The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Consensus here is for deletion.. Mercury 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation. Written as an advertisement. This page was speedily deleted earlier today for copyright violation when the entire page was cut an pasted from the company's website. The following is the text (now deleted by the user) from the author's talk page, User talk:CHRISJ231:
-==Copyright problems==
- Hello. Concerning your contribution, SEAL Consulting, Inc., we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.sealconsult.com/pages/about.htm. As a copyright violation, SEAL Consulting, Inc. appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. SEAL Consulting, Inc. has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.
-
- If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
-
- :*If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:SEAL Consulting, Inc. and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- :*If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:SEAL Consulting, Inc. with a link to where we can find that note.
- :*If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:SEAL Consulting, Inc..
-
- However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Toddstreat1 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
-==Copyright Violation==
-
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to SEAL Consulting, Inc.. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Toddstreat1 16:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The current version only has press releases and the company's and its partner's website as sources.
No reliable sources found to establish notabilityToddstreat1 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was considering a G11 speedy earlier, but erred on the side of keep and tagged it with advertising and reference concerns. Considering the actions of the original contributor now, it is apparent it is only here for promotional reasons. Marasmusine 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info: author is a SPA with no other edits (other than removing warnings from his own talk), possible COI. I've asked if he/she's an employee, but no response yet.Toddstreat1 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like self-promotion. --John 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'I don't see the difference between this entry and entries for other companies. Also, please explain what "No reliable sources found to establish notability" and "Considering the actions of the original contributor now" means? To answer the question asked, yes I am a short time employee however I have been a customer for many years and this gives me a better insight and knowledge to provide a fair and balanced view.' -- CHRISJ231
'I have also started to add other edits...please give me a chance, I signed up less than a week ago !!' -- CHRISJ231
Delete. History reads like a marketing brochure. The rest of it sounds like something written by their talking head. IF there was anything significant about the company, it wasn't mentioned in the article, or the first 40 Google hits I scanned.jonathon 06:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly: a SAP® Services Partner providing System Integration, Implementation and Business Assessment Services. Words fail them, apparently, when describing what they actually do. Yet another computer related consulting firm using Wikipedia for self-promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'wording has been changed as requested above by "Ihcoyc" -- CHRISJ231 —Preceding comment was added at 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'added significant information as requested by "Pseudo daosit", i.e one of the world's largest resource pools for xMII software, an SAP product -- CHRISJ231 —Preceding comment was added at 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the references provided in the article meet that criteria of sources that appear in reliable, third-party publications. All of the /*References*/ are press releases and the /*Other sources*/ #1 & 2 are as well. /*Other sources*/#3 is a company-written article, submitted to a trade magazine - hardly independent. Articles from Business Wire are press releases. See Wp:reliable#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F and Wikipedia:Independent sources.
Comment: My apologies, this is a little new to me and I'm trying to write within the rules put forth. I have subsequently removed /*Other sources*/#3, I agree on this one. Reference 1 and old no.3 (now no.2) are press releases by a third party, SAP, who is independently awarding companies who it sees as providing best services and products, this to is the best third-party available as these guys know what is good and what is not (they are not going to award companies who do not show there product in good light). I removed number 2 on the request that it is press release (just wanted to say though that this is another third party reporting on the company); anyway it is removed.-- CHRISJ231 —Preceding comment was added at 02:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even with the changes, it violates WP:RS, WP:CORP, and WP:NPOV, core issues. Bearian 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mercury 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not a list of modernistic pieces but a list of composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “modernistic” means? Even experts conflict in there interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 23:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Torc2 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It actually is a list of pieces, arranged by composer. But the classification is vague. An article like this would perhaps be possible if an authoritative source was followed. DGG (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources, this is just original research. Nick Graves 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not changing my vote, but it's worth noting that AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures pretty much establishes the a precedent that a list being unfinished (or unfinishable) and possibly subjective isn't a sufficient reason for deletion. A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource. I still think that, even in reference to the Modernist movement, this topic is too broad to be useful, but if someone wants to argue that there's a clearly defined 'Modern' musical style and could make a list of representative pieces, I'm all ears. Torc2 09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not just perpetually incomplete, it’s also original research, and original research gets deleted on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus 20:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of this type would need to be firmly based on expert sources, and even then I'm not sure how useful it would be, as Modernism in music has a rather fuzzy, poorly agreed definition. Espresso Addict 12:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Modernism (music); article is a list of pieces grouped by composer, not a list of composers. Nevertheless, no reason that this needs to exist independently of the article that explains the significance. Mandsford 13:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pplecomplain 16:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not a list of neoclassical pieces but a list of composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “neoclassical” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Torc2 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename - Now that I think about it, "Neoclassical" does have a somewhat defined set of aesthetic and historical criteria. Experts might disagree on specific works, but I think there's enough commonality to make it useful as a topic. I'd suggest renaming it List of notable Neoclassical works. Torc2 00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it is impossible to unequivocally classify which music, even with in a single composers music, is neoclassical. It’s like trying to make a list of existential books. Is Stravinsky’sSymphony of Psalms neoclassical? Probably, but what about Les Noces or Oedipus rex or the Violin Concerto. How about Petrushka? You see any attempt at classifying these pieces, even using sources, would have to include some POV. --S.dedalus 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you're just saying the list will always be incomplete and at least partially subjective, the AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures pretty much establishes the a precedent that reason isn't sufficient for deletion. A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource. I know that when I was studying music, a list of key representative pieces for genres like this would have been enormously helpful. We just need to be diligent about establishing a clear purpose and maintaining the articles. I mean, if we're really going to argue that genres are worthless and any individual piece could be debated as to whether or not it's "really neoclassical," why do we have an article on Neoclassicism (music) at all? Torc2 09:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not just perpetually incomplete, it’s also original research and original research gets deleted on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just tag it with the ((refimprove)) or ((unreferenced)) tags and give users a chance to add sources? Torc2 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The classification is inadequately specified. An article like this would perhaps be possible if an authoritative source was followed--or if several were, criteria were firmly established, and the citations given. The way to do this properly needs to be considered more carefully. The relevant workgroup should discuss it. DGG (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, original research. A list built from authoritative sources would be fine, but this list does not fulfill that. Nick Graves 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For once I agree: this is a short unreferenced list where only some of the items are generally agreed to be neoclassical. A recreation would need to be clearly based on expert sources, and possibly explicitly state that it was a selected list of works considered major examples of the movement by experts. Espresso Addict 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I would not be opposed to a merge per Mandsford. Espresso Addict 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Neoclassicism (music) Article is a list of purportedly neoclassical pieces and is grouped by composer, needs to return to a place where it is explained Mandsford 13:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nom withdrawn, article redirected. Non-admin closure. Yngvarr(t)(c) 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kross already has an entry in Ōban Star-Racers, and this article is almost a word-for-word copy-paste of that entry. Please note that the previous AfDs appear to be unrelated. Yngvarr(t)(c) 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Yea, I didn't think of that, gonna do the bold thing... Yngvarr(t)(c) 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author. Being related to famous people (thought you haven't proven it) doesn't make you notable. Neither does having written two books, one of which is ranked 1,456,523 on Amazon.com and the other ranked 2,400,271. His publisher is a non-profit. Corvus cornix 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I certainly agree about one's relationship to famous people not conferring notability. The "non-profit literary publisher" is a very peculiar idea... I tried to research exactly what this meant, under the suspicion that it was some sort of vanity publisher. "May Davenport is a non-profit literary publisher distributing books to improve the lives of young people." As near as I can tell, what that means is, when they have a grant from a government agency/foundation (etc.) they distribute books for free to schools, group homes, etc. The books are "aimed at an audience in grades 7 through 12; many have a teacher's lesson plan available". What does all this mean? I'm not sure. What I was trying to determine is whether the choice of publications was based on some factor other than saleability and/or literary merit; I'm still not sure. But the useful research by Corvus cornix on Amazon's ranking has convinced me that these books are extremely undistinguished and non-notable and I postulate that if they had real saleability/literary merit, they'd have been accepted for publication by a for-profit publisher. Anyone with any information about the publisher or the books is invited to change what's left of my mind. Accounting4Taste 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Books held in almost no libraries (2 for one book, 5 for the other). I'm not quite sure of the publisher status. apparently first a self publisher, who branched out to what is either a vanity publisher, publishing cooperative, or very small specialty educational publisher. In any event, this particular author on the list is not a notable one. Just conceivably she is, or the company,but that's not the question here. DGG (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per accounting for taste Carter | Talk to me 07:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see anything notable about either the article or publisher.jonathon 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Accounting4Taste who has summed up the lack of notability here. Pedro : Chat 08:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Accounting4Taste. --Sc straker 13:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to be the next album from rapper Snoop Dogg. This is supposedly going to be released in 2009 but even that's not clear. Snoop says it himself when he says "I don't know when it's coming, but it's coming" and that is why it's a crystal ball. Spellcast 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No track list. No release date. May not even be released. Really need no more justification for deletion... Yngvarr(t)(c) 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When there's an official release date the article can be recreated. Torc2 00:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because i think it may become public soon and news about it can be found at Snoop's myspace. --West CoastRyda 13:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tasc0 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, could be created when official info is available. Neozoon 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, damn hoaxers. —Verrai 23:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax. Author has a history of creating hoax articles. • Gene93k 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disassemble. While in general hoax articles are sent to AFD this is pretty blatant nonsense. A DC-9 with over 800 passengers, heh. --Dhartung | Talk 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the toybox one day. Lego City isn't a real city, either. What's next, a list of Lego Railroads serving Lego City? --Elkman(Elkspeak) 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/nonsense. --Bongwarrior 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Quite the imagination, the author should expand their energy elsewhere, like uncyclopedia. Yngvarr(t)(c) 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. But oh, the Lego humanity! Accounting4Taste 23:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as passing WP:MUSIC. Bearian 01:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the 3 hour appearance on Morning Becomes Eclectic definitely satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 12. (Although the article definitely needs a rewrite to make it less like an advertisement.) Torc2 00:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Torc2. MBE is one of the most influential radio programs in music and a 3 hour appearance on it (the show is only 3 hours per day) easily qualifies this itself under WP:MUSIC. Released albums under Richard Branson's label, V2 Records, satisfies criteria 5 also. --Oakshade 04:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to speedy this for notability but the author contested it so I brought it here for a consensus. A Yahoo! search does not return much more than local websites. I believe it fails reliable sources independent of the subject as well as significant coverage.--Old Hoss 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN enough. I would have let the speedy run and I'd bet it would have been deleted. - Rjd0060 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything on-line that's more than purely local and not especially notable sources; doesn't meet WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 23:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because a search turns up nothing to support notability. But note that this wouldn't be a speedy candidate: if an article makes any assertion of notability that is not completely bogus — and this does, claiming it has spawned similar events and generated huge interest — then those claims need to be assessed via an AfD and it doesn't fall under CSD:a7. Thomjakobsen 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. WP guidelines generally say that having played in a major league in any sport equals notability, but this guy played five games in two weeks back in 1989, and that was it. I don't think he played enough as far as the spirit of the criterion goes, and the article certainly doesn't meet the other basic WP:BIO requirements. MSJapan 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Could stay because he played Major League, but could be deleted because he only played 5 games. I am actually slightly leaning toward keeping, but would not want to make the final decision on this one. - Rjd0060 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big Leaguers are notable, even if it is for a cup of coffee. Basically, if they are listed in the Baseball Encyclopedia, then they are all over the 'net and are justifiably notable for the rest of eternity.--Old Hoss 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't remember the last time we deleted an article on an MLB player. Most of them do pass the general BIO criteria; look at all the Google News hits for this guy. Zagalejo^^^ 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I saw those, vbbut they are local coverage based on his later coaching career (from the date; those are pay-to-view articles), and seem to be relatively trivial, because they're not about him per se, but rather his comments on something else related to his coaching positions, except for the first one. MSJapan 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just think that all those sources, put together, provide enough total information for a decent Wikipedia article. Zagalejo^^^ 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand... While his major league stint was short, he did make it to the majors... which is notable. I could see adding some of his stats from the minor leagues to beaf up the article, and an explaination of why he was called up to the Indians and what happened to him afterwards. Blueboar 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-made it to the Major Leagues, the highest level of American baseball. Therefore notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by WP:SNOW as a non-notable charity, subject to re-opening when it may become notable. Bearian 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be blatant advertising abount a non-notable organization. Thanks, Codelyoko193TalkContributions 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have speedy'd it, but since we are here, it is an advertisement. - Rjd0060 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone just speedy it? I put it up because it has been around since March, and no one has speedied it yet. Thanks, Codelyoko193TalkContributions 13:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 well as not being a guide to fill out your tax forms, this reference only applies to one country among the many that Wikipedia covers. I think this article could only be salvaged if it attempted to discuss the principles more generally. Accounting4Taste 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT. That was an easy one. - Rjd0060 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not even a significant part of US tax case law. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you guys looking at the same article I am? I cannot see how the delete rationale and votes above apply to it. AndyJones 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same Question Again. In what way is this article a how to? Does it give instructions telling you how to do something that I'm missing? I'm not a US tax specialist, but at a glance the article appears to me to contain some material not covered at Internal Revenue Code section 61. Besides isn't any complaint that the cases cited here are not very significant covered by Wikipedia is not paper? In any event, if an article on a technical topic is redundant with another, surely the best approach is to boldly merge, or to boldly redirect, without invoking AfD? As for the systemic bias issue, well, surely, tax laws are different from country to country, and therefore most of our tax-related articles, except the top-level ones, are jurisdiction-specific. AndyJones 07:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but move the bulk of the material itself to Internal Revenue Code section 61, to which the material closely relates. For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree with the argument that this is a "how to" in the sense that my fellow editor(s) is/are applying the critique. It's just that this material doesn't seem to warrant its own separate article in this form, especially seeing that the section 61 article probably could stand some expansion. Again, this is classic section 61 material, and logically would go in the article on section 61. By the way, one of the cases cited -- Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner -- is indeed a leading case in the area of U.S. Federal income taxation (every tax law student reads this case). Yours, Famspear 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your vote really is merge? If so, I'd support that. You sound qualified to do that, so why don't you go ahead? Then we can ask an admin for a speedy close and redirect. AndyJones 19:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it isn't appropriate to delete articles because encyclopedic information has some incidental utility to it. Usefulness isn't necessarily an unconditional basis for inclusion, but we don't delete articles because the information included happens to be useful. Well outside the spirit of WP:NOT#GUIDE. — xDanielxT/C 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Unencyclopedic article. Keb25 08:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Internal Revenue Code section 61 - I don't understand how this article is describe as a guide to filling out your taxes. The nominating justification is not accurate. It describes the compensation requirements for the income tax in the United States. The size is sufficient and the material is sourced. I don't see how deleting the material would be of any value, but keeping it may prove useful. Many of the tax articles are for a particular country, except for the top level ones - The U.S. has its own template. Morphh(talk)10:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. If this was a "how-to" guide, I'd want my money back. The article covers a facet of income tax law that's sufficiently important to exercise judges and expensive lawyers, but really wouldn't help you fill in your tax return. Merge per above suggestions, as it probably doesn't warrent its own article. J.Winklethorpetalk 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the merge banner and see how everyone feels about it.EECavazos 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was Merged, I went ahead and redirected it. Please close the AFD. Morphh(talk)12:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cool HandLuke 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up for a speedy as spam/advertisement, but the author disputed and it seems to be in good faith. Now I am bringing it here for notability. A Yahoo! search did not bring up relevant info, and, to me, it appears to be non-notable software, at least at the moment.--Old Hoss 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for occupying the first line: I think most of the arguments below are outdated now. Fasterplan is notable - please refer to Lifehacker Report on Fasterplan. --Stoneweg 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good first step, but one blog post on its own doesn't constitute sufficient notability. Here are the criteria that apply. Dreamyshade 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems NN (and no external links to support notability). - Rjd0060 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the website. I read the article. I Googled it. The only thing I could glean is that it is for a group to use for creating something online. (If the article provided the USP, and pointed to some sources, I might reconsider the matter. IOW, a major rewrite is required to change my mind.) jonathon 23:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that the website is not notable for the moment, but: I also cannot find any rule in wikipedia - at least not in Deletion_policy - that says that an article has to deal with something notable. From my point of view, as long as the article is neutral, the user himself should decide if something is relevant to him or not. And, there is enough space in an online encyclopedia in order to mention also less notable things. However, I do understand the argument and if this is one of the requirements of articles to be published in Wikipedia than I understand that I have to wait writing about it until it is notable. One last question to jonathon: what does USP mean? - stoneweg —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USP is a marketing term. Unique Selling Point. In this context, "Why does the company exist?"jonathon 09:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The company exists in order to make money and in order to help people organize their spare time meetings, in other words: bring them together. Honestly, I do not believe that there is a good marketing concept behind the site. It is not collecting user specific information like facebook. The only way to earn something would be to advertise. --Stoneweg 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The web service seems like a good idea, but Wikipedia can't be used as a vehicle for marketing purposes. Once the product takes off, and an independent source has accepted it, only then could it be a legitimate encyclopedic entry. As for now, it would be considered Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles.--Old Hoss 18:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Universal serial port, I believe.--Old Hoss 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)D'Oh!--Old Hoss 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an important guideline about notability here: Wikipedia:Notability. There is space in an online encyclopedia for a broader range of subjects than a paper encyclopedia includes - learn more about that - but there has to be a limit somewhere. :) (I vote delete by the way, on the grounds of lack of notability.) Dreamyshade 02:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am convinced. Go for deletion and once there are some sources available of independent people writing about the project I will make a second try. Thank you for sensitizing me to what is worth an article and what not. stoneweg —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stoneweg, it helps to describe what and why the subject of the article is significant. jonathon 09:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pplecomplain 17:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly non-notable professor, page was deleted before. Was tagged for A7, but User:Corvus cornix and I think that this person may be borderline notable (see discussion on my talk page). There may be some foreign language sources out there for this person, but I'm not certain -- this seems to be just shy of an A7 in my book. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Smacks of spam and self-promotion. android79 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't think its speedy, but do think it is a NN self promo. - Rjd0060 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Certainly not a speedy, for it asserts notability. any assertion is enough to defeat speedy. His university [1] is genuine ,and I think deserves its WP article. He may be notable in his profession. but I do not know the applicable standards. He seems to have no conventional publications that I can find. DGG (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may or may not be the case. Note that the IP who signed below as "Scarter" is probably the same as Scarter1, who started the Yo San University article. android79 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not a speedy. University is genuine. Credentials are genuine. Numerous Chinese and Korean articles accessible. Scarter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.48.171 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 given the lack of strong opinions and belief in, but not evidence of, sourcing. If this comes back in a few months still without sources that fact will be prejudicial. GRBerry 15:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name is a misnomer, this is just a centre for the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, one Buddhist group of many, and a particularly controversial one. I don't believe we can have an article for every dharma centre in the world. The article seems promotional in tone, has no independent references and contains detail that makes me think it was written by the FWBO themselves. All the associated businesses in the area (mentioned in the article) are also owned by the same group. Secretlondon 11:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but we need real sources here. I believe that this is the main cent[er][re] of the FWBO, and that makes it one of the more prominent Western Buddhist centers in the world. I would like to see some reliable sources, but don't have access to the usual reference at the moment. I certainly agree that most centers are not notable enough for an article, but I think that this one is a rare exception. bikeable(talk) 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I've tagged the page for additional sources. Subject seems notable, just needs more to verify it. If this comes back in a couple months, with no additional sources, I would say delete it. - Rjd0060 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't seem particularly notable. Their website claims that it is "one of the largest urban Buddhist Centres in the West", but it's not clear exactly what that means and I can find no reliable 3rd-party verification of the claim (which seems odd if the claim is true). Cosmo0 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (NN). - Rjd0060 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Songs or albums by deleted artists can be speedily deleted using ((db-reason)). apparently ((db-reason|Unnecessary song/album page of a deleted artist)) always works. tomasz. 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, why does this page even exist? It is an OBVIOUS target for vandalism, hatred, and dishonest edits, and does nothing but hold a list of ammunition for hate speech. Jmlk17 22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely agreed. This page serves no purpose on Wikipedia except to be vandalized and used as an outlet for hate speech and stereotypes. GlassCobra (Review) 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and delete George Bush and vagina instead, which have long been traditional targets for massive and persistent vandalism for good. On a serious note, wikipedia spends enormous amount of articles about hate speech and stereotypes. To ignore them is being like ostrich withe head in sand. As long as hate speech exists the best way to combat it is to understand it. The page is watched by people who don't allow vandalism here. `'Míkka 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the reasons above (all pages are targets of vandalism), this is a pointless, and unencyclopedic list. - Rjd0060 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this page looks maintained and collects quite useful information, at least for non-native English speakers. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is absolutely no justification for avoiding the topic of hate speech simply because it may attract vandalism. All articles on controversial topics attract vandalism. And deleting simply out of the fear of giving offense would be its own form of POV by proxy. Dybryd 22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is the topic being avoided? Have you seen Hate speech? IMO, I don't think people are going to come to Wikipedia (which is still an encyclopedia at my last check) seeking a list of ethnic slurs. - Rjd0060 22:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be ironic here. You are entitled to what you think, but I hope after this vote is closed you will understand that it is very difficult to think correctly about what the rest of billions of people want. `'Míkka 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think such an article could be very useful for researchers looking for the cultural and historical context of various slurs. Dybryd 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if these are considered "hate speech" why not merge to Hate speech? - Rjd0060 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that they are all "hate speech" -- that phrase is a modern one, often with specific legal definitions which the listed slurs may or may not qualify for. And simply in practical terms, merging a long list into another long article makes the information harder to find and navigate -- related subtopics are split into different articles for a reason.
A personal note -- just from scanning the article, I was very interested to learn that "gook" was derived from the Korean language by American GIs and then transferred to the Vietnamese in America's next Asian war. This sort of specific information would be much harder to find in a non-list format.
Aren't these sufficient? - Rjd0060 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of them are different. I created them during the cleaning of the original List of ethnic slurs, which was a true pile of garbage at these times. Now they are maintained, duly referenced lists. `'Míkka 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the...? What was your justification for creating so many separate similar lists? If I was looking for information I would have no clue from those titles what the difference between them was.
If you don't know the difference between regional nickname and religious insult, a good way to start looking for what you want is to read both of them. The majority of the terms have their own articles, so if you are looking for a "hillbilly", you will find it regardless these lists. `'Míkka 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without further explanation of how these serve different purposes in a way that can be made clear to readers in their titles, I would certainly support a merge of these. (Note: On closer examination, it's really only the first two that seem to overlap the one nominated here).
"Without further explanation of how these serve": you must be kidding. Did you read these articles? If yes, please explain what exaclthy wwas unclear for you in descriptions of their purposes? `'Míkka 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate encyclopedic list although it could use some better references. Meets the criteria in WP:LIST for structured lists providing information through the virtue of organization. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mikkalai. --Irpen 23:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like it either but it satisfies WP:LIST. If it is repeatedly vandalized, then request for protection. If established editors fix it dishonestly, you can revert it back (with discussion in the talk page).--Lenticel(talk) 01:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Informative, well-sourced list. The fact that an article is a likely target for vandalism is not a valid criterion for deletion. If it were, we could never have articles on abortion, atheism, gun control, Muhammad, H.R. Clinton or anything else that is controversial or about which people have strong opinions. Whether terms in the article could be used as ammunition for hate speech is irrelevant to whether it should be kept. Wikipedia is not a parent or a babysitter. Nick Graves 04:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with the nominator's reasons, but this should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary where properly referenced, then deleted in line with WP:NOT#DICDEF.--Michig 08:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what would a dicdef for "Gook" look like? It would be two words: "Asian, pejor." There's a great deal more to be said. Look at High yellow (which should perhaps be added to this list) for a good beginning at the kind of article that could usefully be built off all the entries in such a list. Dybryd 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A dictionary that gave that definition would be a pretty poor one. Take a look at the definition in Wiktionary - much better than the one in this article. Wiktionary is where these definitions should be - trouble is, a lot of Wikipedia editors don't seem interested in editing it and would rather keep word definitions here, despite clear guidance against them.--Michig 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nick Graves. Knowitall 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the subject being listed nor the majority of the contents are notable enough to have their own (non-list) article and I don't see that listing them serves any purpose. The same goes for List of ethnic slurs and several other related pages. Cosmo0 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much hate--Angel David 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow, there are just so many points for me! Let's see... WP:NOT#CENSORED then that's a week reason, then we've been through this just last week! Um, now the page can be protected, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, also per Nick Graves. It's a well writen article, and some people hate things *cough*nominator*cough* just because they don't agree with then. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC←10-13-2007 • 22:48:04
Keep - the "vandalism target" argument has no merit. Wikipedia itself is an easy target for vandalism. Deleting Wikipedia because of this would result in no Wikipedia. The only articles that aren't easy targets are protected pages. The article on the current president of the United States is a major target for vandalism. We're not about to delete that article based on its vandalism traffic nor its potential vandalism traffic. All articles deserve however much vandalism protection they need. Period. If we delete pages because of vandalism, then all vandals have to do get pages deleted is to keep vandalizing them. We can't empower them by giving in. We don't give in to vandalism. We repair it, and block the vandals. The Transhumanist 08:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we've been through this AfD before, no change warranted. Bearian 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just deleted the N word from Time management minutes ago. Vandalism is everywhere, and I for one am working to rid WP of it. Bearian 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected to List of Castlevania characters. Information from this article can be added to that one as appropriate. CitiCat ♫ 21:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is just plot regurgitation of a minor character from the video game series Castlevania. As there are already articles chronicaling the stories of Castlevania, this is totally duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: With Castlevania and then delete it. This isn't notable outside the scope of the game, obviously. - Rjd0060 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources suggests that this fictional character is not notable. I feel the proposal to merge muddies the water, as the content of this article is plot summary, and is not worthy of merger. --Gavin Collins 08:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character. Keb25 09:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Castlevania. One of the most important characters in the series. I don't see why it should be deleted rather than merged. Merge then delete. Nightmare77 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, neologism and self-reference. Non-notable, made up one day, etc. —Verrai 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can find nothing to suggest this term is actually being used, reference quoted does not use the term Davewild 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guy invents the term here and says "that’s my word feel free to use it." No thanks! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Keeper | 76 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism at best. The linked Wired story doesn't even use the term in question. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a neologism. - Rjd0060 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I think we can safely go about two events out (e.g. next is UFC 77, so we could do pages for UFC 78 and UFC 79). Anything beyond that has ZERO confirmed matches, no confirmed dates, etc. Tuckdogg 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (crystall) and obvious, important precedent. - Rjd0060 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... and I knew this would happen... with UFC 79 before there was any information people were like "it's not that far from now"... we need to be careful with this stuff and not let it get out of hand. Thesaddestday 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil☎ 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The correct name of this genre is Hellektro. It's existent, but there is no evidence for it. --Breathtaker 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the proper name, no authors have yet provided any non-original research that proves the existence of this term.Sovex 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, after the deletion, the music groups in the article cannot be categorized into another article. They're neither EBM nor Darkelectro and they're no Industrial music groups. --Breathtaker 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (OR & Music notability). - Rjd0060 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain why this article doesn't fit under notability guidelines? There's a list of artists that fall under this categroy of music. The list is fairly long. That seems notable to me. I think the only problem is the original research requirement - and that can just be solved by finding some citations. Ryan Brady 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem. No one has submitted anything that indicates this term is widely used (or used at all, really). Categorization means little if the genre doesn't really exist. I could write an article and call it "Spoon Rock", and create a list of artists for it. However, unless I show proof that "Spoon Rock" exists, then a list is ALL it is.
The main issue is that I and many others have commented that outside of this article, we have never heard this term. Despite that, it seems there is a contingent who keeps trying to perpetuate the term, without providing examples or citations of its usage.
Every artist on the list has a style that is not exclusive to what this term classifies. There are many other labels they can be given, many of which actually have cited examples of notability. Sovex 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other genre term for this kind of music, excerpt "Hellektro". --Breathtaker 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to make a "Hellektro" page, if you are concerned about classification. Just be sure to cite references. Sovex 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST, which is the policy that really applies, or rename per Sovex. Bearian 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Gone, and good riddance to it. Cruftbane 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a biography of David Cash, Jr. It is a tabloid story about his involvement and testimony as witness to a crime, and his subsequent outing by a fellow-student.
It is a coatrack article, and violates the prohibition on biographies of people notable (or notorious) only for a single incident. Cruftbane 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --bainer (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried prod tagging, and was reverted without comment. I tried db tagging, and was reverted. Here is a very short page on what Americans call a pre-school, utterly non-notable. As I have stated elsewhere, there are on the order of 1,000,000 elementary schools in the world. Sorry to clog up AfD with this one also. SolidPlaid 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nope. Not notable. isaid 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It certainly appears non notable. For my part, clog up AfD with this type anytime. --Stormbay 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a toddler can see it's non-notable--Victor falk 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little on the fence with this one. I had just a few minutes before voiced (well "typed") to the nominator that I didn't believe very many preschools would make notability guidelines, but this one does seem to have some previously unasserted claim to significance in that it is evidently, at least, an unusually good preschool. :) So says the BBC (reference has been added in article). (There is also an article mentioning its Outstanding status in one year over here, but its inclusion in the article would seem redundant.) A couple of references suggesting that the school is among the very best is not a strong case for notability, but perhaps it is enough per WP:CORP to indicate that the school is "worthy of being noted". It would be nice if there were more, but it is a small company, and we're to be careful to avoid "bias favoring larger organizations". I haven't decided yet whether I think this is sufficient, but I thought that it would be best to mention it in case it matters to anyone else. Plus, your debate might help me make up my own mind. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The school has been recognized as "best of the best" on three separate occasions in Ofsted reports, a rather strong claim of notability. Even an infant should recognize that this is a claim that distinguishes this school from the other 999,962 elementary schools. In addition to an apparent failure to read the article before the stampeded to AfD, the nominator has also failed to follow Wikipedia:deletion policy, which requires nominators to make efforts to edit and improve the article before nomination. Clogging up AfD is bad enough, but further abuse of official Wikipedia policy should not be tolerated. Alansohn 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not abusing official Wikipedia policy; I overlooked the claim. In any case, does one source making a "best of" claim make a preschool notable? SolidPlaid 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My aplogies: the claim of notability was not added until after your AfD, though this would have been found as part of the search required by Wikipedia:deletion policy. The claim is not one claim, it's three. The school has been recognized by Ofsted on three separate occasions as on of the best in the nation, making it one of 32 schools nationwide to be so honored on three occasions. That would seem to be rather strong claim of notability. Alansohn 21:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to confirm that everyone who weighed in before my first comment would not have seen that claim. :) The article might well have been deleted through WP:CSD if it had not previously been a contested WP:PROD and if the administrator reviewing the CSD were not aware that the deletion of schools is often controversial. There really seemed to be nothing to mark it as outstanding for the first year and (nearly) a half of the article's existence. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm changing my opinion in this case, as the school appears to have been inspected by a British government agency and found to be an excellent one. But I wonder if a preschool is notable even so. SolidPlaid 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Alansohn's comment above. Being one of the "best" schools makes this one notable. - Rjd0060 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, I withdraw this nomination. SolidPlaid 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A school at this level needs more that a standard report to make it notable. Yes, it had three excellent reports, but why is it notable? What about the programs made it so exceptional? Vegaswikian 23:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted (CSD G1). Nihiltres(t.l) 21:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While sources are provided, the article makes no claims of notability and is largely a bad joke. Alansohn 20:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, attack page. SolidPlaid 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Not an attack page. A (bad) vanity bio. The award he "won" is, apparently, handed out to dozens of students in the New Jersey and surrounding areas. No notability. Do we do deletes for stupidity?--Sethacus 20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not need to be brought to AfD, it can just be speedied as nonsense. Speedy Delete and close. Eusebeus 20:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pplecomplain 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried prod tagging, and was reverted. I tried simply redirecting, and was reverted. Here is a very short page on what Americans call a pre-school, utterly non-notable. As I have stated elsewhere, there are on the order of 1,000,000 elementary schools in the world. Sorry to clog up AfD with this. SolidPlaid 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; it doesn't appear there's much in the way of outside references to this school, and the article does nothing to assert importance. Hopefully Kappa (talk·contribs) drops by to explain reasoning behind the deprod, 'cause there wasn't one apparent in the history. Tony Fox(arf!) 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged some other infant schools with a speedy delete request, I hope that works so I don't have to nominate any more here. SolidPlaid 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would normally only defend secondary schools and higher as they are likely to be more notable, or at least have a notable history. In my opinion, primary/elemenary schools (such as this one) simply don't have a place on Wikipedia, unless exceptional circumstances exist and are quoted/sourced appropriately. Bungle(talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It certainly appears non notable. It should be a speedy but if this process is necessary; so be it. --Stormbay 20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; NN. Time to start getting rid of the hundreds of non-notable elementary/primary schools that have been added to Wikipedia. Masaruemoto 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. So sad this has to be here instead of speedy....Keeper | 76 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the reason this is needed instead of speedy is that otherwise we might have deleted the previous entry if the notability had not been pointed out in the AfD. There is no justification in WP policy for using speedy on schools except if the article is a copyvio. What one can do, however, without AfD, is merge to the town or school board. DGG (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pplecomplain 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN. Although, COI isn't really a reason to delete a page. Articles with COI should be rewritten (if possible) as they typically fail to meet a neutral point of view. But since this person is not notable anyways, the evident COI just helps to delete it. - Rjd0060 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably should've been a speedy. -Jmh123 18:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it asserts notability (obviously the claim has been proven to be false, but the policy clearly says "being a hoax" is not a CSD candidate). ugen64 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:BIO (Has not played in a fully professional league), but is it a hoax too? пﮟოьεԻ57 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to their website, the manager of Beccles Town since 2004 has been one Paul Mobbs, so that bit certainly isn't true. Overall, a catastrophic failure to meet WP:BIO. DeleteChrisTheDude 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. GiantSnowman 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedied. G12. But this is probably non notable as well. -- lucasbfrtalk 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable term, I think. Neutralitytalk 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio from [16] - going to mark the other 3 by the same editor. Notice their name and the copyvio source. Thanks. --EarthPerson 19:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted (though not by me), copyvio, spam. —Verrai 19:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio & spam from [17]. Notice the URL and the editor name. --EarthPerson 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It did exist, but apparently most of it hasn't survived to the present day...notable? Neutralitytalk 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "hasn't survived" part seems to be due to the events of the Reformation rather than its obscurity: this page explains its role as the main centre in Dumbarton for medical care back in the 15th century and gives some history, this timeline puts it in the context of the history of the Knights Templar and this forum post suggests there's an extensive collection of documents covering around two centuries of the church's existence, suggesting that enough source material exists to write a good article. Thomjakobsen 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but clean up. STORMTRACKER94 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added thomjakobsen's sources and started some cleanup--Victor falk 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by clear consensus as notable and sourced enough. Bearian 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability problems; This term seems to be the creation of one political science professor. Neutralitytalk 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are some sites mentioning the Wyoming Rule. Per WP:RS#Self-published_sources, blogs "may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications..." Daily Kos, for instance, is a rather famous blog.
As per above, seems to have a reasonable enough level of popularity amongst reformers to qualify for inclusion. Keep. —Verrai 19:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much as I love pie-in-the-sky political reform wonkery, this just isn't notable. No results in Google Books, Google News Archive, or Google Scholar. The Google search wyoming.rule+apportionment yields a grand total of 26 hits, all blogs or other media of dubious permanence and reliability. At best this is a merge to United States congressional apportionment. It's just one proposal and there is zero indication Congress will take up the issue anytime soon. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the information reasonably belongs in Wikipedia; while it could be in United States congressional apportionment, I'd give the original editor and others more than a few hours to either show that it should remain as a separate article or to merge it. A separate article can be used to collect and refine specific information for later merge, and this does no harm. Abd 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Kos blog thread, if actually read, indicates the idea has been previously discussed--perhaps the article should be renamed no longer online, havent looked for it yet.DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Race and intelligence (Comparison of explanations)[edit]
I think the information is a POV fork and it is somehow a list. If it is not synthesis then why cant it be included in the main article Race and intelligence. Besides, the main article already has POV so lets delete and merge the relevant info into the main article. Brusegadi 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that it is a POV fork and original research. futurebird 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an obvious pov-fork. Delete and merge as per nom--Caililtalk 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that the creator of the page has voted to delete. See Futurebird (first voter.) Brusegadi 06:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as unreferenced possible hoax, or more charitably, some kind of mistake. Cool HandLuke 17:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax or crystal ball. Does not appear on IMDB or Patricia Manterola's website. Pasión de Amor is an alternate name in some countries for Pasión de Gavilanes (a real telenovela from 2003). Page author has already had a speedy deletion of another page with the comment "Can you provide a source proving this is a real show?" Ttwaring 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete as hoax. This user is not at first one Elmao 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it is hoax, delete because it is a hoax. If it is not a hoax, delete because it is a crystal-ball article. - Rjd0060 22:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was cliché delete. @pplecomplain 17:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a list of clichés, but a list of clichés lists (and a poor compilation at that). With only three dynamically linked entries and five external links, the article seems more of a way to provide external links than a way to present encyclopedia content. In addition to being unreferenced, the topic does not meet Wikipedia:Lists and is merely a content fork best covered by the Cliché article. -- Jreferee t/c 18:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Not surprisingly, all of the redlinked lists are redlinks because they have been deleted. Out of eleven lists, only one of them (List of sports clichés) actually links to a list of clichés, so this has no use. Masaruemoto 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "per nom", to use a wikipedia cliché.--Victor falk 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no longer serves significant navigation purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ASAP nuff said, we need a REAL LIST OF CLICHÉS (like "everything happens for a reason", "what goes around, comes around", etcetera). this is iaN | talkBACK 3:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Indiscriminate, unmaintainable list. Blueboy96 03:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial and frivilous, really. • Lawrence Cohen 06:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see how this meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. Did not release albums on well-known labels, etc. Punkmorten 17:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clever name for a band, though. (Spell it backwards.)--Sethacus 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed a clever and silly name, but clever and silly != notable. Punkmorten is right, fails WP:MUSIC. Gotta go. Sorry, guys. --63.64.30.2 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very clever. NN. - Rjd0060 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Arguably counts under WP:MUSIC #6 given James Zahn connection. If not kept, re-direct and merge to Zahn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.181.80 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 15:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable hockey player, playing in a junior league. The article lacks sources and states that the player may be drafted in 2010. I propose we wait till that time to see if he's worthy of notice. Myanw 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MikeVitale 18:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the face of it, doesn't assert notability and can't meet WP:BIO/WP:Notable in any event. Accounting4Taste 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 05:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show this meets WP:BIO. No sources offered in article to show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One possibly notable role in a notable kid's show, but that seems it. It's also a COI.Keep This is what should've been in the article to begin with.-- Sethacus 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Charge of WP:COI by Sethacus.Keep (vote changed in light of current article). Monthneedbe 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this AfD nomination Template:AfD was incomplete. Info listed now. Vintagegear 20:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: While the article is much improved, a number of the roles listed are so small they aren't even in IMDb, and no evidence of meeting WP:BIO has been offered. Specifically, the guidelines for entertainers say:
With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. --Fabrictramp 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this AfD nomination Template:AfD info is now complete.
IMDB does list the shows and the roles are either featured characters or lead/starring roles in movies or and animation movies or series... eg: "Sins of the Father" historical film about the Birmingham Bombing, Aaryn Doyle plays Carole Robertson one of the young girls, who was blown up in the Birmingham church in the 60's about whom the story revolves [IMDB], Miss spider - Pansy (lead role in series) , [IMDB], The Save-Ums! - Foo (lead role in series) [IMDB],
Other productions include Starring role of Skylar in CBC National Radio Drama.
Actor's work is also Google-able. Found some interesting links associated to support actor's body of work.
--Wordcarpenter 09:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played at professional level.Jonesy702 18:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one must go very soon, because we cannot have players who havn't played professional football on wikipedia, I'm very suprised that the maker of this article hasn't deleted this already, as he is well aware what meets the standards of wikipedia. Stew jones 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While at Reading he was a professional player, albeit on a non-contract basis. He has also played for Limerick FC while on loan from Reading, he was being paid to play at the time. He is now playing for Wexford Youths FC in the Eircom League the national league of Ireland. The majority of the clubs are semi-professional and have individual pages for their players. I see no reason why this page should be deleted. --Patricksinnotts 11:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he did not actually play at Reading. Punkmorten 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kep - plays in a professional league. GiantSnowman 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did he make a first team appearence in the League for Bray Wanderers? If so, he meets the criteria as having played in the top level in Ireland. If not, delete. пﮟოьεԻ57 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ugen's evidence below. пﮟოьεԻ57 08:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has made first-team appearances in a professional league (for Bray Wanderers - see [18] for instance). ugen64 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per Ugens64. Meets WP:BIO by having played in a fully professional league in Ireland. --Malcolmxl5 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays for a professional team in a professional league. robwingfield«T•C» 16:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played at professional level. Jonesy702 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one must go very soon, because we cannot have players who havn't played professional football on wikipedia, I'm very suprised that the maker of this article hasn't deleted this already, as he is well aware what meets the standards of wikipedia. Stew jones 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The player has made two appearances for Reading, a Premier League team, in the FA Cup, the world's most prestigious domestic cup competition. I think that's notable enough, don't you? - PeeJay 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that this guy is a professional, and played in the FA Cup whilst with a Premiership side. Of course I understand that amateurs play in the FA Cup too, and so that's not enough to make them notable, but they usually make their appearances in the first round, and earlier. Anyway, I know you agree with me, so we'll have to save this discussion for another time. - PeeJay 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep playing competitive football for a premiership team should be enough; it's an over-literal interpretation of the rules if it doesn't. ArtVandelay13 10:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An FA Cup appearance in the 3rd Round for a Premiership or Championship team makes him notable in my opinion. Players have been kept in the past for making a single appearances in League Two, surely playing in the FA Cup for a Premiership team is more notable? Dave101→talk 10:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the consensus is that if you play in any first-team competition with a professional team, you satisfy WP:BIO. So playing in the FA Cup (a first-team competition) with Reading (a professional team) clearly satisfies that. ugen64 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is borderline, I think. As there are no guidelines for cup competitions only, one has to make a judgement call on notability. On the one hand, he has never played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO, on the other he has played for a Premiership team in the FA Cup. There again, the grand total of his appearances amount to 14 24 mins as he appeared as substitute in the 107 min. (in extra time) in one game and the 89 min. in the other. I feel the fact that he has played for a Premiership first team to be an argument with some weight to it but the amount of playing time does not suggest any long term notability in my view hence my weak delete. I am of course happy to go with the consensus here, which seems to me in any case to be leaning towards keep. --Malcolmxl5 23:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those appearances total 14 minutes, surely....? ChrisTheDude 07:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Back to school, I go. ;-) --Malcolmxl5 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FA Cup appearances for a Premier League side make him notable enough. Simon KHFC 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that playing for a Premier League team in the FA is sufficient grounds for notability. Robotforaday 00:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is short, pointless, and the person is not notable. It also seems a little biased against Jews, depicting the man's (racist) beliefs in a vivid manner rather than stating his anti-Jewish thought. The main reason is that he's just not noticable. IronCrow 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Keep, but rewrite to conform with NPOV. Google shows this person as at least appearing (to me) to satisfy notability concerns. I concur with nom that this article is a bit heavy on what seems to be subject's own teachings, but that can be fixed. --MikeVitale 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not every kook committing crimes in the name of religion is notable. But this guy apparently made some waves, given that the ADL has several articles on him and his sentencing made the AP wire. I think this is borderline. Cap'n Walker 19:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Good sourcing, not great. He also has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Modern American Extremists and Extremist Groups.--Sethacus 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted by Sam Blacketer(Criteria A3: solely consists of a note that the article is under construction.). Non-admin closure. shoy 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear about the level of footie clubs which are notable. Apparently a club in Seattle, Washington, USA, I only got 20 G-hits on it. They seem to be in Division 3B. I'd trust others opinions on this because I have no informed opinion. Pigman 16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr(t)(c) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also pointing out that the number of edits to each article is irrelevant to the merits of the articles. David Fuchs (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of independent notability. Game guide-y. shoy 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We already have an article for Instance Dungeon, an article is not needed for every game that features one. Deathawk 18:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete game guide fancruft. Ridernyc 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion, from those who work on this topic area and precedence on other "list of X pieces" article is persuasive. Neil☎ 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it NOT what it says -- seems to be a list of composers instead of pieces -- but it's such a broad and hard to define topic. If it's turned into composers, who would be added? Would Bernstein? Debussy? Liszt? It seems as if the old AFD was unheeded. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's just no (almost) no pieces have been added yet. I tagged it ((expand)). Do that, and it will follow the pattern of other in the "musical pieces by style" series--Victor falk 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet? Have you seen how old it is? Sure, there are the others, but this is akin to making a list of pieces in A Major or something. It's just way too broad or without any true test of yes or not (unlike, say, violin and orchestra pieces) to really make a list out of. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I work on several article like this one. I can guarantee that this will grow out of control, Way to broad a subject, and it's a subject that is open to interpretation. Ridernyc 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Anywhere else on Wikipedia this kind of nonsense would have deleted months ago for having no salvageable content. This is also obvious OR. --S.dedalus 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The concept is I think capable of suitable definition & the article is therefore worth improving. DGG (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not sure people understand the true impossibility of this article. There are literally MILLIONS of compositions that could be called atonal. Even if half of those are non notable, that’s still far too broad for a Wikipedia article. Also, who is to judge what is atonal? Atonal just means there is no perceptible key center, and that is entirely open to interpretation by the listener. Who is to say this piece is atonal and this is not? Furthermore it would be virtually impossible to find reliable sources stating that ANY of these pieces (or indeed any composition in existence) is or is not “atonal.” The article is and can never be more than original research plane and simple. --S.dedalus 06:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send it to its atonal reward by a Merge into atonality. While S.dedalus is technically correct, I think the idea here is concerning classical compositions where atonality is intended, which, as he or she notes, is something that is usually open to interpretation. As with sarcasm, very few composers come right out and say "By the way, this is intended to be atonal". Mandsford 14:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Four of the other “pieces” articles have already been deleted (impressionistic pieces, modernistic pieces, neoclassical pieces,and nationalistic pieces) and four others have achieved a “delete” consensus but have not yet been closed. That sets a strong president for the deletion of this page. Also, this would be far better as a category. There is no need to keep an original research list like this one. --S.dedalus 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — since there are some redirect and merger concerns, I'll redirect it to List of Warcraft locations to preserve the history per a suggestion. --Haemo 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr(t)(c) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of independent notability. Game guide-y. shoy 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is not notable independently from the World of Warcraft series, but that's only logical since it is a sub-article for the World of Warcraft article. Would you want to delete the article chess strategy since it is not notable independently from chess? And it's not a game guide, it's a game guide when it says "the best strategy to defeat boss X is (...)" or "if you're stuck at one point, you can continue by using (...)". This is merely information about the game. Melsaran (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my response here. shoy 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As it is a list of only the major cities, I can see it staying as a minor list aritcle (such as List of Star Wars systems).
Delete yes, game cruft. --S.dedalus 00:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That you think that it's cruft doesn't mean that that's a valid argument for deletion. I consider articles on science "sciencecruft" since I am not interested in science, but I don't nominate those for deletion those either. Melsaran (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Applying the generic notability test to these kinds of forks doesn't make a lot of sense. We could stuff this into World of Warcraft so that it would pass the letter of WP:N, but that would be rather silly. Content forks like these are appropriate, especially for games with 9+ million players. — xDanielxT/C 07:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rather new WP:FICT developments are tentative at best. If you follow the discussions there, you'll notice that serious concerns have been raised repeatedly regarding these recent changes, though responsiveness is understandably slow. The new developments of that guideline are arguably at odds with other guidelines, and have been rather blatantly overruled in numerous AfDs (including several for Harry Potter forks) based on wider consensus. Bottom line is take guidelines with a grain of salt, especially the less developed ones. — xDanielxT/C 00:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure I agree with you about selectively ignoring guidelines. Should I ignore any I don't like? We can't go arguing AfDs on what we think the rules should be or might be in the future or used to be - until the guideline says something different, that's what it says. As for Harry Potter, that kind of thing will always have concensus to keep, if not actual valid reasoning. A bit less votecounting and a bit more consideration of arguments from the closing admins in those situations wouldn't go amiss. Do I sound bitter? Yes, I've taken part in a Potter AfD. :) Miremare 01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to say that guidelines are useless and we should give them no weight -- just that we should be weary of cases where they may not be accurate codifications of consensus, and we should give them weight inasmuch as we can trust in that accuracy. Maybe I overstated my complaint above. — xDanielxT/C 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is non-notable fiction. -- Mikeblas 13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly notable, it's a sub-article of the (notable) World of Warcraft article. There's nothing wrong with detailed information on a fictional subject. As WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article.Melsaran (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world context, no reliable independent sources to prove notability. Miremare 13:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main article on World of Warcraft gives information about the real-world influence of the subject, this article is merely a "section" of the World of Warcraft article. It has been split off because the section got too long (per Wikipedia:Summary style). Saying that every section should provide real-world context is unrealistic, because then we should remove the "Gameplay" section from the Poker article or the strategy and tactics section from the Chess article. Melsaran (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main WoW article proves notability for the game itself, not the fictional elements within, which, per WP:FICT, must prove their own notability if they want their own articles. The rules apply to every article; there's no "free pass" to sub-articles, precisely to prevent non-notable elements of notable or large topics running riot with endless articles providing endless details, which is not what an encyclopedia is about. To give a subject encyclopedic coverage there must be real-world context and appropriate sources, and there is neither here. Miremare 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge some information into List of Warcraft locations, though probably not much. We only need to have one location list for this series, and List of Warcraft locations needs to be it.--SeizureDog 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would say it should be transwikid but I'm sure this is already on wowwiki.Ridernyc 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WoWWiki and delete. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recently did a major overhaul to this article, so I would be sad to see it go. I also agree that World of Warcraft as a topic is quite notable. Looking at this AfD objectively, however, I definitely think that this article's level of detail pushes it firmly into fancruft territory. It'd be great to see it transwiki'd to WoWWiki, but as someone mentioned earlier in this discussion, that info is already there. Perhaps the best course of action is to include a link to this WoWWiki page in the top-level World of Warcraft article. -Rhrad 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wikipedia is not a game guide — it is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. --Jack Merridew 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although not a game I've played, the notability of the game is fairly significant and I reckon a segment of our community will be interested in this article and be able to continue editing and therefore improving it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played professional football. Jonesy702 18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one must go very soon, because we cannot have players who havn't played professional football on wikipedia, I'm very suprised that the maker of this article hasn't deleted this already, as he is well aware what meets the standards of wikipedia. Stew jones 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ57 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's guideline of having played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — again, there's not clear merger/redirect target, so request a copy if you'd like to merge it. --Haemo 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PvP is something that might should be lightly touched on in the main article, but it's not notable enough for an entire daughter article.--SeizureDog 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr(t)(c) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that the last AfD was closed with the intent for individual relist; the actual issue was not solved. David Fuchs (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag Reeks of original research and unreferenced claims. Besides the IGN link provided at the bottom, no other third party refs, and after some google searching, no other good sources to add. Reading through it, found little that is of interest and import to understanding the game/to the general reader. Best just mentioned in the main article. David Fuchs (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research can be eliminated, we don't need deletion for that. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of independent notability. Smacks of original research. shoy 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is independently not notable from the World of Warcraft series, but that's only logical since it is a sub-article for the World of Warcraft article. Would you want to delete the article chess strategy since it is not notable independently from chess? Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my response here. shoy 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different topics have different articles. This is merely detailed information on a (notable) fictional subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. As WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Merging it into World of Warcraft would be unhelpful, since it would get far too long. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan cruft. Ridernyc 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSCRUFT is not a compelling argument for deletion. I consider articles on science "sciencecruft" since I am not interested in science, but I don't nominate those for deletion those either. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
has nothhing to do with my interest level has to do with if there should be a comprehensive guide to every MMORPG included in an enclopedia. The answer is no. This stuff has it's place and I think it's great that people want to work on topics like this. The place for it is wowwiki, not here. Ridernyc 12:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - provides no proof of Notability, nor any real-world context. Ong elvin 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subarticle that was split off of World of Warcraft. As WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article.Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recommend reading WP:CSD#G1 for criteria of "nonsense": This does not include: ... fictional material Even though this is not being sent under CSD, the definition applies. Yngvarr 09:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cruft" is subjective and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as does "unencyclopedic" (please explain why it is unencyclopedic), and it is definitely not a nonsense article. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a valid argument for deletion. Valid information on a notable subject, split off into its own article. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. The article meets WP:N for having being covered in a non trivial way in independent reliable sources; the IGN articles have "PvP in World of Warcraft" as a primary topic. However, the coverage in these articles is too small for an article of its own - it could be treated in the PvP subsection of the Gameplay section in the main WoW article. User:Krator (tc) 13:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Can't find reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down and merge back in the WoW article. I don't think PvP in any game is notable enough to merit being extended more than a few lines in the main article. -- lucasbfrtalk 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 15:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since there's no clear target for redirection, request a merge copy from an admin if you want to transwiki/merge it. --Haemo 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr(t)(c) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of independent notability, as shown by lack of independent sources. shoy 18:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is independently not notable from the World of Warcraft series, but that's only logical since it is a sub-article for the World of Warcraft article. Would you want to delete the article chess strategy since it is not notable independently from chess? Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of people have written books specifically about chess strategy, though. shoy 13:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different topics have different articles. This is merely detailed information on a (notable) fictional subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. As WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Merging it into World of Warcraft would be unhelpful, since it would get far too long. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense info, put into World of Warcraft and delete per arguments given already. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of merging it? It's a subsection that got too long, so it was split off into its own article. Simple as that. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, game guide, I'm sure there must be a WOW wiki out there.Ridernyc 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a game guide, it's a game guide when it says "the best strategy to defeat boss X is (...)" or "if you're stuck at one point, you can continue by using (...)". This is merely information about the game. "Fancruft" is subjective, I consider articles on science "sciencecruft" since I am not interested in science, but I don't nominate those for deletion those either. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And yes, there exists a WoW Wiki, but why move it there? Wikipedia is perfectly suited to have an article (and detailed subarticles) on World of Warcraft. Do you want to move all in-depth information on history to the history Wikia? Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply non-notable. David Fuchs (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly notable, it's detailed information on a notable game, split off into its own article. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – see my comments above; no valid rationale for deletion has been given, there's nothing wrong with this article. Valid information on a notable subject, split off into its own article. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Melsaran, your example of Chess strategy is flawed. There are plenty of books written on chess strategy to make it notable apart from the chess article. This article is an overly detailed gameguide-type explanation of a narrow aspect of the game. It is not notable enough to stand alone.--SeizureDog 11:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with detailed information on a notable subject, since this is merely a subarticle of World of Warcraft that got split off when a section became too long, per Wikipedia:Summary style. And it's not a gameguide, as I explained above. Melsaran (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
World of Warcraft is a notable subject. Reputation in World of Warcraft is not, and you still have yet to show otherwise. Following WP:SUMMARY you should just summarize the aspect of reputation, not ramble on about it for so long that it needs to be split off.--SeizureDog 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation in World of Warcraft is a part of World of Warcraft. It is essentially the same subject, but it is just detailed information on that subject. And no, WP:SUMMARY doesn't say you should summarise it, it says sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place. That is exactly what happened here. Melsaran (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But only if its a notable enough subtopic to stand alone in the first place.--SeizureDog 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we would need an article on every single person in the world, since they are all part of notable entities (the Earth, countries, etc.). Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. shoy 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information about a random person on Earth isn't relevant in an article about Earth, since these topics are not directly related. However, reputation in World of Warcraft is a certain aspect of World of Warcraft. It cannot be viewed independently of World of Warcraft, like how poker strategies cannot be viewed independently of poker. I explained in another AFD why WP:NOTINHERITED isn't applicable here, and I'll repost it here for convenience:
The notability of the concept is established because World of Warcraft is notable, and this is detailed information about a certain aspect of World of Warcraft that was split off the main article when the section became too long. WP:NOTINHERITED refers to things such as "she's the daughter of a notable politician so she is also notable" while the daughter hasn't been covered by reliable sources. The daughter is a different subject than the politician; details on the daughter's life are not details on the politician's life. Merging the biography of the daughter with the article on the politician wouldn't be a plausible option, since it would become a coatrack (covering things about other, related subjects instead of covering the subject itself). That is not the case with this article, since it is detailed information on a certain aspect of World of Warcraft, and not on a subject related to World of Warcraft. This information could also be integrated into the main article, but it has been split off and became a subarticle.
WP:NOTINHERITED is not as narrow as you're saying it is. It does not apply only to the likes of relations of notable people in biography articles, but to anything related to a notable subject. See the example given about the radio station for example. WP:FICT makes it clear that sub-articles must prove their own notability independently of the parent article (Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability). Nowhere does policy or guideline say that sub-articles are exempt from notability requirements. Miremare 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The radio programme is a separate topic from the radio station, whilst reputation in World of Warcraft is an aspect of World of Warcraft and cannot be seen independently from World of Warcraft. Please read this comment in a related AFD. Melsaran (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very selective interpretation you're making - a radio programme is part of what makes the radio station - it's what radio stations do - just as elements of WoW are part of the game. I notice you left out the salient part of the WP:FICT line you quoted, that "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability". And from further down WP:FICT: "If the article becomes too long and a split would create a sub-article on a subject that is not individually notable, then the content should be trimmed." Miremare 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down and merge back in the WoW article. I don't think this kind of mechanics in any game is notable enough to merit being extended more than a few lines in the main article. -- lucasbfrtalk 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article isn't really a direct subarticle of World of Warcraft so much as it is a subarticle of "Elements of gameplay in World of Warcraft." Take this to GameFAQs or WoW Wiki, but not an encylopedia. It would not be acceptable as a section of World of Warcraft, and is certainly not acceptable as a stand-alone article. This is game guide material in that it details how a specific mechanic of a game works. It doesn't relate this game mechanic to the real world at all. --Phirazo 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pplecomplain 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played at professional level. Jonesy702 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one must go very soon, because we cannot have players who havn't played professional football on wikipedia, I'm very suprised that the maker of this article hasn't deleted this already, as he is well aware what meets the standards of wikipedia. Stew jones 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:BIO as he has not made an appearance for a professional club. - PeeJay 22:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played for Reading F.C. at the level required, nor his country at the level required. Ref(chew)(do) 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ57 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Number 57. --Malcolmxl5 23:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability in the article. No evidence of any reliable sources. A reunion of a band of any notability should have generated some form of press coverage,even in local papers but a search through Google news shows nothing. -- Whpq 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G12 (mostly a copy of [19], so taken directly from the Sprint website). --Angelo 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Reads like an advert; just a list of specs and no substantial sources. Article is unlikely to be repaired because of the lack of substantial sources for this product. Mikeblas 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, as spam. Bearian 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — I'm closing this as a default keep because the rationales presented for keeping are extraordinarily weak. The best of them boil down to "I claim this is notable; it can be sourced". No one has demonstrated said notability, or come up with any sources to back up any of the numerous claims in the article.
One can only claim "it can be sourced" a few times before it's obvious it can't, and will be deleted. -Haemo 05:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - if you read the sources and indeed ask anyone about the Fingerpoke of Doom, you will know that it was one of the main reasons for WCW's decline (just read Death of WCW, or indeed any other wrestling book which deals with WCW). No way you can delete this. Porterjoh 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you refering to the no sources provided on the article? I am aware of the angle, but as noted on the talk page, WCW's ratings were declining for over 6 months. It's misleading and subjective to say this 1 angle happened was the main reason WCW collapsed. This may be the best example of WCW inept booking, but this in no way should constitute as the definitive day that WCW tanked. As noted in the book you were refering to, WCW collapsed due to a collective assortment of follies both in booking, hired personel & other poor decision making. If we are going to create articles soley on the perceived importance of an event, why not create articles based on when folks feel Hulkamania was created or when the WWF turned the corner to beat WCW? Strong delete. --Endless Dan 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to stick sources in there - especially from the book Death of WCW. Porterjoh 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless attributed from reliable sources. A google of finger.poke.of.doom indicates the phrase is used, most often as a direct reference to this match, but most of the sources are forums and other RS-failing sites. (Name should be Finger Poke of Doom, if you ask me.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs sources desperatly. Davnel03 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, perhaps the article is misleading about its importance, but it was important, nonetheless. Maybe this article should be merged into History of World Championship Wrestling. Some of the information is already mentioned and cited there. Nikki311 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but heavy clean-up. "The Death of WCW" would be a GREAT source to use for this article, as the book very frequently mentions it as one of the things that led to the major downfalls of WCW. FamicomJL 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Death of WCW book references this event, but this is not the single even that caused WCW's downfall. --Endless Dan 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference. --Naha|(talk) 13:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Naha. This was WCW's answer to the Montreal Screwjob, in that it was a powerful pivot in the history of the company, and caused much distention among the fan base. Its importance is most certainly not overstated. It should have an article, but such a controversial event also requires sources. If it isn't sourced within 3 months, then I'll bring this back to AfD myself. The HybridT/C 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Grossly overstated and exagerated. The perceived importance of ‘the finger poke incident’ is not that 'this was the beginning of the end' for WCW as mentioned in the article. This can be demonstrated as WCW's ratings gradual slide in the ratings - which continued at the same pace even after this supposed 'pivotal moment’ happened. The only importance this event ascertains was the further diminishing in value of the WCW title. And that was in the opinion of 2 wrestling 'journalists'. To compare this to the Montreal incident is just silly. While this was viewed only in hindsight as a poor decision on WCW bookmaker's part, the Montreal incident warranted it's own documentary (Wrestling with Shadows) and was discussed outside of wrestling mediums (Montreal newspapers and early evening TV news rags). This article had nearly 3 years to establish independent sources and has failed to do so.
For the record if WCW has an 'answer' to the incident in Montreal, it would be Vince Russo publicly firing Hulk Hogan (which interestingly wasn't deemed important enough to warrant it's own article).--Endless Dan 16:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - For your first paragraph, I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree. The truth is, regardless of whether it was or not, and whether or not you feel it is exaggerated, it has always been perceived to be the beginning of the end for WCW. You demonstrated some research to suggest otherwise, and if you find sources for it then you should put that into the article, but the point is to the casual observer this looks like the straw that broke the camel's back, and always has. That is why it is notable, because of how it has been treated and looked at, regardless of whether or not it is true. As for your second paragraph, I was referring to conceptual correlations that can be determined only in hindsight, ie. something can only be called a pivot when you have already seen it was a pivot. I wasn't referring to the literal screwing over of a person, but that isn't important. The HybridT/C 13:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perceiving would also be an opinion, that constitutes WP:OR.--Endless Dan 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting the perception of the masses is what I'm talking about, not a personal perception. The HybridT/C 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Naha and Hybrid. Sources should not be all that hard to find. Gavyn Sykes 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia would not be what it is without articles like "The Fingerpoke of Doom". Ribonucleic 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST KEEP POSSIBLE- notable due to this started the downfall of WCW.--Monnitewars(talk) 17:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the majority of WP:PW has banded together and asked for a keep, none have provided a factual argument or noted an independent source for this articles significance. A Google test performed brings up wrestling message board banter. The misleading lone source of any (but limited) credibility was the book titled the Death of WCW. This book concluded that in the opinion of the writers (as none were employees for WCW or Time Warner) that it was not one single event that caused the fall of the company, but rather gave several noted missteps (which did include this event amongst others) and ill-advised angles that caused the downfall of WCW. It would be foolish to say that single finger poke caused the destruction of a multi-million dollar company and is a misrepresentation the source. As noted in the book, that is referenced above by some posters above, WCW was already losing money prior to this incident and it's ratings were declining prior to this incident. This deceiving opinion may lead any potential reader to believe that this single event caused the greatest impact in the demise of WCW. Also, the user above requested 3 more months to bring this article to par, but this article has been given nearly 3 years and has failed to provide even a single independent source. The article has become a collection of beliefs, misconceptions and smark propaganda. And while I admire the project's accord, I fail to see the importance of this article and remain thoroughly unconvinced by any attempt at an argument made. -Endless Dan 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're done sounding off your original research which has no bearing on this discussion since you're calling the kettle black (you haven't provided one source either), I will respond by saying that you have completely misrepresented the arguments presented against your side. Not one of us has said this single-handedly lead to the downfall of WCW; we've simply said that it is a very famous and influential piece to the puzzle notable enough to have an article. The HybridT/C 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a source [20] that debunks this entire smark myth that a fingerpoke lead to the collapse of WCW (and also refutes your claim above that this was the perception of the general masses). According to this source, WCW's rating spiked the night of the fingerpoke through the following 5 weeks. Furthermore, it can been seen their ratings continued the steady slide and did not drop below the level of the 2 months previous until May of that year. Doesn't seem like casual fans viewed this as the final nail in WCW. The numbers seem to show that this event actually staved off a quicker collapse. The only source material cited is a single book. This should be no more than a footnote in an article of the book in question (an article which does not exist). You are not documenting the perception of the masses. This debate isn't about you and your opinions. It's about this article. Nothing has been given to prove the fame and influence of this particular event.--Endless Dan 23:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Music producer, remixer, songwriter. There is some claim to notability with the artists this person has apparently worked with, but the article is little more than an unsourced list of these collaborations. I don't believe he meets musical notability standards, but I suppose you could make an argument that he's released albums with a major label. The only link I've found so far is a Discogs profile. Creator removed A7 speedy tag added by another editor. Kateshortforbob 15:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:NOTINHERITED is not a guideline; it's just an essay. Andersson appears to have worked on multiple notable projects and that constitutes notability. However, the article is stubby and lacks citations. Clean-up required, not a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.181.80 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 05:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local Scout group. jergen 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This group isn't notable enough for its own article. A Scouting in Dublin article would be nice, though. Bláthnaid 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support above solution Sounds good to me. Note that if any text is used from here, it'll need to be cleaned up a bit. Hersfold(t/a/c) 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment attempts to edit page to reflect its notability have been fustrated by the edits incorrectly being removed as "suspect vandalism"Soupy Campbell 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The troop recently celebrated 90 years making it one of the older troops in Ireland having run continuously since its formation. The Dublin Metropolitan Province article is an article detailing the troops of the 10 scout county's in the Dublin Metropolitan Province with no history of individual troops. Is there place for a troops own history in its own article? Stating that "Local units are not notable" suggests that we should homogenise the history of scouting in the Dublin Metro area and forget local unit history. Why? Dangger 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dangger. This article (and other individual scout troop articles) has problems with the Wikipedia policy of notability. It needs reliable sources about the troops's history. For example, has a newspaper published anything about the troops's history? Have any books been published about the history of scouting in Dublin? Bláthnaid 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bláthnaid. I have dated photographs and newspaper articles from the 1950's to add to the site section. I will select a selection of what I deem suitable reference materials for general analysis. Thank you for your speedy response. Dangger 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OKall comments noted and accepted, the history is currently being written and when published (O'Brien press) perhaps this will provide the necessary source references for a return. --Soupy Campbell 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx (4)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable individual book that asserts nothing to justify an article per WP:BOOKEusebeus 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that the book's author Michael Azerrad made a documentary [21][22][23] based on the interviews that he conducted for the book, so in a roundabout way the article meets WP:BK #3. One article says about the documentary: 'little is revealed because all the juiciest, best quotes have already been widely disseminated via Azerrad's 1993 biography, "Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana."' Bláthnaid 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Azerrad is a notable music journalist, and according to his article, "In 2000 Q magazine named Come as You Are one of the 50 greatest rock books ever written". There's no source but this backs it up. Its Amazon page contains an excerpt of an extremely favourable review in Billboard. Google News search on "come as you are" azzerad gives 19 results for the last month alone, relating to the documentary based on it, and a look at the archives shows it being referenced in stories around the time of Cobain's death, as well as a widely syndicated AP-type article around the time his diaries were published in 2002, saying that fans looking for insight would be better off reading "Michael Azzerad's excellent Nirvana bio..." Thomjakobsen 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you get a lot more News search results if you spell the name properly (z-rr), which I failed to do there, but even his publisher's page gets that wrong... Thomjakobsen 16:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at an appropriate level of detail with Nirvana and delete this article; I suggest this for the cited documentary film as well. There's a "See also" section in Nirvana that looks about right. Accounting4Taste 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Eusebeus 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a reasonable amount of sources to cite [24]. --W.marsh 19:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable author + Notable subject = Notability. The article does need improvement and it would help to include information such as the ISBN number and publisher. But that is a content issue. 23skidoo 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. 96T 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage/notability. • Lawrence Cohen 06:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 school; nothing extraordinary. • Lawrence Cohen 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at an appropriate level of detail with New Brunswick School District 16. I'm thinking that the school district article is an appropriate place to find the individual non-notable schools. Accounting4Taste 14:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above: nn school. Eusebeus 14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete district 16 may be the apropriate place for James Hill. However, that template with every school in the district, all of them red-linked, is a bit discomforting:
Comment I suppose I'm suggesting that they should not be red-linked -- that the links to each school in the template should be removed, and that individual pages for each school should redirect to the New Brunswick School District 16 page. (If indeed there is a need for an infobox at all.) I also admit I haven't thought this through in great detail, but I suggest that if we just keep deleting pages about individual schools, somebody will try to recreate them about once a year, and we'll all be going through this inevitably on a regular basis. This way, there's a clear indication to anyone who wants to create a page for "Jane Doe Elementary School" that information about that school could and should be found in the article for "Area School District Number X". This isn't to say that the school district's page can't contain a little bit of information about the school, like, say, its postal address and the number of its students. Just not the name of the president of its chess club or a list of its third-string field hockey team members. I do encourage debate on this, because it seems like the "should individual schools have their own article" policy is rather inchoate. I'd also welcome suggestions about where precisely the appropriate place to have this discussion should be. Accounting4Taste 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and redirect them all, except the one on AfD. • Lawrence Cohen 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It certainly appears non notable. --Stormbay 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are probably elements of notability in every high school, and the way to avoid pointless debates is to keep them all. that is probably not the consensus yet, but I think it ought to be. In this case there appears to be notability from its online courses, which I think are still quite unusual in high schools. Elementary and junior high schools should be redirected. I'm having trouble figuring out from the history--were the other high schools red-linked when you redirected them or was there content? DGG (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, every single link in that above template was a redlink before I redirected them all. • Lawrence Cohen 06:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsoureced article, very short. huji—TALK 13:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Likely hoax, a total of two ghits, and both are on simple.wiki. Not going to commit one way or another, tho, it would be better to get more discussion. Yngvarr(t)(c) 14:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the user name that created it and ploughing through various search engines to no avail, this is almost certainly a WP:HOAXPedro : Chat 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable hoax. Parrots live in temperate and tropical regions, I believe the birds cannot live in such cold places--Lenticel(talk) 14:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could probably exist since there are parrots in India that could go there, get isolated, and adapt. I hope a scientist could observe them in the field and publish a journal article because they really don't have any presence in the net. However, given that the creator's contribs I stand by my delete stance. By the way, the Kea looks rugged.--Lenticel(talk) 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost certainly a hoax. Not one hit on seven different search engines. It's been nominated for deletion on the Simple English Wikipedia as well. Hut 8.5 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably not a hoax, but the name of that bird in some local language. Should be redirected there. Parrots generally live in warm climates, but adapting from a tropical mountainous to an alpine niche would be a typical case of speciation. I have notified the twitchers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds--Victor falk 17:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The only thing that has been twitched is a hoax.--Victor falk 14:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to one book the Blossom-headed Parakeet moves as high as 1800 m in the Himalayas and several other parrots go above 1500 m, but unless we have a local to help us there is no way whioh of the species is being alluded to. If there was a scientific name we might be able to make a redirect but I can't find one. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was a mythical bird, it is not notable enough. Non-existent as a real bird. If it was a pure Sanskrit name, there should'nt have been a "parrot" as part of it. Shyamal 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax, unsourced, nothing on Google, Jimfbleak 06:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The user's name is "VasudhaTheGreat". They have vandalised the Animal page and removed the vandalism warning. No valid Google hits. Very likely to be a hoax. --Teggles 09:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been recreated several times and has remained unedited since January. The major assertion of notability, the LA Music Award, has no independent ghits, not even on the organisation's home page. All other notability criteria come from, or are derived from, subject's own websites(s) or other fansites. Hence, there is no independent verification of notability. This may be clever marketing, but at present it's not encyclopedic. I haven't PROD'ded it, to give its author a chance to fix it with verifiable independent sources. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom's point is well-made: most of her asserted notability is a result of self-promotion (nothing wrong with that). Put another way, when you have to count an appearance with Ed the Sock to assert your notability, you ain't. More Korn! Eusebeus 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merged. W.marsh 02:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by an anonymous editor. The article is nothing but a plot summery with no real world relevence (WP:NOT#PLOT). There is some unsourced analyst of the "setting", which constituents original research. On first read, it appeared to be a jumbled --Farix (Talk) 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ergo Proxy at an appropriate -- lesser -- level of detail, then delete. The article doesn't give enough information that it could stand alone. I suggest it should probably be a small section in the overarching article about the anime itself. Accounting4Taste 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect, it could be possible that this could stand alone some day. I recall the fansub translation notes for the episode on Smile Land, and it was very interesting to learn how much depth was actually being used in the episode, but until a published source comments on it, it's original research. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though sources were found, they did not support the information contained in the article, so it seems that Masaruemoto's position holds. Chick Bowen 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, can't find anything about this event on Google. Endless Dan 12:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure on the notability standards for this, but I found this quite easily on Google: [25] which means there's two references from the quite respectable BBC. MorganaFiolett 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Unfortunately, two short sentences don't count as "significant coverage", so this fails the notability test. My "delete" is based on the apparent lack of significant coverage, if any sources are found and added to this article before this AFD is over, I'll change to "keep". Masaruemoto 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable band per WP:BAND. unreferenced. declined speedy as apparently there is assertion of notability made but i'm blowed if i can find it. tomasz. 12:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This band fails WP:MUSIC. They have not been nominated for any major music award and has not gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. I see no assertion of notability, not even a weak one. --Evb-wiki 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be fancruft about fancruft. According to the article, the book is based from the online forum Gaia Online, and doesn't appear to have spread any further. I find nothing on Google either. Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. A7 and re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Was deleted before, recreated and deleted several times, speedied and finally salted. My personal suggestion would be turn both Clock Crew and Clock crew into protected redirects to Newgrounds - either that, or simply delete and salt this one as well. Schneelocke 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined due to vague assertions of notability. However currently reads like an advert. Google hits seem to be poor. Fuller discussion please Pedro : Chat 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I get 1600+ Google hits with "Bogo Wines" -wikipedia -bogowines.com. Seems to have been talked about quite a bit in stem cell research communities, but got little press coverage. I added a citation. Into The FrayT/C 11:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit weakly. A winery is the sort of business that should face relatively lower notability guidelines: they are businesses with permanent physical plants, and whose products will remain in cellars even if the maker folds; they sell consumer products that receive fair amounts of independent reviews. That, and the odd political and charitable activity of this winery, means I am willing to give this the benefit of a doubt. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the original CSD nominator. I don't think that being a winery should allow for lower notability criteria. There are plenty of companies that go out of business and their products are still in people's homes. I do agree that if there were more independent reviews of the wine then there would be a better case for notability. However, all the news links are about their charitable giving. In my eyes, the organizations they give to and the gimmick behind their giving doesn’t make them notable enough to stand on that alone.Geozapf 21:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By "lower notability criteria" I guess what I mean is that they aren't a consulting firm unable to describe their work without resorting to emptily abstract buzzwords and TLAs. There are plenty of independent magazines reviewing wines, and if no one can point to them, perhaps it should go. The article itself says that some larger winery actually makes the wine under this label, and perhaps that is the article that should exist. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP for want of secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 08:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 08:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. W.marsh 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a description of a scripting language used to mod the game Battle for Wesnoth. It has no other use, so is not notable at all. It also is much too detailed to merge any of it to the game's article - that already mentions that user content can be created, but a description of the language used for doing so would just be game-guide material. Minimaki 10:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Yngvarr - proprietary languages & technologies are rarely going to achieve notability separate from their source product or developer. --lquilter 15:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, blatant listcruft. —Verrai 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries that have the name of their capital included in their name[edit]
Delete Although the author may have had fun putting together this list, it's pure trivia and serves no useful purpose. There are even duller ideas, like states and provinces that share a name with a river. Mandsford 12:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The common attribute of the list (having a capital with a similar name as the country), has no significant impact on the country or city in question. Sjakkalle(Check!) 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vaguely interesting, but totally useless (and contains several errors). Emeraude 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to imagine this serving a cross referencing or indexing function, since to qualify for inclusion, you already know the names. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hang on... what? Why? No. This serves no purpose. At all. None. Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect. W.marsh 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTABILITY - no reliable sources found that suggest that this song is to be released. — *Hippi ippi 10:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\talk 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a speedy tag from this as it asserts some notability, but the assertion seems pretty weak. Reads like a vanity bio for an Australian teenager, except that he was on TV a couple of times. However, he obviously didn't make much of a splash as Google returns nothing on either of his names and the references don't actually mention him. The awards he allegedly won don't seem very notable either, and I can't verify that he actually won them. His notability seems unlikely to increase in the near future as he's too busy with his exams to concentrate on his showbuisness career. Creator ignored my concerns about notability and verifiability to insert more quotes instead. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - obvious SPA creating vanity article SatuSuro 15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disclosure: I added the original speedy tag. The revision then was considerably shorter and met the criteria for an A7, and did not appear as though it was a work-in-progress. However, even now that it's been expanded, I don't see anything worth keeping. This search string on Google: "World Comedy Tour Melbourne 2005 Rhys McInerney -site:www.imdb.com" should have returned something useful if it indeed existed, but all hits were irrelevant. Delete as non-notable and largely unencyclopedic (quotes section, at the least). Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't verify any of this and, given the apparent age of the individual, strongly think it's vanity/nonsense. I tried various approaches to searching within the television programme All Saints and found nothing. Accounting4Taste —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable bio. Keb25 06:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS. Twenty Years 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A high school student? Oh, please ... WWGB 12:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to nominate the Pia Haraldsen article for deletion for the second time due to concerns about notability. This person, who is a Borat-styleNorwegian television host, is virtually unknown in the English speaking world. She recently had her "15 minutes of fame" in the United States due to her recent "mock" interview of NYC CouncilmemberJames Oddo, but in my opinion, this does not satisfy the notability requirements of Wikipedia (at least on the English language site), as she is only known for this one incident. She currently has entries on both Wikipedia Norwegian language sites, and I feel that is enough as her notoriety does not extend beyond the borders of Norway. -- UPGRAYEDDD 09:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notability beyond the 15 minutes of fame. Haraldsen is not just some person who happened to post a funny video on Youtube which gained a short burst of attention. Haraldsen is a professional comedian who is seen on the popular Norwegian comedy show Rikets Røst. The Oddo incident is what made her famous in the United States, but she has gained notability through her TV performance well before that. Also, that this is the English Wikipedia does not mean that we should focus on topics in English speaking countries, in fact that is a horrible systematic bias. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should add that I feel sorry for Oddo. This man set aside time in a busy schedule in order to help out what he thought was a serious journalist and is then met with a nonsense reporter trying to make a fool of him. He then winds up paraded as a maniac on Youtube, which is a deeply unfair characterization. Sjakkalle(Check!) 10:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the English language wikipedia, not the encyclopedia for people famous in the USA. The nominator's rationale fundamentally misunderstands the point. To then denigrate this person's standing because she's from a 'sparsely populated Scandinavian country' is pushing things into the realm of self parody. Nick mallory 10:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to "denigrate Ms. Haraldsen's standing", Nick mallory. I am simply defending my point that she is a non-notable person under Wikipedia standards. This has nothing to do with the United States. She is a non-notable person in the United Kingdom, Australia, and every other English speaking country in the world. The only place in the world where she is actually notable is Norway, and there are articles for her on both Norwegian language versions of Wikipedia. -- UPGRAYEDDD 11:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing the point. She's either notable or not, it's irrelevant which country she's from. This is an English language wiki, it's got nothing to do with whether someone is famous in English speaking countries or not. She's been the subject of stories in the Washington Post [27] and New York Daily News [28] and is a prominent comedian on TV in Norway. 124.183.76.5 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see why deleting articles from the English language Wikipedia when the subject fails notability criteria is "systematic bias". Haraldsen is simply not notable by Wikipedia standards because other than one minor incident (the aforementioned "James Oddo interview"), she is known only as a minor celebrity in a sparsely populated Scandinavian country. As I stated before, her article deserves a place on the two Norwegian language Wikipedia sites, but she is really not notable enough to warrant an article on any other Wikipedia site. -- UPGRAYEDDD 10:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is presumed if there are multiple independent and non-trivial sources. And there is plenty. [29][30][31][32]. Under what policy or guideline does a person's nationality or language influence the notability? Sjakkalle(Check!) 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because YOU feel that Haraldsen is notable, that doesn't mean that she is notable as per Wikipedia standards, Sjakkalle! All of the citations that you provided are in Norwegian, not English! This only goes to prove my point that Haraldsen is notable under the Norwegian language Wikipedia standards, but certainly not under the English language Wikipedia standards! Tell me... what has really changed since this article's last AfD review? I believe that nothing has changed and Haraldsen is still non-notable! The decision will be made whether or not to remove this article by a CONSENSUS of Wikipedia editors, not just you or I, so there is no need for you to continue to re-hash your reasons for keeping the article! -- UPGRAYEDDD 11:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two things have changed. The obvious one is that the Oddo incident seriously boosted her recognition both inside and outside of Norway. Second, on the first AFD she had not yet performed or shown any of her interview stunts on Rikets Røst, it is her performance there is what gives notability, notability she did not have back in February. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments for keeping the article are weak. Just because Haraldsen has performed "interview stunts" since her Wikipedia article was deleted back in February, that doesn't mean that she is now notable. The Oddo incident was inconsequential. Sorry, but she's still a non-notable person. -- UPGRAYEDDD 11:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as you said, that will be decided by userS, not by an user; and I feel he has the right to comment on opinions; in fact that's the reason why we are here .. You don't have to accuse him, that he is insistent. {LifeGoesOn} :) Elmao 14:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Haraldsen failed AfD once, and I believe that, aside from the James Oddo incident, nothing of importance has happened since then to justify reversing the decision about her non notability. Citizen Dick 11:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am changing my vote from Delete to Neutral because an administrator is making a big deal over the fact that someone with the same IP address as me nominated the Pia Haraldsen article for deletion and I concurred. I hope that this action satisfies this administrator and gets him off of my back! Citizen Dick 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She has gone from being a random celebrity to become one of Norway's best known comedians. 96T 17:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle. If her notability were limited solely to the Oddo interview, I'd say delete, but it isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm trusting the statements of others that she is famous in Norway. If that's the case, then there'll be third-party coverage of her in Norwegian media (and Sjakkalle has provided a bunch of links to that effect). Although English-language sources are preferred for purposes of WP:V, this is not a requirement if only non-English sources exist as per WP:RSUE. The argument that notability must be shown for "English speaking countries" has no basis in policy. Note that these countries make up only a quarter of the two billion people who speak English, so it's not a particularly useful criterion. Thomjakobsen 14:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh? Punkmorten 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is extremely blinkered to believe that only things that are of interest to Anglo-Saxon English speakers is notable, the thing is the people who make the arguement "this is the English Wikipedia, an article from X country should be in X country's language" are already conceding that a topic is notable, if it is notable enough for another Wikipedia, it is notable enough for this one, otherwise each Wikipedia will be a shallow pond of local interest topics and not the all embracing encyclopedia that all the Wikipedias could be . This article satisfys notability and verifiability and should be kept. KTo288 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why the multiple media sources don't suffice. Punkmorten 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple sources. She is very famous in Norway, and the English Wikipedia is supposed to be international. 96T 17:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she does not need to be considered famous or notable in an English-speaking country to pass WP:N. --BelovedFreak 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is way more important than forexample this: Morten Hæstad. many people from many countries wants to know more about her after the Oddo episode. If she is good enough for FOX News and other big channels in US, she is good enough for Wikipedia.--193.217.2.65 18:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, being a TV personality on an asinine TV show here in Norway should not warrant inclusion, but the number of preceding articles for other individuals placed on weaker grounds makes it difficult for me to stay anything but neutral on this. Bosse Klykken 19:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But one behind the bars :) Elmao 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia has loads of pages on unnotable porn actresses, football players and other minor celebrities, of course there should be room for Norwegian comedians. This is not US Wikipedia, it's the english language Wikipedia. --Tannkremen 21:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She have been host for 4 different tv-series in Norway --Ezzex 01:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If someone is notable in a non-English speaking country, they're just as notable if they were in an English speaking one. --Oakshade 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, as established above. • Lawrence Cohen 06:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because she is unknown to English-speakers doesn't mean she is not a notable personality. I can link you to hundreds of Wikipedia articles about TV-hosts, singers, actors, scientists, etc. from various countries who are not known to the vast majority of the English-speaking world, yet their notability isn't being questioned. Parishan 08:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet notability requirements. Anchoress 11:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why do people use Wikipedia? At least I know that I learn more about things I may not know about by browsing it, and using it as a portal of information. Because you don't want to know more about her or about this incident doesn't mean anyone else doesn't want to. In fact, the amount of people who have voiced their opinion in this AfD should and could speak for itself. Now, I'm Norwegian, and I knew of her from before the James Oddo incident, but came to Wikipedia to learn more about this as I hadn't heard of it before today. I'm not saying this incident alone justifies notability, but she is a new, but fast rising young comedian, not just some Borat clone, as it seems some people have labeled her. --Ifrit 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I said this before. Last time I checked en.Wikipedia is for people who understand the English language and not only for people where the English language came from.--Lenticel(talk) 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little information. gracz54(talk) 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:SOFIXIT, there are some refs [33][34][35]. I don't know if this version of CS will be notable on it's own, but CS itself probably is, so maybe add information to the main Counter-strike article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvarr (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep?WP:NOEFFORT - nomination is not a valid reason for deletion. Fosnez 11:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no reason to delete it presented by the nominator. Even a little information is better than none at all. Hut 8.5 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep invalid reasoning, and article has sufficient information to stand as a stub for the time being. This can probably be closed soon, provided there are no further !votes in favor of deletion or another outcome. Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not delete articles simply because they are stubs. CS itself is very notable; although still in development this Asian-market version can be reasonably sure of commercial success; finding reliable sources is not a problem. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Counter Strike is incredibly notable and there is no reason to delete this. It does need more information though. Knowitall 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Keb25 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article will only have to be re-created in the future if it's deleted. It hurts nobody and nothing to keep it until more information surfaces. --Tom Edwards 18:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub that will be expanded 86.13.32.203 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote by anon user. Keb25 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be little more than a collection of trivia (a non-notable band, a bunch of original research and some soapboxing) whose only connection is a phrase with little evidence of widespread usage (or more importantly the references to support a verifiable article). ~MatticusTC 09:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The article context is unclear, contains nonsense, etc. --Sigma 7 11:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. I am leaving what Quasirandom already merged into target article intact; the original will still be available in the redirect history if anyone wants to merge more. Chick Bowen 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comic fails WP:BK; no independent sources are cited, and I found none. The the only source given is a site with user-generated content (WP:SPS). A user objected to the PROD, so it goes here for further discussion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 07:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: By "you found none", you meant that your Google search didn't give any hits of reliable source, right? But that's not conclusive; there still might be some offline sources. I don't think it is contested that the book doesn't exist. -- Taku 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be good if you cite some. No one has added independent sources to the article since the notability warning was placed more than half a year ago. So unless someone shows that independent sources exist, my assumption would be that there are none. By the way: It's not in question that the book exists, but that it is notable. See the WP:BK guideline. --B. Wolterding 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article on the author, who is very notable (published over 40 works, if I'm counting correctly, all through major publishers in Japan). I don't know if this collection is notable enough on its own to merit a separate article, but it would definitely qualify for a section or paragraph of its own in another article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the rest of the independent information about the collection into Akiko Hatsu (which needs the list of works expanded to include those not published in English). —Quasirandom 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into author article. I've yet to find much on this particular collection in English, aside from that an English translation exists, but plenty on the author. Any substantive reviews are beyond my google fu abilities (or my language barrier). —Quasirandom 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course the article can be userfied to anybody who wants to write an article on the author, based on independent sources. --B. Wolterding 12:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real book, real notable author, and the only reason is a guideline which sets the bar way too high? Easy !vote. --Gwern (contribs) 02:56 16 October2007 (GMT)
The guideline is based on community consensus, and it is in fact the one criterion to apply here. If you disagree with the guideline as such, perhaps discuss this on its talk page. --B. Wolterding 09:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable station; much fictional detail Rapido 07:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is a mess and has been vandalised - not reasons for deletion I know, but when you consider that large parts are claimed to have been written by one of the station's founders (OR?) and that he is therefore admitting to his own criminal activities..... Emeraude 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which criminal activities, as a matter of interest? Rapido 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as an obvious hoax. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain this is a hoax. There are no sources present, and some rudimentary Google searches suggest there is no connection between this person and the UFC. Also, the head doesn't quite match the body. --Bongwarrior 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Bongwarrior 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a hoax because it is one. Just look at the metadata on the first image. It clearly says a different name in the description. Spellcast 07:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax Elmao 07:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hoax is not a speedy deletion criteria. Pedro : Chat 08:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry, wrong reason .. then maybe because it cannot be verifiable .. but whatever :) Elmao 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable (does it really say that he's a postman?), and fails WP:BIO. One band that the article says that he (claims to have) played on was nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Legendary Girlfriend. The other band that the article says he played on makes no mention of him in their long Wikipedia article here:The Owsley Sunshine. Brewcrewer 06:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather delete What are the notability criteria for postmen? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they share a name with a legend in the world of economics, that gives them extra clout when they put bills in the mailbox. Mandsford 13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a page that's been here since 2005, you'd think there'd be at least one reliable source added. Fails WP:MUSIC. Spellcast 07:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For essentially the same reason as List of Jewish American fashion designers is being nominated, we're heading into extremely trivial subdivisions with these lists. Aside from list of engineers and List of inventors, these appear to be the only lists subdivided by a strange ethnicity-religion-nationality combination that doesn't justify why it is notable in the first place or what criteria can be used to confirm its notability as an intersection. Also, "inventor" is redefined in these lists, as biomedical research and scientific discoveries now seems to count as inventions as well. That along with the fact that whatever sources can be found, usually only mention what seems to be the entire root of these lists in passing. African-American writer seems like a relevant intersection, but I have hardly ever heard of the "Jewish engineer", except Amon Goeth from Schindler's List[36]. Bulldog123 06:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination. There are no sources, and I find no need or significance of this article. BeanoJosh 06:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator also. The two terms "Jewish American" and "Engineer" are practically unrelated. CG 08:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. Mandsford 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Don't seem to be any more than lists of (foo) (bar) (baz). Non-notable intersection of categories. Stifle (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all--Victor falk 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sheesh. JJL 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with a compelling reason why being Jewish American has any bearing on being an engineer/inventor (authors or politicians I get, but engineers?). Cosmo0 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Arbitrary cross-section of no encyclopedic value. Also original research /POV to a significant degree. `'Míkka 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While not linked here, closure has an eye on the old VfD archived on the article's talk page. To avoid "asking the other parent", I must consider both sets of arguments as well as the current state of WP:BIO. Notability to WP:BIO is likely present because the editors in 2004 were able to replace campaign literature with an article written from independent coverage. Reference citationss, however, are lacking, due to the different standards in effect in 2004. GRBerry 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable "politician" who has never one an election. Fails WP:BIO. Brewcrewer 06:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely understand the nomination and how this person isn't very significant. I searched for him on a few engines and political areas, and found nothing encyclopedic or historical about him or anything he has done. The most notable thing he has done has run for some governmental positions, and that's about it. BeanoJosh 06:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary ambiguation with economics pioneer Adam Smith, not a notable person regardless of name. Mandsford 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adam was only 26 and defeated two experienced candidates who were much older. Also 2004 was a courageous year to run as a liberal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.63.254 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 existence of other pages is not a valid reason to have this one; furthermore, there are very few foreign ministers to begin with (as opposed to chemists, scientists, etc.). Veinor(talk to me) 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, there's no real reason for this list, and it creates a slippery slope: List of Muslim Foreign Ministers, List of Zoroastrian Foreign Ministers, List of Gnostic Foreign Ministers, List of Jewish Agriculture Ministers, List of Jewish Interior Ministers, etc., etc. can't be far behind. Being Jewish and being foreign minister have no intrinsic connection and thus we should avoid this sort of synthesis. (Of course, more general lists like List of Jews in politics are fine, but this is too specific.) Second, there are no references, and some of the entries, such as Ismail Cem, are dubious. As an aside: I was surprised to learn Israel got her first Jewish FM in 2006! Biruitorul 05:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what appears to be another instance of massive Jewish-listing. Note there is also now a List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists. Wow. Bulldog123 06:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nomination. A politician's religion or ethnicity has no major impact on their career. It can be mentioned in the biography itself, but it is not such a big deal that a list needs to be created. Sjakkalle(Check!) 06:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page just lists a bunch of flags and countries on a table. No list of ministers needs to be created. BeanoJosh 06:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned by Sjakkalle. CG 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike a "List of Jewish American engineers", the ethnicity of the person selected to represent a nation in its conduct of foreign affairs can be a source of controversy, particularly since there are parts of the world where Judaism does not enjoy tolerance. Can you imagine the United States sending a Jewish Secretary of State to 1938 Berlin? And although Madeline Albright would have had no qualms in visiting Iran, it would still be a touchy situation. Responding to the nom, a list of Muslim foreign ministers (from non-Muslim countries) would be even shorter than a list of Jewish foreign ministers from nations other than Israel, for the same reason. Yeah, ethnicity makes a difference in some jobs. Mandsford 13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No question a person's Jewishness could matter. But why make a list out of it? Why not confine the matter to categories and text in biographies? Biruitorul 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's rather an America-centric statement. In most parts of the world Jewish descent is pretty irrelevant in politics. I'd guess that most people in the UK, if asked, wouldn't have any idea that the three ministers listed were of Jewish descent. The same is probably true across most of Europe. Cosmo0 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. "Miliband" not so much, but "Rifkind" and "Isaacs" do sound Jewish to the casual observer, so the British public probably has some idea of their background. In any case, none of this matters: the list is excessive and doesn't belong here. Biruitorul 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all arguments above. Yikes. K. Lásztocska 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all motivations above--Victor falk 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mandsford. To say a politician's religion or ethnicity has no major impact on their career, is to ignore humanity's history of religious and ethnic intolerance. Benjamin Disraeli's career was affected by him being Jewish, and he's still the only Jewish person elected as British Prime Minister. John F. Kennedy's career was affected by him being Catholic, and he's still the only Catholic person elected as US President. Edward321 01:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To say a politician's religion or ethnicity has no major impact on their career... Hold it right there! I never claimed such a thing, only that biographies and categories, rather than such lists, are the appropriate place to make that point. Biruitorul 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not say it, I was quoting one of the first people to support deletion, especially since several others endorsed that editor specifically or made a blanket statement of support for all others supporting deletion, which is also a support for this obviously incorrect statement. Edward321 05:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Well, we concur on that point, but I still don't believe the list is necessary. The fact can more effectively be highlighted through subtler and more probing tools (categories and particularly article prose). Biruitorul 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Slippery slope"? This article should be kept. There are many Jewish lists and articles and there is nothing special about this one. If it is OK to have a list of Jews in Politics or Jews of Poland then a list about Jews in a specific area of politics such as List of Jewish Foreign Ministers or List of Jewish Ambassadors should be possible. The claim that this article is "unsorced" or "dubious" is false. Furthermore, this is an ongoing effort. Everyone can contribute so that we can come up with a complete list. BTW, Ismail Cem Ipekci -who passed away last year- is a Jew that descends from Spanish Jews who were welcomed to the Ottoman Empire after their expulsion from Spain. Nostradamus1 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just noticed this sneaky method of campaigning for support by the person who nominated this list for deletion. Nostradamus1 —Preceding comment was added at 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway: yes, slippery slope. Where do you propose this list-mania end? And no, the notion that Cem was Jewish, as his article states, is not established fact. Biruitorul 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"List-mania" existed long before this debate and will exist long after, and nothing any of us say will change that. Reading WP:LIST, there is nothing wrong with organizing information in lists so long as other Wikipedia principles are followed. Lists are often more effective than straight narrative. The problem is whether the topic of the list has an encyclopedic quality. You acknowledge that religion or ethnicity can have an effect on a person's career; how do you feel about whether being a nation's foreign minister is a noteworthy career achievement? Arguably, it's the most politically sensitive government appointment that can be made. Mandsford 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think straight narrative is quite a bit more effective in this case, because Jews exist in different contexts. Miliband's Jewishness doesn't bother most people; that was not the case with, say, Rathenau. By presenting all these names together we may imply that being Jewish meant exactly the same thing for all of them. Moreover, as I asked in my nomination: where does it end? And: Who is a Jew?Biruitorul 19:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have to end anywhere. "Who is a Jew?" is not the question this list is attempting to answer. If a person comes from Jewish descent and has served as a Foreign Minister of any country he/she qualifies to be listed here. Would you rather find a broader list such as List of Jews in Foreign Affairs more acceptable?Nostradamus1 —Preceding comment was added at 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have to end anywhere - oh, really? So we can have lists of every Jew, every Muslim, every Hindu, etc. working in every nation's government at any level? I think not. Again, what is "Jewish descent"? I'm not trying to sound like Joseph Goebbels, but someone like Cem has rather dubious standing as a Jew - he may have had Jewish ancestors far in the past, which doesn't exactly qualify him as Jewish. And no, I'd just rather not go into such minute slicing of people by category into a list. What we have now, with text and relevant categories, is quite sufficient. Biruitorul 01:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let us not distract ourselves from what we are discussing here. It is not whether Cem is Jewish or not. You nomintated this article for deletion. There are many Jewish lists. Why should this one be deleted? Why should List of Jewish historians be kept? Nostradamus1 —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's a relevant issue and shows the flaws in such a list. Because that's a broad, generic category while this one is overly specific and unnecessary in light of similar but broader lists. Biruitorul 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us need information at a more detailed level. Who is to decide what is too broad or too narrow? According to you a list of historians is broad enough but a list of foreign ministers is not. I'd ask you if you had any issues with a List of Prime Ministers of France but never mind. I am sure you'll come back arguing that it is broad enough somehow. Nostradamus1
Some of us may need information at a more detailed level, but we don't use Wikipedia to supply that information. Obviously, Prime Minister of France is a constitutionally-designated office with legal standing, unlike the subject of this article, so the comparison is invalid. Biruitorul 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absurd. to all that was said here, let me note that Foreign Ministers are not Foreign Ministers of Jewishness, but of their respective states. This means that the list serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. Dahn 02:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Greswik 14:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per below. It is absurd to oppose such a list. I'd like to ask all those who supported the deletion of this list if they see any difference between the List of Jewish Foreign Ministers and the following? Why would someone want to know the list of people who are Jewish and historian? (Or pick your pair below.) Does it have an encyclopedic value? I'd say, yes. I would like to be able to query for information and easily find it. We should not let this article be deleted just because some people doe not like it for one reason or another.
These are only a fraction of such lists. Just search for "List of Jewish".
Nostradamus1 —Preceding comment was added at 00:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of those lists is even remotely connected to the extremely narrow focus of this one (they either speak of a Jewish community in a country or have the field of activity laid out in generic terms). Let me add that the last on your list is in reference not a community, but to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Dahn 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference in the level of focus between List of Jewish American chemists and List of Jewish Foreign Ministers? One would argue that List of Jewish American chemists is even more narrowly focused since it has three attributes, i.e. Jewish, American, Chemist. In comparison List of Jewish Foreign Ministers has only two. Jewish and Foreign Minister.Nostradamus1 —Preceding comment was added at 01:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize this was going to be deleted according to voting results. It casts doubt on the quality of information here. One would pretend to be different people and vote many times. Trying to eliminte a list because it is too specific is a weak argument. But I am not sure if that matters under these circumstances.
No, we don't go by voting results, but writing "Keep" twice is looked down on as well. Biruitorul 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that this webcomic is notable; a prior webcomic by the same author was afd'd recently, the author was afd'd a while back and speedied after re-creation. Carlossuarez46 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is a forum. Works of deleted authors or artists is rarely, if ever, kept. Spellcast 05:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page contains no significance or any encyclopedic material. No reliable sources. BeanoJosh 06:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was a big fan of the series, but it's not very notable. Horrorshowj 04:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm invoking criterion G10 because of some of the accusations made by the article and comparisons against actual cities. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Hoax, no such place exists. Wasn't this a CSD at one point? SashaCall(Sign!)/(Talk!) 04:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. @pplecomplain 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The article on the league's main claim to notability is the peacockish statement about how "many players have signed professional contracts", which of course is invalid anyway as notability is not inherited. I'm not really finding much of use elsewhere either - first four hits on Google are their website and Wikipedia, and the next one down is an unreliable wiki. After that, they get more and more trivial. The articles on the teams could probably be speedied under A1 or A3 - none of them have any information other than their membership in this league. Delete all as non-notable. Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note: If these are all deleted, Category:Atlantic Baseball Confederation should be deleted as well. I know it's a category and should probably go under CfD, but with everything else deleted, it'll meet CSD C1 (Empty Category). Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the cat as well, but to badly butcher a baseballism it ain't empty 'til its empty. :-) Carlossuarez46 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (incl cat) non-notable league of non-notable teams. Spammy too. --Victor falk 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Head of a wine company that does not appear to be notable. No assertions of notability except for being Anderson Cooper's boyfriend. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN person. The fact that Cooper has never admitted to being gay and that there is no proof he is dating this guy, means there are WP:BLP concerns too. TJ Spyke 04:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several good-faith attempts to find reliably sourced indications of notability seem to have come up blank. Chick Bowen 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After working briefly on this article, I'm having trouble deciding whether he meets WP:BIO standards. Googling his name and "PDN Photography Annual" didn't generate any hits. I almost did a speedy delete on him but reason took over: His claimed accomplishments seem notable but not very WP:V. So here we are... Pigman 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actual name >> Björn Wennerwald Elmao 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you're looking for confirmation of the PDN claim, the list of 2004 participants is here. I think "award" means simply having a photo included in the annual, so it may not be so much of a sign of notability. Oddly, he doesn't seem to be included in the 2003 listing and I can't find listings for the 2001 award that he also claims — PDN's web site only seems to have the annuals back to 2001. —David Eppstein 07:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Still nothing has turned up to convince me of his notability. The inclusion in annuals seems to show some level of professional success but that's not enough for me. —David Eppstein 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coren, who rewrote the article to remove original research, makes what appears to me a definitive statement that has consensus among those participating in the debate. Chick Bowen 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence of significant third-party commentary on this person's life, nor any significant analysis of his work in reliable sources independent of the subject. I suggest that this article should be deleted. Thanks. TreeKittens 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard mentioned the editor who has been discussed here in the section on the deleted article "human molecule." An interesting metric for WP to maintain might be the current top article creators where the article has been deleted. It would not make everything they did deletable, but it sure would raise a red flag. Keith Henson 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak keep; this article should probably gaged against WP:PROF, and we have to make some allocation to the information void that would necessarily have been caused by the iron curtain. — Coren(talk) 03:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, I'm left convinced that Gladyshev is a well-respected scientist. He certainly is cited enough, and invited enough for lectures, to demonstrate that. We have little information on him, and most of it comes from a primary source, but I doubt his date of birth or the fact that he is well-published is contreversial. I've edited the article to remove the twisted interpretations of Sadi Carnot (talk·contribs) (against which we should not judge Gladyshev) and changed my !vote accordingly. — Coren(talk) 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC) (struk and replaced, see below). — Coren(talk) 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no verification that this person passes WP:PROF. Note that most of the article is an analysis of his work based entirely on primary sources, most published in a journal which charges a fee for publication (link). For example this article cites Lib Thims (who is User:Sadi Carnot) and his self-published work (ref.24) for some interesting claims. The references throughout these websites, articles and wikipedia pages are so self-referential and bizarre that I suspect we are being toyed with. Or educated. See also WP:BLP. Thanks --TreeKittens 03:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't really address the lack of third-party evaluation, but here are some independent lists of some of his publications: [37][38][39]. There is at least one book review here. He really does seem to be a published academic, but whether he passes WP:PROF is a different question. —David Eppstein 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I mad? I don't doubt that he is a real, published, academic. This is just very strange: Journal of Human Thermodynamics is run by Lib Thims/User:Sadi Carnot who wrote this article. It (self) publishes the work of Gladyshev, Thims and Shu-Kun Lin, who cite each other. That's fine. Probably. Most of the sources in this article are published in IJMS which is published by... Shu-Kun Lin. He says it's difficult to pay for in this post. He is answered by... Jimbo Wales who responds: "What do you mean? What are the costs? Can I help?" here I don't know what all this means really - but I think someone is trying to tell us something. I wish he'd just say it. More clues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. Forgive me if I'm bonkers - I feel I had to say it. Click around a bit... Also, no sources per WP:N ;-) --TreeKittens 06:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on the other AfD, "I think the walled garden of which Earle Martin speaks is not limited to wikipedia," seems very cogent. If there is reliable sourcing that other academics think of this area as WP:FRINGE, it seems to have been excluded from our articles here, and if so that's a problem. But if this is a significant fringe industry in academia, shouldn't we include it? After all it's not our task to set the trend of academic inquiry, only to report on it. BTW, I read the book review that I linked to above; it's hyperbolic in its praise of Gladyshev and his work, to the point where it loses credibility with me. —David Eppstein 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - if there is any significant commentary or analysis of this person or his work, attributed to independent reliable sources, then it should clearly be kept whether it is described as fringe or otherwise. I do not believe this is, as yet, the case. At the moment this article is entirely composed of original research based on primary sources which we amateurs are incapable of assessing. I also think that its creator cannot be trusted to have paraphrased these sources honestly. --TreeKittens 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt and ban author: Another in the web of "human chemistry' garbage perpetrated by User:Sadi Carnot. No real notability, an involvement with a fringe pseudoscience that is so far on the fringe that it nearly seems to be an analogy, no good third-party sources, and the only Wikipedia editor that has taken any interest in him writes dishonest self-promoting articles as a hobby. Kill the article, ban the author.Kww 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most interesting. I didn't know this was a pattern, but suspected it. hkhenson@rogers.com Keith Henson 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google translation of a Russian page returns this and if this resume is accurate than notable. We have articles about crackpot scientists whose pseudo-science is even less baseless, maybe he just isn't crackpot enough to be notable as a true loony. KTo288 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The google translation you link to is an almost exact copy of this page which is not a reliable published work, and certainly not an independent source. On the same website you will find this page. If you scroll through you'll see a picture of our friend User:Sadi Carnot. The same as was on his user page. There is also a picture of his "book" and links to several of the wikipedia articles he has created. Even a category! He didn't have to give us these clues - he obviously planned to be exposed right from the start. Oh, and Kww - don't worry - we have all the time in the world. Peace --TreeKittens 16:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are over 80 real papers in WoS. Most of them are ordinary polymer thermodyanmics in russian journals--no eccentricity, most of them with 10 or more citations, which isn't bad for articles published there. His magnum opus in terms of biology,
THERMODYNAMICS OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY 75 (4): 425-441 1978 , was Cited: 24 times.--and was in a reputable orthodox journal. There is some further-out stuff, but he comes across to me as a genuine minor scientist who, when he got a little out of his field, got confused. He got used by crackpots, it seems, but I dont think he really is one himself. that SC includes him in his circle is not necessarily his fault. DGG (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What DGG says is obviously true. Is there any reliable source material on which to base this WP:BLP? Or do you intend to leave it as it is? It is a BLP isn't it? Is it? I suspect that his legitimate work has been grossly misinterpreted. We should consider the possibility that it has been doctored and resubmitted. Sources please gentlemen. --TreeKittens 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no BLP considerations in a list of publications and short quotes from some of them to fairly indicate his published scientific theories. The pull quotes do of course need explicit sources--I assume this was an oversight. As he is still publishing articles on his biological work, it can be assumed he has not repudiated it. Frankly, without it, I would have said weak delete--his most cited known paper is one of the biology articles. DGG (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With lots of respect, I believe you have misinterpreted my concerns. From WP:BLP: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims." (my italics.) Citation 3 is hilarious in this context. There is not a single third-party source cited in this article to substantiate any claim at all. Please tell me whether or not you regard this as acceptable. Thanks --TreeKittens 06:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the publications are verified by the very reliable third party source of Web of Science. Basic biographical facts can be taken from a persons official web page. As there is nothing contentious asserted, BLP does not apply. DGG (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute the publications, though I have no access to your source. It is possible that they differ in content from the ones that were linked to in the article. It is possible that many of the citations are by Gladyshev himself. I strongly dispute that the website is official or reliable in any way. Even if it is, it is without question not "intellectually independent" of its alleged subject. Note that there are many organisations with a similar name, and its link with the Russian Academy of Science is questionable to say the least. It also claims he has been given some awards which a websearch reveals are available for a fee. It is possible that it, and many articles which link to it including this one, have been made to discredit him and his field. The opposite may also be true. WP:BLP is highly relevant. --TreeKittens 15:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the majority of the citations of the thermodynamics of evolution paper are self-citations, according to Web of Science. --Itub 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a part of a concerted attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to push a fringe pseudoscience on Wikipedia (and it is in fact so fringe that it is not even notable as a fringe theory). Consider also adding Entropy and life for deletion. Overall, User:Sadi Carnot is an extremely problematic user whose main aim seems to be to push some very fringe, non-notable OR and present it as established, legitimate science. Agree with Kww, user should be banned, a WP:OR-pusher of the most blatant kind. -- Ekjon Lok 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, unrelated comment. I must say that I have not examined all of User:Sadi Carnot's contributions, but so many of them seem to be extremely problematic. Here's from History of heat: "What exactly constitutes energy in particle physics terms, however, is a blurry picture <...> In this view, energy is loosely defined as a spin-1 Gauge boson." What nonsense. Energy is a well-defined concept, not "blurry", nor "loosely defined". And the idea that energy (as such) can be identified with gauge bosons (i.e. photons, W and Z bosons, and gluons [which indeed carry spin 1]) is an absurdity of the most awful kind.
Something must be done about this user, he's an utter liability for this project. -- Ekjon Lok 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; despite the misattributed views by Sadi Carnot (talk·contribs) for his crank theory, I still think that this scientist might be notable enough. Obviously we want to scrub the article of the fringe stuff, but he's been published enough that I would give him the "benefit of the doubt", as it were. — Coren(talk) 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But what are you going to say about him? I can't even find a reliable source for the man's birthplace and birthdate. I thought I had one, but then I found out it was derived from the Wikipedia article. There isn't enough material uncontaminated by User:Sadi Carnot to build an article from.Kww 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found a good reference; I'm going to try my hand at fixing the article. — Coren(talk) 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching his name as spelled in Cyrillic but all I could find was this one, copying material from endeav.org. —David Eppstein 23:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note; I've made an attempt at salvaging the article. What's left is barely more than a large stub, but it's been scrubbed free of the human chemistry taint. — Coren(talk) 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your cleaning. However, to qualify for inclusion in this encyclopedia, the article must provide multiple, non-trivial, reliable references. These certainly must be
About the person, i.e. not just a list of the person's works in some questionable non-mainstream journals.
Non-trivial, i.e. they must be substantially about the person, and not just mention him in passing.
Reliable. A book (or chapter in a book) about this person from a mainstream publisher, or an article about him from a respected news source (such as BBC or CNN) is a reliable source. Again, the source must be substantially about this person. A mere CV or biographical blurb on some website is not enough; anyone can write a CV or a bio blurb.
Multiple means certainly more than two.
If you can find these sources, insert them into the article. However, I very much doubt that you can find really good sources. My opinion ("delete") stands, for now. -- Ekjon Lok 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I forgot to add independent, i.e. independent of Gladyshev, Thims and their group; but I think this goes without saying. -- Ekjon Lok 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind that the so-called "Academy of Creative Sciences" (whatever that may mean) [40] that is currently the only source appearing in the "References" section is neither reliable nor independent -- not by any standards. -- Ekjon Lok 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree there. It's arguably not independent (because of Gladyshev's position there) but I see not indication that it is not reliable. As far as I can tell, Gladyshev is a mainstream scientist, fairly well respected in the field (if we judge by the number of cites and guest lectures he does in North American universities). I've pointed out a few on the article's talk page.
Verifiability is a bit iffy— but for what little claims the article currently makes, even a primary source is sufficient. From what I could read of his work and his papers, Carnot's twisted interpretation of his work would make him livid— he falls outside my specific expertise but he's far from the fringe. — Coren(talk) 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Sadi Carnot (talk·contribs) is... problematic to say the least. I agree we need to go over his contributions with a fine-toothed comb; but that doesn't mean everyone he mentions is automatically tainted. For all we know, Gladyshev doesn't even know he's being used by SC— I certainly can find nothing written by Gladyshev that refers to SC or his "human chemistry" nonsense. — Coren(talk) 00:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic is such a polite word. I'm surprised that no one that wields a few of the magic admin buttons has blocked him, and I'm curious ... what is the proper venue for getting him banned?Kww 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect that to be difficult. All his contributions are arguably intended as constructive (no matter how deluded he is), and I haven't seen him being uncivil or blatantly going against policy (such as recreating a deleted article repeatedly, etc). Well meaning fools is Wikipedia's greatest weakness, and unless an editor devolves to edit warring or incivility, it's actually against policy to prevent them from editing. But they tend to give up when they realize people keep going behind them cleaning up their messes. :-) — Coren(talk) 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example of incivility. But it was provoked, and one could likely quote-mine similar examples from many of the rest of us. In any case, it's the fringe stuff that's a problem, not the rest of his Wikipedia behavior. —David Eppstein 01:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you distinguish delusion from conscious fraud? I lean towards conscious fraud in this case ... I think that assuming good faith has its limits.Kww 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hard call to make; and not one I'd try my hand at. The only way to know for sure is to read minds, I guess. It's also an irrelevant call: whether sincere or not, the cranks feel entitled to hawk their story and the net effect is the same. — Coren(talk) 04:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: I've been reading the human chemistry site (My god! What a bunch of bovine feces!) and I've seen some of Gladyshev's work referenced a few times. Every single one of those references was a complete misrepresentation of the actual papers! Whoever wrote that site is either incapable of comprehending them, or willingly lies about their topic and contents. — Coren(talk) 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coren, if Gladyshev is unaware of how Thims/Carnot is using his work on these websites then how come he cites them in what is alleged to be his work? See ref.24 of this article which I have discussed in some detail above. Please also find a reliable source on which you have based the new claims you have added to the article. Others may be interested in the old version. Our opinions about the quality of Gladyshev's work - for good or ill - are irrelevant. We may only make any such statements on the basis of third-party reliable sources per WP:NOR. None have been provided. Thanks. --TreeKittens 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a backreference. I haven't found one of those yet. Hmmm. That paper is borderline pseudoscience. Definitely speculative and none of the rigor I've seen in his earlier papers. Sigh. He wouldn't be the first scientist to fall to the dark side. — Coren(talk) 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment If the original work as a physical chemist was notable, he remains notable. DGG (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me there. — Coren(talk) 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that also in ref.24 of this article Gladyshev also allegedly references the wikipedia page Thermodynamic evolution which was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermodynamic evolution. Note that it was submitted for publication only a matter of days after that article was nominated for deletion nearly three years ago. Only a few days later, User:Sadi Carnot made his very first wikipedia edit. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage. An apparent copy of the page can be found here. It references Thims (different book though) and Gladyshev and their websites is in a very familiar style. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2. I have no doubt there is much, much more. I now support the imposition of an indefinite ban. Centralised discussion of this entire house of cards is needed. God knows what this is about. I need help! More later. See also Wp:bio#Basic_criteria ;-) Thanks --TreeKittens 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At last: Glad to see that I didn't have to wait for the heat death of the universe to get someone to agree that he is deserving of a ban. I'll ask again ... what is the proper forum to discuss banning him?Kww 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After all this debate and all our searching and despite his long publication record the evidence for his mainstream scientific notability is still weak at best. And as long as this article exists here on Wikipedia it will likely continue to be a WP:COATRACK for this unscientific nonsense. —David Eppstein 15:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think AfD is the proper forum for discussing blocking a user. I suggest you look at WP:DR (probably at WP:RFC) if that's what you want (although I don't think there's any blockable offense). --Itub 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I now notice that many of the quoted testimonials on one of Thims/Carnot/Waves' websites - supposedly about his "book" - are actually quotations of comments by Wikipedia editors, made in the AfD debate of the eponymous article! (Link). Any bets the account was created on 1st April? I suspect there's an even older article which is no longer in the deletion log. Oh dear. Oh dear... --TreeKittens 00:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have developed some information that may be relevant to this discussion. Or perhaps not. I could use some advice. email to hkhenson@rogers.com will do. Keith Henson 04:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete; I've been snookered. I figured out one independent verifiable fact on that person's CV, and it turns out to be completelyfalse. I would treat anything from someone who lies about receiving a major award suspect; and therefore we're down to zero sources. Meh; I should have looked the list of winners first— I knew this was a prestigious award, it didn't occur to me someone could be bold enough to lie about getting it! — Coren(talk) 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I don't think his CV is saying that he won the ACS Gibbs Medal. It's quite likely that's he is not even an ACS member. Gibbs is famous enough that more than one organization may have instituted a medal in his name. The way I read his CV, the medal was awarded by no other than... the International Academy of Creative Endeavors! (See [42]) --Itub 14:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caution. We are being manipulated. We should be careful what we say as we cannot be sure of anything right now. We don't know whois pulling the strings, or for what purpose. Note that "Libb Thims" also claims an "award" from this "institute" (link). This is precisely why we need to rely on reliable secondary sources, but I suspect wikipedia is only a small part of this. --TreeKittens 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I would strong recommend deleting the entire walled garden as suspect. If anything in there was genuinely notable, someone else can put it back. — Coren(talk) 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree. However, one of the problems I have found in looking through this dark glass is that most of the clues have been deleted. I would suggest moving them all out of the article space for further analysis. I would be interested to read some of the deleted articles. It would be hugely inefficient to go through each of these references to check them. There would surely be some collateral damage, but I think it would be worth it. --TreeKittens 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 03:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely non-notable game which has few sources and is not needed in Wikipedia MarlithT/C 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will consider further if someone can show this even exists. The one link in the article is a 404. Perhaps they mean the game Snajper (which is Polish for sniper) by this company, which doesn't look like it merits inclusion either. CitiCat ♫ 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only links I've been able to find for this all contain very similar marketing text, but no screenshots of the game. The video game's own (supposed) site is 404, per Citicat. Amazon supposedly has copies of it, but I honestly believe that is a different game. --MikeVitale 06:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This game was released in Europe, but never made it into the Americas. You can see a gamespot article about the game here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeanoJosh (talk • contribs) 06:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I believe that we don't need so many game articles. Only articles for notable ones. MarlithT/C 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. W.marsh 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The LinkedIn link is a dead giveaway; though it's a good site (I use it), it's only for professional contacts - which tells me that this article is meant for personal advertisement - which means it's WP:SPAM, so off with it. ZZClaims~ Evidence 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarlithT/C 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(on behalf of editor) Edits were made to this page, and also to the description of Mitra Creative, to make them neutral. The biography and company description now contain no unnecessary, non-descriptive adjectives. The entry for Mitra Creative is now no different in nature than that for the company, VFinity. In addition to making the articles for Karl Joseph Ufert and Mitra Creative neutral, all external links to the company and other outside references have been removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy.66.65.142.137 04:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. This article doesn't seem to assert any notability and doesn't seem to meet WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(on behalf of editor) Notability guidelines state that they "do not directly limit the content of articles." Please keep the article(s).Karlufert 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note; the contents, but not the article's existence itself. — Coren(talk) 12:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is borderline WP:CSD#G11 but I'm not going to hit the button just yet. Pedro : Chat 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(on behalf of editor) I would very much appreciate your keeping it. I will work on getting references for the two articles, Karl Joseph Ufert and Mitra Creative as soon as I can. Thank you. Karlufert 11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you only get to !vote once. — Coren(talk) 12:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology I did not intend to violate policy by making another request to keep. My sincere apologies.Karlufert 12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete; with your choice of G11 or A7 (web). It's an ad. — Coren(talk) 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Crusio 19:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Deletion nom Prod removed without comment, so I am escalating this to AFD. This is an essay, it is an original synthesis of ideas. Yes, all of these various institutions claim to be practicing "sustainable" or "environmentally friendly" methods, or whatever catchword you want to use, but the way that this article brings it together as a single topic represents original research as there is no evidence that this topic as such exists outside of Wikipedia. If we had an external reference that said something like "Sustainability in Higher Education" and showed that this was a real field of study in reliable sources as such, this may be the beginnings of a valid article. However, it reads more like someone's term paper and nothing else, and as such, is simply original research as defined by WP:OR and WP:NOTJayron32|talk|contribs 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; closed by nominator per WP:SNOW, and the fact that the article has been modified sufficiently to demonstrate the project is real an ongoing. — Coren(talk) 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Still updating the page - [43]—Preceding unsigned comment added by B64 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem to have articles about future buildings and such as long as we simply report on what the plans for the building are, the timeline of construction, etc. As it stands, the article is in poor shape, I agree, but having the article is not in itself crystal balling. Weak Keep. —Verrai 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup, per Verrai. We seem to have plenty of stubs about future large resorts (see for example Category:Proposed buildings) and even have relevant template, ((future building)). Whether this hotel is notable is open for debate, however its sister hotels appear to have articles and I'm sure there is enough sources to turn it into a decent stub. Give it some time, I say. Rockpocket 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It truly is being planned and funded. Even it's planning garnered multiple secondary sources like the New York Times[44], Associated Press / Boston Globe[45] (story mirrored by MSNBC[46]) and USA Today[47] to write in depth published works about it. WP:CRYSTAL states very clearly "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." This is beyond speculation and most certainly is well documented. And what's with nominating this article for deletion within two minutes of its creation[48]? Had the nom done a simple google news search, this wouldn't look like a case of WP:OSTRICH --Oakshade 03:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL is persistently misinterpreted to mean "an article for any event that has not yet occurred must be deleted." What it in fact says is that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This article is NOT speculation. It is about the concrete plans to construct such a building, supported by reliable sources, that would certainly be a notable structure when completed. The pattern of nominating an article for deletion two minutes after creation is abusive and must be put to an end, and is in clear violation of Wikipedia:deletion policy, which explicitly requires nominators to make efforts to improve an article before the stampede to AfD. Further violations of this policy should not be tolerated. Alansohn 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just speculation, but a major project which is officially in progress. No crystal-ballery involved here. Yngvarr(t)(c) 11:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your help - b64 - page creator of MGM Grand Atlantic City
Keep per Alansohn. WP:CRYSTAL isn't a ban on any articles on things planned/proposed/etc. contrary to popular belief... it exists to discourage articles that are pure speculation. --W.marsh 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Yngvarr this is NOT speculation it is a major project currently in progress. Simon Bar Sinister 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced biography with strong allegations; borderline attack page but I hesitated to speedy. Reads like an essay. — Coren(talk) 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite an attack page, I agree, but it seems like vanity. This particular Joe Carrington does not come up on Google, which suggests to me that his supposed crusade to expose corruption in medicine is minor, localized, and has not received any form of press attention or had any significant impact. Delete. —Verrai 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My Google search matches yours - there isn't any data to suggest that this professor is in any way notable. If, for some reason, Prof. Carrington becomes notable, or receives coverage in the press for some notable act or event, then an article might be appropriate. I presume that the professor is alive, bringing WP:BLP into play as well. ZZClaims~ Evidence 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything in the article to convince me that "professor" is anything but a nickname. Regardless, it's unencyclopedically written, unsourced and likely unsourceable. —David Eppstein 05:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in Google Scholar, almost nothing in google, not notable as a scientist or even as a pseudo-scientist.DGG (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Crusio 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect. W.marsh 18:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Un-notable API. already mentioned on Nintendo DS homebrew. Certainly is okay in the homebrew article but does not merit its own article. SpigotMap 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems the clear choice, Could have been done without an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most likely would have turned in to an edit war since the editors who "protect" these articles would just revert. SpigotMap 02:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - let's build a consensus, then. Except that I almost feel like nominating the homebrew article for deletion (unless it gets more "real references", I guess). Xaxafrad 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Just as articles aren't locked from editing because they might be vandalised, the article shouldn't just be deleted because of a possibly of multiple revertings. A redirect would be beneficial. Gh5046 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil☎ 15:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no historical record of this event being described as the "London Manifesto." While such a meeting of preachers clearly did take place, the significance or notability of an erroneous statement (The Revelation of the Lord may be expected at any moment) by 8 ministers, 90yrs ago is not clear. What was a minor news story in 1917 is not a notable event. The only secondary source I can find giving it significance is this propaganda piece promoting the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. In short, it fails multiple, independent reliable sources establishing notability. Rockpocket 01:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was notable enough for the Federal Communications Commission to quote it 16 years later. I think that Padraig and Clio should reconsider their votes. Communications Commission: Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce The manifesto was a big deal in 1918 and afterwards. It's inclusion in the collective knowledge of Wikipedia advances the understanding of people's attitudes towards End of Days, Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Zionism during a formative and important part of history. Additionally many of these preachers are still discussed on the internet. Their assertions are of interest if they were ever to be written up in Wikipedia. If the article needs a name change then that is a different matter than a deletion. SV 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Padraig 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes. Please see my response to the 'Manifesto' question on the Humanities Reference Desk for 11 October. There is something not quite right here. The whole thing seems entirely self-referential. Clio the Muse 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Those who signed this Manifesto were well known names, and are among the world's greatest preachers. In additon, this information was published in the book "Deliverance" (page 263) in 1926 by the International Bible Students Association. --Searchfortruths 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, don't know about this, but account's only and today's contribs are to the article in question and to this AfD. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It dosen't make sense to move it to Frederick Brotherton Meyer because he is only one of the 8 men who signed the manifesto. It would put too much emphasis on one person, and not enough emphasis on the manifesto itself. --Searchfortruths 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meyer was the founder and chairman of the movement, the most prominent signer, and the manifesto was published in his own newspaper. I really don't think there is enough here for a stand-alone article (tho someone might be able to make a case around item #4), but a description of the movement and manifesto should go into Meyer's biography, which also fails to mention his views on eugenics.—eric 08:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ran across one ambiguously worded footnote which hints that this might be important to Christian Zionism—why i mentioned #4 above—but that's not enough for an article or all the links you've been creating. If the article is moved and merged, the edit history will be preserved, there'll be a redirect for those searching for 'Advent Testimony Movement', and you can expand the text within the Meyer article as you find reliable sources. Try Randall, I. M. (2003). Spirituality and Social Change: the contribution of F.B. Meyer (1847-1929). OCLC54994480.—eric 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out the other links because they are on topics other than #4. And there is adequate sourcing for them as well. SV 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moveto Advent Testimony Movement. More Historical Background: [49] SV 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate notability and sourcing. It seems quite satisfactory as a separate article - if it works, don't fix it. Colonel Warden
Transwiki to Wikisource. This is not an article about an event, it's an original text with a few annotations. Unless we have an article that's about this there's nothing to keep as Wikipedia is not a repository. --Dhartung | Talk 10:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair criticism but this is a new article and there's so much more info to add. I think we should let the editors have a chance to finish. SV 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is kind of the point, I'm not aware sure there is that much more info to add. I'm all for moving the relevant info into an appropriate article, but there is little point in keeping this particular article (since I can find no record of it being called the London Manifesto). Rockpocket 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does an article have to emerge fully formed? You're demanding that the London Manifesto be deleted because it's not fully formed and you've never heard of it. Plenty of other articles are stubs and I bet there's lots you've never heard about and won't find much info just with a casual internet search. I think that the WHOLE point of wikipedia is to advance it's collection of human knowledge by crowd casting. You and I might not have all the info but eric found a whole bunch more and there's a lot more to find out there. Just give it time. Let the Wiki crowd do what it's supposed to. SV 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be fully formed, but - when I nominated - it was was essentially a quote from a 1917 newspaper under a title that was not even mentioned in the single source. No-one has provided any evidence that there is any such thing as the 1917 "London Manifesto" (as opposed to the 1921 document from the Pan African Congress that is known as the London Manifesto [50]). As I said, if there is an appropriate article for this info, the I am all for adding it. But what we shouldn't do is take some obscure newspaper report on an event and make up an name for it. Thats what appeared to have happened here and that is why I nominated. Rockpocket 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like i've only been confusing the issue. In my opinion London Manifesto should be a red-link, Advent Testimony Movement (not Adventist) should redirect to F. B. Meyer, and that article should be expanded to include a description of the manifesto and movement, among other things. Is that really a delete vote? I didn't actually find a "whole bunch more", but brief mentions in two histories of evangelicalism and a few paragraphs in a bio of Christabel Pankhurst.—eric 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest reference to this document being called the London Manifesto is in the 1958 October 15 Watchtower. It uses the name 3 times. It has been so called in JW literature ever since. (Incidently that means that at least 6 million people have know the document by that name for at least 49 years) Because that may be a limited audience, I favor moving the article to Advent Testimony Movement with an alternate name London Manifesto and expanding the article to include what various protestant and JW sources make of it's importance historically. Do we have to wait for a conclusion to this AfD to do that? SV 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Watchtower qualifies as a reliable source, but at least it gives us some confidence that the term "London Manifesto" has some significance. I suggest adding this, and the other sources you mention, to demonstrate that the event is historically significant. Then, as the conclusion of this AfD, the material will be in a suitable state either to keep or merge. For the record, I support eric's motion - though if there is a reliable source indicating this is known as the "London Manifestio" then this page should probably disambiguate between links to this subject and the Pan African Congress, rather than be a red link. Rockpocket 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be kept. Even though it may not have been named the "London Manifesto", it made it easy enough to find. This was the only website I found that had all the basic information about this, and it proved to be beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HEFC (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, created by a user with WP:COI issues, it may be a copyvio, as well. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten If kept, it needs massive cleanup, more or less a complete rewrite. That said, a Google News archive search did come up with what look to be reliable sources. This page has a list of a number of what look like potential good sources toward the bottom from worldwide press sources including the Atlantic Monthly. And on Google Books, I found this, among others. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, written about in some depth by John McPhee. Basically this is the only substantial training facility in the world using "manned models" for supertanker pilots. It's essentially a private school with a very narrow clientele, and they offer a professional certification vetted by the IMO, which is certainly on the level as any other accreditation. --Dhartung | Talk 09:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page should not be deleted as Port Revel is the inventor of a unique concept that is still in use and widely accepted in the maritime industry. I am not trying to advert anything as we are the inventor of this special kind of training (back in 1967) and I believe this has encyclopedical value as such. However, I confess few people have published on this subject. Please note that there is no copyright problem because I am the author of the information provided on our web site: http://www.portrevel.com/anglais/htm/fr_01/fr_edito.htm. This is our own web site and I am the director of the training centre using this technology since 40 years. I am not trying to publish new scientific knowledge, as this technology is based on the one century-old law of Froude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number). This technology is used since 40 years. Please read the improved page. Artreve 14:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Note. I have chopped out all the maths. This was already duplicated in Similitude of ship models by the same author. That article currently has a prod on it but all it needs is for Artreve to pull a finger out and provide a few references. -- RHaworth 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable, indepedent sources available. Crazysuit 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/group. As below, no claim of notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable, indepedent sources available. Crazysuit 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7/nn-group. No claim to notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Verrai 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newly coined term? At any rate, no references and no relevant use in the wild. Talking about "web 3.0" is especially suspect. Possible hoax. — Coren(talk) 01:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Spammish and fails WP:NEO, WP:N and WP:RS (among others). Blcfilm 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further note; article has morphed into WP:SPAM. Speedy G11? — Coren(talk) 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7; non-notable (non-existent) website.— OcatecirT 01:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's dubious the former domain name for a website is notable; even if it was the WTC's. But at this moment, it is held by a squatter and having a link to it (or publicizing it at all beyond, maybe, a reference (not a link) in the WTC article) is very much inappropriate. — Coren(talk) 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reliable sources, no tangible claims to notability — Caknuck 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable humorist. Being one of many co-authors to a comedy book and being involved in a viral internet prank war is not enough to confer notability. — OcatecirT 01:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. This guy's not even been in a 'prank war', only been the victim of a prank. So far, such a total nobody--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this hasn't come out yet, I don't see how it can be notable. Any references will be speculatory at best. WP:CRYSTAL. Hersfold(t/a/c) 01:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure cruft. MarlithT/C 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. R. S. Shaw 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - if it's not going to be on sale til 2011 (that's if it exists at all), then it's not worth having now.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article contains no links and does not seem to be a real thing -- Imperator3733 06:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it may well still be an existing processor though it does not seem to be one... i believe that i may have heard of a new processor that peeks between that of a nano and that of a pico but i have not heard any details...Koishii1234 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)koishii1234[reply]
Don't Deletehe may have a point... the processors page may not be very reliable but that does not mean the processor itself does not exist... in fact i too have heard many rumors of such a processor but the point is that just because you've never heard of something dosent mean its not real... and if you intelligant people have yet to hear of a UrO processor than theres not much chance that ANYONE else has... there for to delete it from a site that is constantly being turned to for knowledge is the same as deleting knowledge itself... if you could PROVE that it does not exist that would be one thing however from what your saying it sounds only like you want it gone simply because YOU havent heard of it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentatengoku (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Verrai 02:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Gsearch reveals only this article and a freewebs.com site about the clan (presumably made by one of the clan's members). —Signed by KoЯnfan71My TalkSign Here! 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as a possible hoax, probable nonsense, and certain unverifiable non-notable group. Hersfold(t/a/c) 01:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please, please, delete. Not for things made up in school and whatnot. Mystache 01:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable teenager biopage adavidw 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete NN 10:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep I am the primary editor of this page. I am not a realation to Michael Scanlon. I am a fan of his youtube videos. He has made a notable 92 videos and is an active member of the youtube community as cam be seen here link title. He has a total of more than 135,400 video hits. His Jeffree Star Spoof has been favorited by over 50 users. His most popular video has a 4 star rating an has over 80 comments. He is a valued member of Flickr and produces good quality work for the site as you can see here Scanlon's Flickr page. I have provided valid refrences. The article is from a nuetral prespective. There is no slanderous material in the artical. The notable band Illusion Lounge is Played on the bay area classic rock station 107.7 The Bone regulary and is a favorite of the Sunday night DJ. The Band Illusion Lounge was a finalist in a contest to open for the notable band ZZ Top. I am fixing links and spelling mistakes on the page. All the information on the article is displayed in a factual manner. Illusion Lounge is featured on The Bones website .Illusion Lounge on The Bone. Michael Scanlon is an important member of Illusion lounge as can been seen on their myspace Illusion Lounge Myspace where the default picture is Michael Scanlon dressed as the bands mascot "PopBot". Michael Scanlon is highly involved with Illusion Lounge and plays guitar on stage on occasion when he is not in the PopBot suit. The article does not promote. I am finding more refrences. Scanlon has modeled for many striving photographers, one being the award winning Marco Torres. Scanlon is the winner of the 2002 Tri Valley Science fair. The award was given to him by The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory--ZEROmegster 10:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the bullets from your post as they were making the page extremely long. Thanks for your detailed analysis. Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source of notability is MySpace and YouTube, there have been no independant references provided. WP:RSEX discusses why both of those are considered unreliable sources. Yngvarr(t)(c) 11:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yngvarr. If there's some news coverage or other independant source that establishes notability, then it's a different story. I certainly cannot find any, however. ZZClaims~ Evidence 12:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myspace is explicitly named in WP:EL as a Bad Thing, and YouTube can't be considered reliable enough for verification of anything. Delete as non-notable unless the author is able to find something reliable for verification and notability. Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Myspace is explicitly named in WP:EL as a Bad Thing," This statement is false. Myspace falls under the section "Links normally to be avoided." While it is not recommended there is nothing in WP:EL regarding myspace as "Bad" or Unacceptable. Myspace is not recommended "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" which would be the case in this situation.--ZEROmegster 02:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because your MySpace page is self-promotion, it doesn't qualify as giving you notability, and it looks like you've yet to cross that bridge. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Myspace and Youtube are not reliable sources, and barring that, there is no notability. Yeah, there's a mention on a radio station, but I've been mentioned on a radio station - doesn't make me notable. --63.64.30.2 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a highly esteemed research center. Winning any sort of award given by them seems notable enough. There also seems to be more refrences--Tphuynh 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC) — Tphuynh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Couldn't agree more. I've replied on your Talk page. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LLNL was the sponser of the "Tri-Valley Science Fair" where this individual won a prize. That's the cosmic link there. --Sc straker 12:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a not notable minister. There are a few mentions of him in news sources according to google news but nothing substantial. JoshuaZ 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He apparently appeared on Anderson Cooper 360 and the article claims he's "syndicated" on radio stations around the country. I'd be interested to see some sources for that claim. Cap'n Walker 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 gnews hits. His books are self published, he runs Elijah Books. His 1 hour a week show may be syndicated, but doesn't appear to have drawn coverage. Doesn't appear to have independent coverage to support his meager claim to notability. Horrorshowj 04:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Too soon. When it has a release date and reliable sources, an article would be appropriate. ZZClaims~ Evidence 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Noting that W.marsh is right, but this would be close enough to being a future event for me to call it crystalballery. Without a release date or any other information than that it is supposed to be the next album, there's not much worth mentioning here in a separate article. Perhaps make a mention of it in the artist's article? --63.64.30.2 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No release date, no source or anything so it's crystal ball. West CoastRyda 15:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. There are no reliable third party sources published about this subject. For all we know this vaporware release is a hoax. Burntsauce 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 05:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Most online music stores already have the CD listed. DCEdwards1966 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Needs references, though. DCEdwards1966 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil☎ 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that presents no sources Will(talk) 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per W. Marsh. --DavidShankbone 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Lots of hand waving, but still zero sources. Burntsauce 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article was about an album that does not yet exist and for which there is no basis in reliable sources to establish potential notability.. JWSchmidt 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vaguely titled mess as well as Fired Up (album). We can stand to wait a few months till there's better confirmation than a post on myspace. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the artist. Information on a forthcoming release does not need it's own article, but per W.marsh the information does not certainly fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL. Pedro : Chat 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I changed the unconfirmed title and added a source., Sufer-boy94
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article was about a non-existent album with no reliable evidence of potential notability. Previously deleted in April for the same reason.. JWSchmidt 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that presents no reliable sources Will(talk) 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. And like they are in jail so my crystal ball doesnt agree anyway.Obina 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Prodigy is currently sent 3 and half year to jail. So it may be released (even) 2012. So that's Crystal bally. West CoastRyda 13:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that presents no reliable sources Will(talk) 17:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a single is already out, album was due for release in less than a month. JJL 13:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is reliable source about the album and a single has been released. Also it has been made clear that "Unmistakable" will be released in 2008 rain761 21:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article was about an album that does not exist yet and there were no reliable sources by which to judge potential notability. JWSchmidt 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If and when the album is released, it can prove its notability. Until then I believe Crystal Ball applies. --Stormbay 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very well put by Stormbay. We've waited ten years, we can wait another couple of months until it actually appears, if/when it does. Accounting4Taste 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to suspect that this album is the musical equivalent of "vaporware". The band has a well-attested career nearly forty years long, and the official website for the band has the complete track listing as well as the target release date. Garth 187 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 seconds on Google brought up the band's site with a note from the band's manager giving all the relevant information. I've added the reference. Here's an interview with the band that discusses the album. — Scientizzle 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was The result was delete. The article was about something that does not exist and for which there is no basis in reliable sources to establish potential notability.. JWSchmidt 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If and when the album is released, it can prove its notability. Until then I believe Crystal Ball applies. --Stormbay 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You guys wanting to delete it are pure faggots, if it's coming out, then let people know. Don't hide go to their website: New album & website coming SOON. If you want to delete it, then get the f*ck off the P.O.D. page and don't listen to them, they don't need halfassed losers listening to them.Ash48GotdaLife 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not unreasonable to wait until after an album drops to produce an article. Hopefully there will be independent reviews and the like to speak to the importance of the subject at that time. --Stormbay 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article was about an album that does not exist yet and for which there were no reliable sources by which potential notability could be determined.. JWSchmidt 05:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If and when the album is released, it can prove its notability. Until then I believe Crystal Ball applies. --Stormbay 21:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation when the album is released. - Crockspot 21:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What in WP:CRYSTAL supports waiting until something is released? We can write about things in the future if there are sources [51], [52]. --W.marsh 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his official website does indicate the album is scheduled for release later this year. Maybe that can be included as a source? --Scribewire 13:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An official website is not an independent WP:RS source.Obina 14:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some info. Here's some interview coverage. It would be reasonable to redirect to Tha Realest as it covers everything on this page, but better. — Scientizzle 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If and when the album is released, it can prove its notability. Until then I believe Crystal Ball applies. --Stormbay 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:CRYSTAL says an album would have to be released to be notable. --W.marsh 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and verifiability problems; no sources cited. Burntsauce 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs a lot of clean up, unsourced and is a year away from release. West CoastRyda 13:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for keeping are superficial and do not address the lack of sources or meeting of notability guidelines. W.marsh 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very suspect notability and doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Deleted once before. Will(talk) 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that it should be deleted. There are a hundred other pages on here and have less sources than the T-Rock page does and no one has made a fuss about those. I feel that this is a good article and does a very good job describing him like other artist's pages. L-Burna(talk 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I for one don't care that other crap exists- nominate those articles if you think they are poor. I can see no notability here. No decent sources, no albums or singles charting, no major label releases, and the collaborations seem minor at best. Show me the sources, and I'll change my mind. J Milburn 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Becuase it seems to have a good length and has had stints with some very notable artists, finding sources would be easy to get. foreverDEAD 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I believe I've done a good job with this article, shown that he has worked with big names, and thoroughly described his years as a rap artist. L-Burna(talk) 11:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you have not done is CITE RELIABLE SOURCES. Until we see some reliable third party sources published about this subject, all we have here is one giant WP:BLP problem. Delete unless something changes. Burntsauce 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pending sources. If they are found, I will consider undeletion or relisting the AFD. Please contact me on my talk page. W.marsh 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be to completely original research; half essay and half instructions. The term itself does seem to turn up on blogs, but I could not find anything that looked like a reliable source. I think that there is a possibility for an appropriate article by this name, but this is not that article. If it were gutted of all problematic stuff it would just a dictionary definition. And that wouldn't belong here either. I think we should delete this without prejudice of recreation if any reliable sources are found in the future.BirgitteSB 21:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Strange article....Keeper | 76 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V. Anytime an article says "All of the information on this subject is anecdotal," that's a bad sign. — Satori Son 01:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into aftercare (BDSM), unless there are specific sources found. The "anecdotal" comment is a frank admission that there is no known physiological or experimental basis, but that applies to a great deal of human concerns including sexuality; it doesn't mean there are no sources of information for the term or the feeling. Agreed, though, that if no source can be found at all it will have to be merged or deleted. 04:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hold* I will look for information sources as best I can, though I am only a passer by, give me about a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.54.138 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Review Me! 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Tom_Barman_2006.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=155578085){kind=link}
gracz54 (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]