealand theatre published in the 1980s also reference the society extensively. Personal Declaration - I am a life member of the society, although that information is lost to the current incarnation of the society.dramatic (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Other than the nominator, there are no 'delete's, so consensus is clearly to keep, although the article will need some work format-wise. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unreferenced, poorly formatted article about the theatrical lyricist/composer team of John Dempsey (lyricist) and Dana P. Rowe. The individual articles on these two are stubs, but they are at least referenced. I have no strong opinion on whether the joint page should be deleted, but as it stands I don't think there's anything in the duo's article which isn't adequately covered in the articles for each individual, or the articles for their musicals. Josiah Rowe (no relation) (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think my preference would be keep this article, and merge/redirct John Dempsey (lyricist) and Dana P. Rowe here. It seems that they might be more notable as a pair than they are individually; similar to WP:BAND where the band gets an article with sections on the individual musicians, the individuals do not get stand-alone articles. The sources from the Dempsey and Rowe individual articles can be used for this duo article, and poor formatting is never a reason for deletion, see WP:SOFIXIT. Wine GuyTalk 12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's worth noting that they don't seem to be working as a duo any more, and each has worked on separate noteworthy projects (e.g. Dempsey on the Broadway flop The Pirate Queen). Point taken on the formatting, however. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having looked a bit closer, you're right, the individual articles need to remain as they both clearly meet WP:COMPOSER. They are certainly notable as a duo, as shown by a standard Google search. While they are not (yet) on the same level, the situation is similar to Rodgers and Hammerstein, Richard Rodgers, and Oscar Hammerstein II. Wine GuyTalk 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - they're not quite up there with Gilbert and Sullivan, but that's another article on a playwriting duo which doesn't just duplicate the content in the two individuals' articles. A Google search for "Dempsey and Rowe" brings up enough hits to suggest this duo is probably notable in their own right. Robofish (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Google search. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources, but no reliable sources to verify the mentions on local TV news broadcasts were anything other than a passing mention for a warm fuzzy. Notability should be determined by WP:CLUB, and this doesn't appear to pass. It doesn't even appear to be regionally notable- no mentions found outside of self-generated publicity (such as facebook, blog postings). tedder (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gnews search comes up empty. Searching OregonLive comes up with a few things, but it's trivial coverage, and most of it is via John Canzano's posts (i.e. not independent). Ergo, fails WP:N/WP:ORG. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Google Web returns 13 unique results with no signs of significant coverage by reliable independent sources: [38]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is really unnecessary. This should be merged with the article List of Britney Spears concert tours as a section for the article. That was the way it was before. Both articles don't have enough information to be split, they should remain together. Besides the lack of info, those areticles are talking about almos the same: tour. Concert and Promo tours, so they should be on the same article Fortunato luigi (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then be bold and merge them, as per WP:BEFORE#4 (Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Neither of these actions requires an AfD)! Lugnuts (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,I will merge them, but anyway, this article should be deleted. It would be very unnecessary to keep since the info is somewhere else. Fortunato luigi (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A merge will be fine and looks like the best result, especially since the nominator has offered to perform it. However, a merge will leave List of Britney Spears promo tours as a redirect to the target (see Help:Merging#Performing the merger), and that redirect shouldn't be deleted because it's necessary to preserve the edit history of the merged material. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my Google searching, I do not believe this particular Paul Blackburn meets our basic notability criteria for biographies. Specifically, I cannot find the third-party WP:RS necessary to establish notability. Simply appearing on Australian TV shows is not sufficient, if I understand our guidelines correctly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability and the article is spammy Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, non-notable neologism. Anna Lincoln 08:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I placed the original PROD with the rationale "Non-notable neologism" but since then the article has expanded into an near-incomprehensible rambling, a rant against a particular restaurant and/or the people therein. Speedy delete as an attack page or vandalism, and per WP:NOTMYSPACE. I42 (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So nominated, this one really does not need to stay for 7 days. BTW, the term has a surprising 1880 Google hits. Still obviously a misspelling of microcosm. --Pgallert (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
While there are three editors who made suggestions to keep this article, the main view is that this is a list with no clear-cut criteria for inclusion, and even if such a criteria were to be developed, it would conceivably consist of many thousands of diseases. Another issue raised is the lack of any sourcing to indicate that the majority of these are indeed considered "incurable". There appears to be sufficient consensus to delete this article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely pointless grab-bag of medical conditions. No attempt at referencing. Unlikely to ever become useful. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot understand why you feel that this article is "an absolutely pointless grab-bag of medical conditions". It lists only diseases that cannot be cured, which is an important topic. I am in favor of saving the article and then adding references. Immunize (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About how many incurable diseases do you suppose there are? They don't seem to have figured it out on Yahoo. If it's not too many, or if we can find a way to limit the scope of the list to the more important ones, perhaps the article has a future. Tisane (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but what they have and have not figured out on yahoo answers has no value here. Beach drifter (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking access to academic databases, that was unfortunately all I could dig up after a few minutes Google searching, which may say something about the viability of the list. Argh, Ebru News says "there are still a number of devastating illnesses with no known cure" but it doesn't give any estimates. Tisane (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not "List of diseases with no known cure?" Can sources for all (or any) of these diseases be found to show that they are actually incurable? Beach drifter (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with suggested move. That title would be more accurate. Tisane (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I haven't actually weighed in on this issue (yet); I only listed this discussion in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PDCook (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An inadequately referenced list of links, with absolutely no discussion whatsoever. This silly "list" could go on and on. It's also confusing; many of these conditions are treatable. Readers who do not understand the difference between treatment and cure could be dangerously misled. Graham Colm (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article lead explaining the difference between treatment and cure might suffice to clarify the matter to readers. Tisane (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "silly list" that has a vague selection criteria and impossible length. Genetic diseases are essentially incurable today. There are many thousands of them. Most infectious illnesses aren't "cured" -- you get better by yourself. As they say, there's no cure for the common cold, but few people fail to get over it. Whether a particular disease can be cured also depends on the circumstances of each case. So to be present in this list, would it need to be curable some of the time, most of the time, all of the time or only in a few lucky individuals? Then there's the whole disease/disorder/condition/different/normal conflict. What if the "cure" wasn't to 100% full health. Colin°Talk 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have stated in the lead paragraph of this article that some of these disease have treatments that may prolong life expectancy to "normal or near normal" to address the concerns above. Immunize (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, a reply to Tisane's last comment). Yes it could, but there isn't one. But, I don't like the title and concept of this list at all—it is tantamount to scaremongering. The suggestion to move to "no known cure" is a good one, but the problem wrt treatment/cure still remains. I also think the treatment and cure dichotomy is too polarised as often cures are developed from treatments as the science progresses. Should the article be renamed but the important distinction between treatment and cure be not fully addressed, the problem will remain. Then there is the issue of referencing; for an article with such a doom-laden title these must be of the highest standard, not just links to webpages, but review articles in prestigious medical journals. To be honest, I don't think this will be done quickly enough. It is easy to say keep and etc. etc. but will this be done? I would need some strong reassurances. Graham Colm (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colin. Pcapping 01:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without clear criteria for inclusion, or a clear definition of "cure", this list could simply be "list of all diseases". A number of the listed conditions are cured in some cases. Time cures self-limited diseases. Unless some unambiguous criteria can make this into a relevant and accurate list, it should be dropped.Novangelis (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should exclude from the definition of "incurable" those diseases that go away by themselves after awhile. Thus, HPV would be incurable because it remains in the body for life and medicine has no way of getting rid of the virus once someone has it, but measles would be excluded from the list because the body provides its own cure. I think that in this way, we can set a reasonably precise criterion for inclusion in the list. Tisane (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not see any disease that has a cure in this list, though one could argue that self-limited diseases such as the Measles or influenza are not incurable, as they are (typically) self limiting. I disagree that these diseases should be removed, as, taking the measles example, a person develops severe complications such as pneumonia or "black" (hemorrhagic) measles, there is no treatment other than general supportive measures, nor is there any treatment that will hasten recovery from measles. Thus, I support the inclusion of self-limited diseases in the list, as long as they are without any known cure (time not included). For instance, I would not support including streptococcal pharyngitis in the list, as it has a cure, antibiotics. Immunize (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have added an incurable and always fatal disease, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, to the list with a reference that certifies it is incurable. Immunize (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essentially pointless, non-educative, unencyclopedic list, and, the entries will number in the many thousands, which makes it so unwieldy that it won't be useable even for navigation. Every single genetic disorder is "incurable" by modern standards, and there are more than six thousand just in one sub-type (single-gene disorders). Furthermore, there aren't any good sources that think "curability" is a good way to classify medical conditions, which suggests that this violates WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Immunize, please, I beg you, stop creating new pages until you have more experience with sourcing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify my specific sourcing errors. Immunize (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to provide any source that shows that "curability" is a useful or valid way to classify diseases. Think of it this way: You are providing sources supporting separate claims: that an apple is red, a toy wagon is red, and a car is red. What you need to produce is a source that says that color is a good way to classify/group/associate objects. You can use a source that makes a list based on curability, or a source that says someone ought to make such a list, or a source says that people generally classify diseases as "curable" and "incurable", etc. However, if no such sources exist, then Wikipedia does not want a List of red objects, because although we can demonstrate that some individual things are red, we cannot demonstrate that their redness matters enough to bother making a list. (It would still be acceptable to mention the color of the objects in the individual articles, Car, Apple, Toy wagon, just not to group or associate these unrelated objects on the basis of what the editor -- but no reliable source -- perceives as a common characteristic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that lists are required to contribute significantly to the state of human knowledge, per Wikipedia:SALAT#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. It seems to be me that a list of diseases with no known cure could serve some purposes. E.g., a student wanting to do a thesis on some disease or another that is presently lacking a cure might find our list on Google and find it helpful in narrowing the focus down to a particular disease lacking a cure. I have noticed that whenever one is reading a pamphlet about an incurable disease, it will usually mention that it's incurable. I realize that's not a reliable source, but without access to university databases, it's the best I can do for now. Expect higher-quality input on AfDs from me after I gain access to said databases. :) Tisane (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many of the arguments of Colin, Graham Colm and WhatamIdoing. Particularly, the meanings of "disease" and "incurable" are actually quite difficult to neatly define. I think the list will become cumbersome and unmanageable, and it suffers from the same problem as the List of fatal diseases article. Both seem like lists for the sake of making lists. PDCook (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of incurable disease seems well-established as in this source, for example, and commonly occurs in the context of euthanasia. That the article may not be improved in accordance with our editing policy is not established and so there is no good case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source you give shows that in an individual person, their disease may be determined to be incurable. The concept of "incurable" as a boolean attribute of a disease (in all people under all circumstances and at all times) has been shown to be useless. Colin°Talk 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colin is right, and additionally, "some patients die, so physicians should be prepared to deal with that" (what the source supports) is not the same as "we should organize our concept of diseases around whether or not they can be cured". This source (which might be useful at articles like Incurable and Dying) does not attempt to create a list of incurable diseases or to recommend that this feature be considered important in classifying diseases. Because our ability to cure disease is both technology- and culture-bound, and the medical profession avoids organizing diseases on this basis: it too frequently changes to be useful or appropriate. The medical profession, and Wikipedia, does (and should) classify diseases in other ways, e.g., by affected organ systems. These kinds of lists would be easily supportable, and in fact, we have an extensive List of cutaneous conditions as an example of a desirable and policy-compliant list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heavily subjective and ultimately unmaintanable. Binary lists of this nature are just awful. It's one to have, say "A list of UK Prime Ministers" or a "List of Olympic 100 meter champions" because inclusion on the list is truly binary -- you either are or you aren't, and no one can dispute these facts. But binary lists that require subjective interpretations (what does cure mean? What does disease mean?) degrade the overall quality of the website, lower inclusion standards, and are generally inaccurate.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Medicine is advancing so rapidly, who is going to keep this uptodate? What can't be cured today might be "curable" in a couple of years time. How do we define no cure? Where there is no known cure but the disease can be slowed down drastically or there is nothing to slow the disease down? How many incurable diseases are we going to have? One hundred, five hundred, one thousand or five thousand? Who is going to trawl through the medical literature to source all of this? I can see little benefit but lots of problems with this list. I am of the opinion that whether a disease is curable or not should be sourced and "discussed" on individual articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Do not pass go, do not collect $200 delete. Applied {{db-hoax}}. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both User:Gran Paradiso and User:Mister Salvatore are sockpuppets of a banned user. Since the article still needs to be deleted, I've removed their comments and replaced the nomination with my own. Equazcion(talk) 01:03, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Lesser of Two passes WP:BAND #5. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, those sources don't look too good. A well-crafted article, just not one that fits within Wikipedia's notability criteria. Tisane (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My withdrawal from the Embers debate applies to what I'm sure will be a fascinating and well-reasoned debate here, too, just as soon as I hit "Save Page." Lacking coverage in reliable sources, similar problems to the Embers article, if not quite so flagrant. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And first let me note that I am neither an IP nor a new user, so please, no attempts at Poisoning the well, thank you. Anyway - reasons for keep vote are mostly as for Embers, except stronger here. Maximum RocknRoll, HeartattacK, Flipside, Slug and Lettuce are all reliable sources and most general for this genre. One of the record labels <2 released their material on is very notable as one of the first independent record labels in that part of the world. And like with Embers I simply see no reason to delete.radek (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ach. Good call. Sorry about that. Deleting that reference. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I understand that these arguments can get heated.radek (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radeksz (talk·contribs), thank you for listing the sources which you believe establish notability. I have posted an analysis of all 26 sources in the article below. #1 and #3 refute the reliability which you attach to Maximumrocknroll and Flipside. Because there are no links in the article from Slug or Lettuce, I cannot analyze them. Feel free to post them here. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re your #1 - "significant coverage" refers to coverage in sourceS (plural) not significant coverage within one source. Re your #3 and general objection to the website - I think you are a little bit confused here (or I am, in which case I apologize in advance); the website is just an online link where some old print publications can be accessed. It's a link of convenience. Per guidelines a source does NOT have to be online for it to be reliable - the link is provided as courtesy, since I think at some point either you or Ginsengbomb was expressing doubt about what was actually in the source.
More generally in regard to the use of fanzines as sources - there are fanzines and there are fanzines. Most of them are not reliable sources (or even worthy of reading) by any stretch of imagination. But MRR, HA, Flipside and S&L are in a different league. MRR offers (or has, it's been awhile since I picked up a copy) the most comprehensive treatment of the genre. Flipside - I actually wouldn't call it a "fanzine" after ... 1990 or so, just "Alternative Music Magazine" (with a good bit of street cred). So yes, these PARTICULAR fanzines are RS.radek (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. Passing mentions in several reliable sources do not establish notability. In Lesser of Two's case, there are no reliable sources that discuss it. I concur that a source does not have to be online to be reliable. However, in this situation, the offline sources, if they are also fanzines, lack reliability.
Fanzines are unreliable because they lack the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable publications (such as newspapers and magazines) have. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the first point aside (what "significant coverage" refers to) except to note that no, I am not wrong, I can only reiterate that you seem to be misunderstanding the term fanzine here and have a very shake grasp of what these particular "fanzines" actually are. MRR, Flipside, etc. DO in fact have editorial oversight. For the genre that they cover they are in fact much more reliable than less specialized but "bigger" publications.radek (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that fanzines are neutral reliable sources. A look at this issue (archiveurl) of Flipside indicates that it is not neutral, and thus not reliable, and cannot be used as sources in articles. Various quotes from the reviews listed there are:
A1. "After many minutes of long intense listening and deciphering, I've come to the complex conclusion that this could have been a tolerable and two song single had the recording been done in a studio. New cover art wouldn't hurt either."
2. ". . . If you get this record, say No too, never play it or say Yes... or you might just see what I saw and hear what I did and you nneevveerr want to see or hear that, ahhhhhhhahhhhh..ha ha ha ... Beware don't buy this record... (even if it is on sale)..."
3. "When a band releases a record with a cover like this, what they are basically trying to say is 'the music sucks but buy it because then you'll have something to jack off to at night'. I don't care about it being sexist or whatever but they should have at least had the balls to show the actual, um, pussy. A spineless attempt to be shocking."
The lack of depth and context in #1 and the offensive, immature attacks in #2 and #3 on the albums reviewed indicate that this source is not acceptable for Wikipedia.
Even if Flipside reviews were assumed to reliable, their reviews about the albums of bands do not provide significant coverage about the subjects that they discuss. In the fanzines used as sources in the article, none establish notability. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, where do you see it in WP:RS that a "neutrality" of a source plays ANY role in determining whether it's reliable or not? And for crying out loud, you're basing your contention that this is a "non-neutral source" on reviews, which are by definition expressions of subjective aesthetic judgment. Does the fact that Rolling Stone have reviews in it make it not a reliable source as well? NY Times Review of Books? Some of those opinions about particular books are pretty non-neutral you know. And your description of the reviews as "immature" or "lacking depth" (what the hey does that even mean? It's a punk rock magazine!) are your own personal opinions and nothing more. Personally I'd rather read an honest, if brutal and "immature", opinion than the vapid paid-for-by-the-record-label-I-didn't-even-listen-to-it-just-copied-the--promo-the-company-sent-me reviews that appear in "mainstream" publications (even supposedly "alternative" ones - and believe me, that's what mostly happens). Flipside and MRR are two of the longest lasting, most general, most respected, and comprehensive publications in this genre. That's where you're gonna go to to establish notability. The fact that you haven't heard of them only shows that you are unfamiliar with this area and genre, with all the implications that has for the ability to comment on notability here. Likewise, I'd caution against jumping to conclusion about things like record labels and keep in mind that while this is in fact English wikipedia, we do try and present a global perspective rather than a US or Western-centric one.radek (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider reviews like #2 and #3 to be acceptable sources for an encyclopedia, we must agree to disagree.
Opinion articles can be used in Wikipedia but the blatant attacks by the reviewers in #2 and #3 cannot be cited in an encyclopedia. All three reviews lack depth and context in that they do not explain why the albums are good or bad. They tell us nothing about the albums (themes, style, etc.) save for their personal opinion. Three or four sentences of immature personal opinion does not a reliable source make. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except no one is trying to cite those reviews in the article. You are trying to push through your own opinion of these reviews as "immature" or whatever as a basis for declaring Flipside - one of the most prominent, long lasting and general punk magazines around - as unreliable with respect to the topics it covers. Again, I can only reiterate: you are mistaking your own aesthetic judgement for what the Wikipedia guidelines actually say.radek (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the reviews cannot be cited, they cannot establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding criteria 1 in WP:BAND Lesser of Two has received coverage and consistently positive reviews in Maximumrocknroll magazine, Flipside (fanzine), Slug and Lettuce (fanzine), HeartattaCk (magazine), Pasazer magazine from Poland, all of which are reliable sources with editorial control over their content. Regarding criteria 5 of WP:BAND Lesser of Two has numerous releases, independent as well as on the labels Farmhouse Records, Malarie Records (Czech Republic), Terrorismo Sonora (Mexico), Estajanovismo Records (Mexico), Pasazer (Poland), the Krzyk collective (Poland) and most notably Nikt Nic Nie Wie the first independent record label in Poland with other notable acts released. Regarding criteria 4 of WP:BAND Lesser of Two was actively playing shows, touring, and releasing albums for over a decade with numerous releases. They played numerous shows with other notable groups. Regarding criteria 7 WP:BAND Lesser Of Two is one of only 32 entries in Category:American screamo musical groups. Regarding criteria 6 WP:BAND Lesser of Two is continued as a collaboration of Kelly Nelson and Steven DeCaprio in the band Embers which includes a drummer who collaborated in bands with former members of Filth (band), and other members have gone on to form other notable groups. The notability of both groups should be considered cumulatively. Since this band was active in the 90's I am still searching for hard copies of magazines that I can scan and upload. This AfD is premature and the editing process should be allowed to move forward. Remember, deletion should be a last resort if notability is unclear and people should help find sources themselves before jumping to AfD as per WP:FAILN. Google hits is not a criteria to determine notability. This band passes notability standards for 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Also, Steven DeCaprio is a notable squatter activist as well as musician. The Embers (band) article has multiple reliable sources confirming this. I should note that many notable bands have non-notable members, and this is not a legitimate argument against. However, if notable, this could be an argument for keeping the article as per 6 WP:BAND. noodle 06:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
I encourage you to find significant coverage about Lesser of Two. Many of the points you raised above do not determine whether an article merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Your argument about WP:BAND #6 is invalid; this band does not pass it because neither Embers (band) nor Filth (band) are notable.
Wikipedia:Verifiability, which this article fails, is one of the key issues here. This band lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources, so none of the information in the article can be verified.
None of the sources listed above is from a reliable source. The sources in the article are either fanzines, calendars, personal websites, or directories, none of which can be used to establish that this band passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band has had albums released by notable Polish punk label Nikt Nic Nie Wie. Also Operation Phoenix has some reliable references. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained above why Operation Phoenix is an unreliable source. The article contains no reliable references and fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Noodlesteve (talk·contribs) has been canvassing multiple users, writing "Please help" on their talk pages. See 1, 2, 3, etc. Cunard (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, you are misrepresenting the facts. All of the individuals I contacted were already part of the editing process or AfD discussion for Embers (band) and/or Lesser of Two. You yourself said these are related discussions and encouraged others to go to both AfD discussions. (Does that mean you are stacking?) I ask that you do not take my "specific individual discussion[s]" out of context because they are in keeping with Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. Let's stick to our arguments and stop attacking people contributing to this discussion. javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,)
Hmm... what's wrong with asking for help, if he doesn't have enough reliable sources? Maybe the people, who were participating in the Embers discussion, could provide any. Black Kronstadt (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No evidence Nikt Nic Nie Wie is "one of the more important indie labels" for wp:music #5. Another case of overloading an article with refs to make the subject look notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from what I've read on NNNW website, the label is >20 years old. And since they have worked with such bands as Crass, Chumbawamba and Oi Polloi, I can't figure out how there may be "no evidence that Nikt Nic Nie Wie is one of the more important indie labels". Black Kronstadt (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could really use a little more time to collect sources, scan them, and upload them. I have been asking others for help, but it seems there is little interest in digging through hard copies of music magazines from the 90's. I understand and so it is up to me. I have recently uploaded the following sources for Lesser of Two: File:MRR.LoT.Cover.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.SceneR.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.1.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.2.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.3.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.4.jpg, File:Flipside.LoT.cover.JPG, File:Flipside.LoT.review.JPG.
Also, Cunard has made a blanket argument that all magazines covering DIY or independent punk are not reliable. Such an attitude, if allowed to prevail, would be disastrous for coverage of the genre of music being discussed.
Also, I have not driven anyone or canvassed anyone. I have only informed those already involved in these articles about the discussion. I have also mentioned it in the punk and metal portals since I am concerned people are more interested in deleting articles than they are in the genre of music being discussed. I believe having people familiar with the subject matter involved in this discussion adds more validity to it. All the users Cunard listed are people you can see have been part of the editing process or the Embers (band) AfD. Please let's not be conspiratorial or make personal attacks. Let's focus on the merits of our respective arguments. noodle 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
== Now they're out to get [[Lesser of Two]] == Hey, thank you for helping with Embers (band). Well now the AfD has spilled over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser of Two. Now, I could see a credible argument for AfD discussion of Embers, but Lesser of Two is a band with many more references and accomplishments. Please help. Thanks. noodle 03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Where does Cunard make "a blanket argument that all magazines covering DIY or independent punk are not reliable"? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
above Cunard stated, "Fanzines, the second most prevalent of the sources used here (the first is calendars), are generally not reliable sources." (italis added) I would consider that a blanket statement. Wouldn't you? javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,)
I read the link you refer to and since these are direct messages to those already involved in the discussion or the editing process Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning does not apply. These are "specific individual discussions". Also, I did post a message in the punk and metal portals to generate interest by people who are knowledgable on the subject. To violate the policy you refer to one must "sway ... through the use of tone, wording, or intent" None of that is occuring here so stop repeating these accusations and stick to you arguments. javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,)
The blue box on the side clearly shows that you are trying to sway the people you are canvassing. The words "Now they're out to get Lesser of Two" and "... Lesser of Two is a band with many more references and accomplishments" (mine emphasized), "Please help" are clearly not written in a neutral tone. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of the uploaded sources
B1. File:MRR.LoT.Cover.jpg (magnified version) – this magazine cover of Maximumrocknroll does not establish notability. I have already explained why this source is unacceptable in A1. B2. File:MRR.LoT.SceneR.jpg (magnified version) – a passing mention does not establish notability: "LESSER OF TWO lost their drummer, but are looking for a new one (or so a little birdy told me)." B3. File:MRR.LoT.1.jpg (magnified version – this interview does not establish notability. Per WP:MUSIC #1, "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising." This interview solely consists of the interview's questions and the band members' responses. B4. File:MRR.LoT.2.jpg (magnified version) – this is a continuation of the interview in B3. B5. File:MRR.LoT.3.jpg (magnified version) – see B4. B6. File:MRR.LoT.4.jpg (magnified version) – see B4. B7. File:Flipside.LoT.review.JPG (magnified version) – this is the trivial coverage that radek and I have been discussion above. It lacks depth in that it provides absolutely no valid information about the album. The album review is as follows: "This ain't no disco? DO you like Crass? FLux of Pink Indians? Are you sick of the system? Do you need your butt kicked? Then get this, it's pure minty-fresh-and-waxed, MENTAL FLOSS."
The sources here are mainly a) interviews where the band members talk about themselves or b) unreliable reviews of albums that lack context. Thank you for uploading these sources here, but none of them are of the depth and reliability required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard's analysis is misleading. The interview is a discussion with a writer for the magazine where he asks questions of the band members. It is four pages in Maximumrocknroll the most well established punk magazine in the world. Equating it to a press release is inaccurate. I recommend that everyone take a look for yourself and not rely on Cunard or my opinions on the uploaded files since both of us are not neutral on the subject. I will break things down as Cunard has in a moment, but first I must continue the research I was in the middle of on the articles before this double AfD smackdown broke out. noodle 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking at the note posted as an addendum to the relevant guideline that Cunard is quoting. The note reads, as a clarifying example relating to the guideline: "For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist." I am not -sure- that the guideline Cunard is referencing precludes the source that Noodle has uploaded. It's clearly not an "endorsement interview," either way. It's an independent interview that appears to have been requested by the magazine, and it's lengthy and seems to suggest that the magazine considers the act to be notable (they're on the cover, after all...not that that is "coverage," I'm just using it as context). That said, the language Cunard is referencing in his counter-argument does appear within the guidelines, and I can see it being interpreted in the way he is interpreting it.
I'm not quite changing my vote yet -- want to have more than five minutes to look into this and see if I can find other examples relevant to this situation -- but this is at least a significant grey area in a debate that had previously seemed relatively black-and-white to me. I promise to get back to this later when I've had more a chance to collect my thinking. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A source where the members talk about themselves for four pages is not sufficient in that the information is not from a third-party. If there were several paragraphs of information written by someone unrelated to the band, this would be a factor in establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of Sources by the Author of the Article[edit]
Slug and Lettuce- Slug and Lettuce "is published quarterly and in spring 2007, it will be twenty years old." Lesser of Two received positive reviews in Slug and Lettuce. I am trying to find hard copies during the time frame in question, but it takes time (probably longer than this AfD) so I'd appreciate a little WP:AGF on this one. I should note that it is easy to find all the aforementioned that were published during the 80's, but 90's and 00's issues are less available online.
Pasazer- Is a Polish punk zine that's released 26 issues thus far. It seems reliable and very well put together. I have found a review of this zine which states that this zine put out a compilation C.D. featuring Lesser of Two. If anyone speaks Polish and/or has a copy of issues #13-14 that would be helpful.
All other references are merely for verification of particular facts in the article and do not add to the notability argument. I also believe their was other coverage, but this is what I've found thus far. Remember I've had only two weeks to do this research, and I did have a life before wikipedia. Since Lesser of Two toured extensively in Europe and Mexico as per the MRR article their are probably other sources such as Pasazer which I merely stumbled across doing web searches.noodle 01:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
Maximumrocknroll – a four page interview in which the band members talk about themselves does not establish notability. There is no other content save for the questions and the responses. The information cannot be considered secondary coverage.
HeartattaCk – the following one sentence mention of Lesser of Two (live, War Circus CD and great fucking people) lacks substance in that it provides little analysis of the band or its album. A one sentence mention is trivial coverage.
I have refuted why Flipside is not a sufficient source due to its lack of reliability and due to the lack of depth in the coverage (two to three sentence reviews that have little substance).
Slug and Lettuce – passing mentions, if this is what the reviews consist of, do not establish notability.
Pasazer – your description of this source indicates that it is a passing mention. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of Criterea 5 of WP:BAND by the Author of this Article[edit]
Lesser of Two released records on Nikt Nic Nie Wie (Poland), Malarie Records (Czech Republic), Terrorismo Sonora (Mexico), Estajanovismo Records (Mexico), Farmhouse Records (USA), Beyond this they self released the majority of their music due to their DIY ethic (See MRR above). Although I think exceptions should be made for expressly DIY bands they still had two or more releases on major independent labels which are labels existing over a "few years" with a roster of other notable acts.
Nikt Nic Nie Wie (self titled tape with Polish translations) is the first independent label in Poland and has released numerous notable bands. That should be relatively non-controversial if one looks. The next most prolific label is
Malarie (self titled 12" vinyl) is the next most prolific label which has recently released an album by MDC (band) and has released many other notable bands including Zounds, Harum Scarum (see Cypher_in_the_Snow), and Homo Militia to name a few.([39], [40]) Since this label is still active it fulfills both criteria of 5 WP:BAND
Terrorismo Sonora I do not know if this label is prolific enough to qualify for critera 5 of WP:BAND. I will have to do more research, but criterea 5 only requires two or more.
Since we have at least four releases on important independent labels then we have met this standard of notability as well as the other aforementioned criteria due to coverage in reliable publications. javascript:insertTags('noodle 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
The external links provided above do not verify that Lesser Than Two has released albums on these record labels.
Nonetheless, there is a chance that this passes [WP:MUSIC]] #5 per your comments above. WP:MUSIC #5 states:
“
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
”
If you are able to provide verification from reliable sources that Lesser than Two has released two or more albums on one of labels you mentioned above, I will withdraw this AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Estajanovismo/Terrorismo Sonora: This was a limited edition tape co-release in support of Lesser of Two's tour in Mexico. I can't find anything online so this may require another trip to the scanner.
Remember that criteria #5 of WP:BAND does not require a "reliable" source as does criteria #1 and #4. These source are sufficient for verification under WP:SELFPUB. javascript:insertTags('noodle 19:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
Please list the two albums that this band has released on a "major label" / "more important indie label". And list the sources that correspond to those two albums. From your post above, it is unclear as to which two albums are from the "major label" / "more important indie label". Cunard (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say the links above qualify ALL the labels as "important indie" except Terrorismo Sonora (due to lack of information at this moment, it's a co-release anyway). At this point I would say NNNW, Malarie, AND Farmhouse since the links above prove they exist and are "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" as per #5 WP:BAND. The Malarie link above breaks it down pretty well. I could get a scan of the Estajanovismo, but it might take some time.
I hope we don't have to debate the meaning of the words "two", "few", and "many" in #5 WP:BAND because I think this AfD has been sufficiently exhaustive and served it's purpose.javascript:insertTags('noodle 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
Changing Vote to Weak Keep The MRR source is a significant change and requires a significant change in my thinking on this particular article. It is a four page interview conducted by a notable publication with the band, who also made their cover in the issue (as I said above, I am referencing the cover mention for -context-, not notability in and of itself). Insofar as the music notability rules are inherently (and explicitly) somewhat open to interpretation, and given that the rule at issue ("Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.") seems, to me, to be governing endorsement interviews, press releases, etc., wherein the band at issue is generating content in a wholly independent, self-starting fashion, my opinion is that the rule at issue doesn't apply to the MRR source. My interpretation of the rule is that it applies to material wholly generated by a band. While an interview in a notable source could be considered as material generated by the band, it is -not- something the band is paying for, sponsoring, or responsible for, in terms of motivating its inclusion in the notable source. This is very different from "press releases, or other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves," which I can't imagine applies to all interviews in noteworthy publications. That's an enormously broad interpretation of the rule. So, insofar as my opinion is that the MRR source is substantial, non-trivial coverage (a non-endorsement interview is inherently "coverage"), it confers notability. The MRR source, taken in conjunction with other sourcing, Lof2's apparently lengthy history and broad coverage, changes my opinion of the band's notability.
I say "weak keep" and not "keep" because the other sourcing is still questionable, although at this point I do not doubt Noodlesteve that the other sources exist. I think he has been unintentionally misleading in the past about the actual -depth- of some coverage (emphasis on unintentionally -- Noodle's clearly acting in good faith, and the misleading bits could be chalked up to differences in semantics), but he's thus far dug up much of what he's claimed is out there and has gone out of his way to put it up here for evaluation. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The MRR source cannot be considered a reliable, substantive source. A sampling of the questions/answers are: 1. "So does it relate to ideas like anarchy and communism and shit like that?" 2. "Dude, you're just fucking (unintelligible)...Fugazi. You can't do that." 3. "Along those lines, you guys have been around a long time and you're all fucking old and stuff (chuckling)..." 4. "... They have basement shows at their houses and do Food Not Boms shit, and have bands in their basement who don't go out for Fat Records or whatever." The last question in the interview is: "Any last statements?" The answers are: a) Dominik: "Yeah, I want to say hi to my rats. b) Steve: Tell them Kelly says, "Keep on truckin'." c) Kelly: No. d) Dominik: Eat vegan food and fuck shit up. That's what I got to say.
I don't see how this interview or this publication can be considered to be a reliable source. An unreliable fanzine publishing an unreliable four page interview does not establish notability.
I, too, do not doubt that other sources exist; however, if they are like the ones proffered in this debate, they cannot be used to establish notability or verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that Cunard has consistently quoted people and publications out of context. Your personal opinions about the publications are not a valid argument. As more fully stated above these sources are the most reliable in the genre. Certainly the writing will be different than The New York Times, National Geographic, or Nature Magazine but these publications do not cover the genres of DIY punk or screamo. javascript:insertTags('noodle 19:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
The above quotes show the unreliability of the publications and how they are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No they do not. You are consistently providing your own personal aesthetic judgement as an ultimate source of arbitration here. That's not how it works. Look, aesthetics and writing styles are going to vary from genre to genre. A description of some work or an interview in a Dadaist magazine is going to be different than a description in a magazine dedicated to soft-jazz. People will write differently when they're covering the Velvet Underground than when they're covering Mozart. The fact that one doesn't look like the other does not make either unreliable or non notable. By throwing out major publications like MRR and Flipside, you're basically trying to declare a whole musical/literary genre non notable. Is Cometbus non-notable also? You're definitely on a very slippery slope here.radek (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that cannot be cited in an encyclopedia cannot be considered reliable sources.
"Writing under the pen name Aaron Cometbus, Elliott has self-published his usually handwritten zine (Cometbus) ever since, despite a few breaks." Cometbus cannot be considered reliable.
I have said above that I will withdraw this AfD if those supporting retention can prove that the band passes WP:BAND #5. Please help Noodlesteve (talk·contribs) in doing this. In this case, I will even accept unreliable sources such as MRR, Flipside, and Cometbus. Cunard (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask if Cometbus was reliable, I asked if it was notable - the point being that a hand written, self published zine can be very notable, and influential (in fact that's part of the whole point behind the DIY ethic). MRR and Flipside are indeed reliable. More generally, I don't see why WP:BAND #5 should be a deal breaker here. The guideline is clear in that it says "at least one" criteria, not "all of the criteria". In fact it says: Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; ... These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. And Noodlesteve has provided evidence on several other points already.radek (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A topic being notable does not translate into it being reliable.
WP:BAND #5 is the "deal breaker" because none of the other criteria is met. There is a possibility, though, that the band passes WP:BAND #5. The other criteria are not met because passing mentions in unreliable sources, which fail Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other criteria are met because the band is covered in sources which ARE reliable, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.radek (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you here. Cometbus does in fact suck (my personal opinion), but it is also reliable (editorial control and huge readership). Why are we talking about Cometbus... noodle 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
Using capital letters does not strengthen your position. The sources provided in this discussion are mainly one-sentence mentions and three-sentence reviews; this is trivial coverage. The interview is not a sufficient source because it consists solely about the band talking about themselves. The sources here are not reliable or sufficient because of their tone and lack of depth/context (lack of discussion about themes, history of the band, history of the band, etc.). Cunard (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, Cunard, you are saying the band talked only about themselves for four pages, but there was a "Lack of discussion about themes, history of the band, history of the band, etc." How can a band talk about themselves and yet simultaneously fail to talk about themselves. Are we reading the same article or are you still reading Cometbus? If you read the article they were asked the meaning of lyrics, about their political views, about the history of the band, about DIY, anarchism, etc. I don't even know if this matters since according to WP:BAND all you need is something more than a passing reference. None of this is relevant to notability, but rather the content of the article as a citable source. javascript:insertTags('noodle 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
The interview is not a sufficient source for establishing notability because all of the content in the interview (save for the questions) was written by the band. It is not coverage written by someone unrelated to the band. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike publications about history, science, current events and so on music publications often use interviews when covering bands and musicians. The second more common type of coverage are reviews (concerts or albums). The third more common type of coverage is events listings. This is true even for mainstream publications. The first two are acceptable under WP:BAND. The third is not, but you reject all three leaving nothing else. Rarely do you have an article written by people with PHDs in rockology or whatever.
The fact that the questions were formulated by the magazine is extremely important. It forces the band to talk about topics of interest to the readers not what is convenient to the band such as a press release. Although the word count of the questions may be low compared to the responses the article is still controlled by the publication. The band is forced to respond to questions they do not control, and their responses can be fact checked and edited pursuant to an editorial process. Honestly, I don't know what Cunard would consider reliable at this point. javascript:insertTags('noodle 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
The band being "forced" to answer questions from an unreliable publication does not invalidate the fact that the responses cannot be considered secondary coverage. I would consider Billboard (magazine), USA Today, etc. to be reliable sources.
Please read the relevant guideline again. It does not require the band to have releases on "major labels" - which would be ridiculous, particularly for DYI bands. Likewise publications like USA Today or Billboard are completely inappropriate for this genre. It's basically like asking that publications devoted to cars and trucks be presented to verify the notability of jogging or dog walking. Apples and oranges. MRR and Flipside are both the relevant reliable sources here.radek (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the two albums that are from the same important label. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I responded further up in this page directly behind your comment on the list of releases above. Also, USA Today is not a music magazine, and Billboard follows record sales not any particular genre of music. Neither have any considerable coverage of the genre at issue. Do you know of a more reliable publication covering the genre of punk than MRR, or screamo than HeartattaCk? javascript:insertTags('noodle 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
[41] - there are two releases by Lesser of Two ("Swing" and "Man… Kind"). I don't know much about Farmhouse Records, but looks like they have a long history (about 15 years), and they have signed a few notable bands (including Useless ID, who are one of the most well-known punk bands in Israel, Submission Hold, and J.M.K.E.). Black Kronstadt (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing that source. That, and the record labels provided by Noodlesteve, indicate that the band passes WP:BAND #5. Nomination withdrawn. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
. That seems very reasonable. Will definitely post in the relevant Wikiproject in the future (since this has already been started). Perhaps we should start some sort of a "Manual of Style" for Wikiproject Energy? Would help, wouldnt it? Kind regards. Rehman(+) 07:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
