The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Removed prod, personal essay. Author added a few sources in response to prod, but none of them gave any solid evidence that they were doing anything other than using ordinary English words with their usual meaning. Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)withdraw nomination[reply]
Strong keep. A Google search turned up 221,000 results, and the first one is from the widely recognized American Psychological Association. At least in the U.S., high-stakes testing is a major educational issue, made more so by Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, which mandates such testing in U.S. schools. Some of the examples in the article may not be the best, but the overview looks pretty sound, and the summary of major sticking points at the end seems right on target. The article definitely needs more sourcing, but the notability of the topic would be difficult or impossible to contest. Valerius (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment While it's possible I was a bit hasty on this nom, what I'd like to see is something indicating that it's a genuine term of art, and not just three English words used with their ordinary meaning. Can you speak specifically to that? Say, with sources that indicate that researchers have isolated a specific concept for which they've agreed to use this terminology? If you could convince me on that point I'd withdraw the nomination (but would suggest that something about it be added to the article). --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one example: An Amazon.com search turned up 1,448 results, and at first blush, nearly all of them seem to include the term high-stakes testing. The only uncertainty is whether to hyphenate or not. You might also check the Google results above. Personally, I've seen and heard dozens of news reports on the topic, and I've never heard it called anything else. Education news sources like EdWeek have lots of articles on high-stakes testing. I'd say it's as much a term of art as "ozone layer". Valerius (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a little uneasy with this; it seems like a lot of people are talking about high-stakes testing, but it's not quite as clear that they all agree on exactly what it is. That can be a formula for an article that can hardly avoid "original research by synthesis". But the term does seem to have a large enough footprint that just deleting the article no longer seems a good option. I would just appeal to those who work on it to be extra scrupulous about avoiding original synthesis. --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, notability not established, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources show that this is for real. Mandsford (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a subtle attack page written by someone about an acquaintance of theirs who no doubt has the surname Frost. If it had been more personally identifying I would have speedily deleted it. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and needs some sources. Macy's123(review me) 03:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to obscure slang dictionary definitions.--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge to with The Outsiders (novel), but as it is not clear, what really should be merged, I'll just do the redirects. Interested editors may merge further content where they see fit. Tikiwont (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is mostly a repetition of inuniverse plot details, and this character (and others) are covered with an almost equal amount of depth in the main The Outsiders (novel). Although there has been a film (The Outsiders (film)) and tv adaptation (The Outsiders (TV series)), these do not seem to make these characters notable outside of the context of those articles. NickPenguin(contribs) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also listing the following other characters for the same reasons:
Delete all These characters are notable but they all have an adequate description in the The Outsiders (novel). Tavix (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or merge to The Outsiders (novel). Much as I loved S.E. Hinton's slim paperback when I was a kid, I agree that none of the characters rate their own article... not even Ponyboy. Merge is also a possibility, although I would imagine that the characters are described in the book's page. Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All with The Outsiders (novel). There is some potentially significant information here that should be merged to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Proposal (talk • contribs) 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge all per Perfect Proposal. JuJube (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as small enough. per Perfect Proposal. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Collection of non-notable characters. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All with The Outsiders (novel) the characters are dsscribed on the books page, but care should be exercised that any significant information in the character articles is carried over and not simply deleted.F-451 (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of people have suggested merge as an alternative, but I still question what and why. There are a lot of plot details, yes, but these are minor considering the rest of the book; anything that isn't minor is already in the book article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Once the plot info is removed, there is nothing to merge. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete and salt per nom and User:TenPoundHammer. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.--Kubigula(talk) 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian[edit]
Everything in this article is derived from one source, Charlton Ogburn. As such, it violates the NPOV policy. It also misrepresents this chronology as having wider support than it does. The sheer existence of this article is a violation of the undue weight clause, as no sources at all have been provided to show that there is any acceptance of this particular chronology beyond that of its author. Chick Bowen 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure that this deserves deletion. The article has Ogburn sources as well as a lot of non-Ogburn external links. I'm pretty sure an even wider array of sources could be provided as well. Wrad (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the question. The question is whether the sources establish that this particular chronology is significant enough to be one of only two (the other one being that of mainstream Shakespeare scholarship) presented. This is basically a fringe theory by an amateur. Chick Bowen 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two questions here, obviously. One about sources and one about Due Weight. Wrad (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pretty problem here. This is pretty much a WP:SS fork from Oxfordian theory and exists in its context and in support of it. I agree there's some WP:POV issue when taken on its own, but taken with its parent, less of one. Except that Oxfordian theory is already long, I'd suggest merging into it, rather than deletion. Failing that, edit the discussion to make clear how much of a minority opinion this is. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's about my feeling. There's a sizeable group that regularly edits the Oxfordian article. I'm hoping to see their thoughts soon. Wrad (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and feel the article should stay, but with some changes, as suggested. I have added numerous references and reworked the article, including making it quite clear that it is a minority viewpoint that most scholars reject, and that it is part of a series on the issue. I think I've addressed the comments and certainly welcome input or collaboration. Smatprt (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. An appropriate clear presentation of this material. Notable nonsense is notable, and this is extensive enough to need a separate article for clarity.DGG (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJL (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
That's not a valid deletion reason. MECU≈talk 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The implication is that Keilana has denied the CSD tagging, and is bringing it up for community discussion. —Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The entry has been expanded to include more information about the organization's history with external references/press mentions. The entry is now as -- if not more -- complete than many of the wikipedia entries for West Potomac's peer teams. If this article is still considered a potential AfD, please indicate specific reasons why this entry is not appropriate compared to the others in the US rugby union teams category. Bobby sparkles (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not into sports, etc. articles, but I don't see how an article with all those references from all those different independent sources, including the Washington Post, could fail a notability test. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. I had tagged this as A7, which at the time it absolutely was. However, the effort put into this article has been exemplary and a gold standard on how to save an article. Good work.--CastAStone//(talk) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this idea, but given Keilana's method of starting this AfD, my response may qualify the article for Speedy Keep per nom.--CastAStone//(talk) 04:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a hangon template if you're the creator of the article, or by removing the speedy deletion template if you're not. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.Mangojuicetalk 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a repetition of plot elements from Over the Hedge (film) and Over the Hedge, and it is also completely unsourced, and the existing Over the Hedge (film) article covers most of this content in it's current state. Also listing the following related character articles:
Delete all, composed mostly of original research, unverifiable information, and fancruft. All of the verifiable info is already duplicated in the existing OtH articles, so deleting this will be no big loss. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the film article - the information is verifiable by watching the movie and reading its credits. That is, the movie is the source. The Transhumanist 02:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list, merge and redirect the three character articles into it Thanks a bunch >.< It's been very helpful to be able to wikilink these when dealing with the videogame articles. Whilst looking for interviews covering the videogame (development info) I noticed several interviews with the staff and voice cast about the movie, here's one example which I bookmarked just in case. At the very least I've seen individual interviews with Bruce Willis, Verne's voice actor and the possum's voice actor focused on the film. Here's another general interview stating Jim Carrey was going to voice RJ. The film's generated a lot of information, the problem here is that the article has been needlessly split and the focus is on plot repetition rather than real world info, but it's do-able. I'll find some of those interviews tomorrow so you can all have a look. Someone another (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three voice actor interview at cinemablend. Staff interview here with some usable material (porcupines skewering the other animals, what staff members were doing to research creating the characters. Here's an interview with a video game developer, sound-alikes were used for the characters, no direct involvement with (either the film or comic creators) during development. This Jim Carrey fansite article is extremely interesting, it points to more potential material.
Bear in mind we have two very distinct entities here, the comic strip and the film. There's the details over the original characters' creation from the comic strip, there's details about the creation of the characters for the film, there's details about the voice actors and what they were up to when voicing the characters. There are at least three distinct video-game spin-offs Over the Hedge (video game), Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS) and Hammy Goes Nuts. The links above give examples of real-world context, I think there's enough there to justify a separate article, particularly as there are several more out there relating to the film, and probably some more details about the characters from the comic and some additional tidbits from the games. Someoneanother 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Over the Hedge (film), unless it breaks WP:SIZE restraints. References to primary-sourced information like (most of) this is perfectly acceptable given that the notability of Over the Hedge (film) is already established. I could even see keeping these separate due to stylistic problems, but I think they'll work fine being merged into the main article. Torc2 (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Clearly no notability outside of Halo 3, and no content that is germane to Wikipeia; cruft, plain and simple. David Fuchs (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is a clear-cut case of cruft; there's no way to establish notability, and this fails WP:FICT because it doesn't have any real-world content. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺ 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to type WP:WAF instead of WP:FICT? Because it apparently has real-world existance, and so is not a fictive thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The Halo 3 already has what looks like an adequete summary of this map pack. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information already exists in the main article. This is an unnecessary fork. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Octa Galaxy page was made to describe the setting of a book that is in the making. User:Chris Nahrgang January 8, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, being the setting of a book that is in the making is the problem here. While some fictional settings are notable, a setting from a book that hasn't been published, and consequently hasn't been discussed elsewhere means that it won't pass Wikipedia's notability criteria, especially Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N due to lack of sources, and also a violation of WP:NOT#CBALL for the same reason. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn This is a non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Doczilla (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nomination based on restored notability information. Doczilla (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this article should be reverted to its original state, which is about an NFL player. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now it has been reverted to its unvandalised state. This was an article about Brett Williams the Florida footballer, who appears on the surface to meet the notability guiddeline for biographies. The article was blanked and replaced with a single-line stub about a non-notable 12-year old of the same name. This stub was then nominated for AfD. I have restored the article to its unvandalised state. It is still unreferenced but Williams' NFL career seems suficiently notable to justify retention. Euryalus (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. NFL player with WP:RS coverage available from 2000-2006 if not longer. Clearly passes WP:BIO. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article fails wikipedia notability, it documents a period of history of a football team, which no other source treats as a seperate entity.
It is intended to mislead the reader into believing it is a distinct team from the current team, quoting team stats unquoted by anyone outside of wikipedia, including players recods and chamionship wins.
Even if the content of the article was found to be valid it is inconsistant with the article title Fasach Nua (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: This team represented Ireland as opposed to either the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. Although the organising body, the Irish Football Association, also went onto to organise the Northern Ireland national football team, the original IFA team deserves an article of its own as it represented a different geographical area. As the two IFA teams represented two different territories – Ireland and Northern Ireland – there should be two different articles. This article is not unprecedented in Wiki. There is a whole Category:Former national football teams of similar cases. The case most similar is Czechoslovakia national football team which then became the Czech Republic national football team. This case is complicated by the fact that the IFA continued to organise an all-Ireland team long after the partition of Ireland and the emergence of a separate Republic of Ireland national football team which also briefly played as Ireland. This team was organised by the separate Football Association of Ireland. The IFA last fielded an all-Ireland team in 1950. This article is essential to the understanding of a complicated era in Irish football history and should remain. It has been translated into different two other languages and has nearly 500 links which clearly demonstrates an interest. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? No, seriously, are you? Keep. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm not sure what the motivations for this are, but I find it highly unlikely that this could be considered non-notable. matt91486 (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The nominator's rationale is unclear to me; I'm not sure what I'm missing, and won't express an opinion as to "keep" or "delete" until things are clearer. I will say that the IFA-organized "Ireland" team is undoubtedly notable (see e.g. Richard Cox, Dave Russell and Wray Vamplew, Encyclopedia of British Football. Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0714652490. p. 189; Paul Brown, The Unofficial Football World Championships. Tonto Press, 2006. ISBN 0955218314. pp. 36-37; Bill Murray, "FIFA", in The International Politics of Sport in the 20th Century, edited by James Riordan and Arnd Krüger. Taylor & Francis, 1999. ISBN 0419211608. p. 32.; Peter J. Beck, Scoring for Britain: International Football and International Politics, 1900-1939. Routledge, 1999. ISBN 071464899X. p. 102; and on and on and on); and I see no intention to mislead: the article does an admirable job of explaining the continuity of the IFA and the discontinuity of the FIFA-recognized "national" designation of its team and recruitment territory ("Ireland" pre-1950, "Northern Ireland" post-1950). Stats, players' records, and championship wins are issues for editing, not for deletion. What's the point that I'm failing to get? --Paularblaster (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep How is this different from having a separate article on the Irish Free State, which is a previous version of the Republic of Ireland that continues today, claimed jurisdiction over the entire island (see the first Free State postage stamp), and was rather complicated in its history? The article appears well referenced, too. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as there is a clear distinction between the "scope" of the IFA team and that of the current Northern Ireland national football team. FIFA has the notion of "successor" nations for continuity of records, such as USSR → Russia, Czechoslovakia → Czech Republic, Yugoslavia → Serbia, etc. despite the obvious differences between the pre- and post- nations. Therefore, I think the same thing applies here — the current N.I. team is clearly the succesor to the original all-Ireland IFA team, which is why there is overlap with respect to team records, etc. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 05:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is about an all-Ireland team that existed upto the 1950s', There is no justification for its removal.--Padraig (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A read of Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA) will show the background to the nominator's decision to nominate. In brief, there has been debate about whether "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" should be treated as (a) two different (albeit related) teams, or (b) one continuous (albeit evolving) team. My position has been that the question is unanswerable; that Wikipedia should not take sides; that the article(s) should reflect this; that we should attempt to create an article that can be read equally as either (a) "the history of the defunct Ireland team" or (b) "the early history of the Northern Ireland team" depending on which viewpoint a reader has. There is enough material to merit having two separate articles, one for the current NI team and one historical. I understand the nominator believes that the article does not currently get the balance right, but I think the nomination is an unfortunate burst of frustration at what has been a prolonged debate rather than a considered proposal. There is plenty of work to be done on the article, but deletion is clearly not the answer. jnestorius(talk) 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit the nomination came out of frustartion at the degree of intransigence in the talk page , jnestorius has shown sound judgement in the past in other articles, and is knowlegable about this subject, if this user feels it is salvageable, I will withdraw the nomination Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a house, without indication that it is notable, like registered historical places or whatever the England equivalent, It doesn't seem to be a National Trust property which seems to be the premier lot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't National Trust, it's owned by the borough. I've extended the article a little. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it's considered "historic" by a reliable source and it's a museum in of itself due to its historic uniqueness, it is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator put the following comment on the talk page, which should should be considered a Keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very pleasant house which is council property on the high street which can be toured. I'll get a picture for it next time I'm in Guildford. It certainly should not be deleted. SuzanneKn (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "premier lot" are Grade 1 listed buildings, of which this is one of approximately 6000. Being a National Trust property is an indication of ownership, rather than notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been improved considerably since it was nominated. Notability is sufficient for an article here.--Michig (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade 1 listing is for "buildings of outstanding or national architectural or historic interest", says it all really. RMHED (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a Grade I listed building, which is roughly equivalent to being a National Historic Landmark for those of us on this side of the pond. Also, it appears to be a reasonably notable museum in its area, though I didn't fully check that out. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. No evidence given that this is anything more than a neologism -- almost no references, either. May be a WP:No original research issue: without references, it's hard to tell. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source, original research. Does not mention the term "Wireless creep" beyond the first paragraph. -- Emana (Talk) 22:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete The term is a neologism, probably just slang of some small group of people. The only reference does not contain the words "wireless creep". If the term becomes widespread, the page can be restored.147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Easily meets WP:BIO's "additional criteria" section: "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards". Article currently lists her as being nominated for 8 awards over 6 years. Tabercil (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tabercil is correct, subject easily meets additional criteria. Article is reasonably sourced. This seems like a pretty bizarre nomination. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never heard of her but did some searching. She seems notable enough due to awards and some other coverage. I am an established user but I'm too embarrassed to edit this AFD under my username because this is a porn AFD. My real username starts with con and quite a few letters after that. I do not normally look at porn but was curious when I saw this AFD. Conpornafd (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. The problem with this article is that "Paizley Adams" isn't her main stage name. It's "Cassidey". That redirects to this article, but I think it should be the other way around. Articles for Cassidey:
and in addition to the nominations, I think that's sufficient. I don't normally like just nominations as proof of notability, but she has gotten 8 over 6 years, that's not trivial. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Fancruft" isn't a criteria for deletion. Notability is a valid criteria, but as others have noted, this seems to meet notability criteria. This does seem to be a somewhat bizarre nomination. I feel silly that I'm even discussing this. --Mdwyer (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. The subject received nontrivial treatment in multiple reliable sources. The merge discussion may occur on the article's talk page. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources, so this article fails Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The only claim to fame is that the book was written by Michelle Malkin — but by Malkin's own admission, it was virtually ignored outside of the extreme right-wing fringe. In Malkin's own words: "There have been no reviews in major newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Even my former employers—the Seattle Times and L.A. Daily News—have ignored the book. Other than Cal Thomas, none of the big-name Beltway newspaper pundits wrote about the book." Much of the article consists of Malkin's complaints about how the book did not achieve widespread notability. This is not a valid encyclopedia article and is unlikely ever to be one. *** Crotalus *** 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I wonder if we could speedy it as advertising? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While Michelle Malkin is clearly notable, I can’t see that this book meets the standards as outlined in WP:BK. —Travistalk 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per Corvus cornix -- yes, it seems that it would be a good idea to keep at least a bit of this information. —Travistalk 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about WP:N and WP:RS? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge into Michelle Malkin (unless someone shows the book to notable in the next day or two ...). We probably should look at whether any of the articles about her other books should be merged too. CWC 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Per George100 below, meets criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books). CWC 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Michelle Malkin. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom, which raises similar issues.) The lack of reliable evidence of notability means that this book simply isn't worthy of a separate article. The book fails every criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (books). I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. It certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author cannot be described as historically significant. It's also not enough to cite sources that mention a book only in passing (that's why Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks of non-trivial references). To quote: "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source: "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." I realise that some editors may like the book's political thesis, but our criteria for inclusion are those set out by Wikipedia:Notability (books), not editors' own personal political preferences. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Two reliable sources for reviews: National Review [3], and Reason magazine [4]. Furthermore it was on the NY Times Bestseller list briefly. [5] --George100 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book , the article needs to be developed.--CltFn (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per George100; we have two full reviews for a book on the NY Times Bestseller list. That's notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article has improved since Afd, references to prove notability are there now. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was article has already been speedily deleted. Metropolitan90(talk) 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe twice deleted article about non-notable football player: he has been signed by a club, but has (still) not played for them. As I recall, this article was first speedily deleted, then later deleted after AfD discussions -[[6]] (No Consensus) and [[7]] (Result: Delete). Nothing has changed, he has still not played professionally, and is still not (in the wiki sense) notable. Springnuts (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As this article was previously deleted per AfD #2, this article is speediable per WP:CSD#G4. —Travistalk 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced stub with no reliable sources per WP:RS and no evidence of notability per WP:N. Tagged for no references by me, and tagged for notability, two months ago, by another editor. A Google search reveals [8] spam, this article, another country club, spam, Craig's List, etc. This is an ordinary country club with nothing special that is worthy of inclusion into English Wikipedia. This is my second nomination for any article in the past 11 months. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. I was the editor who tagged it for notability a while back. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This probably could have been speedied as spam with no contest. -- Emana (Talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Although it would be intresting to see the Members List, there is nothing going for this Article in regard to either guideline. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It does come pretty close to G12.--Kubigula(talk) 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject, "a world renowned author, speaker and marketing expert", fails notability guidelines. Nearly all references are to business ventures in which Dustin Mathews is involved - those that aren't are trivial. No indication that he has been the subject of secondary source material. His one book, How To Get Rich Working for Free, is self-published. Judging from the subject's website, it would appear that he contributed no more than a chapter to Secrets Of The Real Estate Millionaires, the other title (which is not yet been published and has no listing on Amazon). The creation of Dustball20, a single purpose account. Possibly a case of conflict of interest. Victoriagirl (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources about the author. No indication of notability of the book which is self-published. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per G12, blatant advertising Teleomatic (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful The article was originally about a different "Ignite Films" and here somebody highjacked the article. Matchups (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting. I don't think either article passes WP:N or WP:RS ! --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd say Ignite films (Holland) should have been speedied a long time ago. Ignite films (Canada) definitely fails WP:N as it asserts none. Also, not verbatim, but smells like ((advert)). -- Emana (Talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability for the Canadian company nor the Dutch company. So regardless of which version of the article is under consideration, notability is not met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, full of spelling and grammatical errors, virtually no wikilinks, inappropriate writing style (reads more like a magazine article) 52 Pickup (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source to indicate notability of the company -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are several indicators that this company is either defunct, operating under a different name or insufficiently notable for inclusion here. First, there remains on the internet a 'page under construction' site for the company at http://www.acousticsoundsystems.co.uk/, which indicates that the page will be launched in Autumn 2005. Second, the company is listed in several UK business directories, but the company website listed, http://www.assspeakers.com/, returns an 'access forbidden' response; granted, this may be a transient. Finally, I searched local Essex web sites that were available, such as that for the Essex Gazette and the local Essex web presence, and found no mentions; often mentions in the bowels of sites like these are not fully indexed on Google (like news archives). Based on all of this, I recommend deletion, understanding that negative results in searching do not mean there is nothing to be found. The company might have been purchased or changed names, in which case a new article might emerge at a later date. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Consensus is measured against policy and notability is pretty explicit that multiple independent reliable sources are required to assert notability and this article fails this. The debate asserts that the article can be sourced in due course but this misses the point that the sources need to exist in the first place. This has not been established and consequently this falls for deletion. Before anyone starts bombarding my talk page about this close I'd like to place on record that I'm a) a big fan of top gear and b) willing to undelete this if reliable independent sources are provided. SpartazHumbug! 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is facile and ridiculous DBD 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I asked why? [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
*Keep - I agree that the articles don't really have any current outside sources for notability, but I think that Top Gear has enough coverage that they can easily be found. As for being adequately covered, I personally find the unduplicated information quite useful. Admittedly that's bordering on WP:ILIKEIT, but it seems relevant to me. mattbuck (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to overstate the popularity of Top Gear and it's a big call to say no sources or reviews discussing these segments could possibly be found. Nick mallory (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep Just got a game for Christmas with one line on the board called "the Cool Wall". No idea what it meant, wikied it, got full answer here and, may I add, had a good time reading it all. Isn't that what Wikipedia is (great) about? Why censure/delete it? This is just nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.201.175 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep You missed The Stig BTW. I am afraid that all these articles are now a British institution. Jeremy Clarkson has written many books where secondary references could be found even if he is one of the presenters, not to mention motorsport, motoring and mens magazines. It is of great interest to many (and notable) how fast an F1 driver can get a family saloon round a track. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply a book by the presenter of the show (and participent in the events) does not count as an independent source so cannot be used to establish notability. Personnaly I have not seen articles about the events in independent motoring magazines or publications. Whilst they may have been mentioned in passing several times I doubt they have recieved significant coverage (happy to be proved wrong with examples). Notability is not inherited (links to essay), being part of a notable show does not make something notable in its own right. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Note and while the current article doesn't necesarily make it clear I think The Stig is actually notable due to sources such as [9] and [10] (found after a quick Google search, I'm sure there are more out there. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Absolute Keep"No evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"?
It's a Television show. You want to know in which episode a particular event happened you can research it here. There is no variable. It's either right, or it's wrong. And it's right.
Furthermore, they are not covered in the main article. These are independent pages, and rightly so, there's already so much up on the main page.
Keep it.[[User:KeepTopGear 0:18, 9 January 2008]]— 99.232.250.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Or... if you want to find out what episode something happens in you could look at the existing article, List of Top Gear episodes, which lists every episode and what happened in each of them. Also "KeepTopGear" does not appear to be a registered user account. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Absolute Keep: As the other users who want it kept suggested. It's a national treasure. All the necessary information is there. The idiot who suggested these articles should be deleted needs their head examined! JRRobinson (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - JRRobinson, please be aware that calling people names does not help your cause (WP:CIVIL). Much as I hate to say it, we do need sources for this all. Oh, and Guest 9999, please just add your signature as ~~~~ not [[~~~~]]. mattbuck (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (See below for reason for change of opinion) into the main Top Gear article. While the content is valid and verifiable, there does not seem to be sufficient grounds for creating individual articles about segments of the show. - fchd (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's about a huge hit in Britain, for which I can not understand, but notable nonetheless. Each article could stand by itself with a bit of editing. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWikipedia:There is no deadline - and this applies to finding sources. The content of this article is valid and verifiable. I don't agree with the idea of a merge/redirect. --Solumeirastalk 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but why is this better server in a seperate article and not merged in to the main TopGear article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current Top gear article is rather large as it is, without adding this information back in. mattbuck (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no deadline (an essay) only applies if there is currently the possibility of improving an article to the standards required by policies and guidelines. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep. The material passes the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, and cannot be adequately covered through a merge with the main Top Gear article due to the existing length of the latter. Cynical (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - sources (at least looking through a search engine) are extremely hard to come by, what I have find are videos uploaded onto websites (legally dodgy), blogs and forum postings (both of those not acceptable as sources as per WP:V), therefore the articles have no chance of meeting that aforementioned guideline. As for merging the text into the main Top Gear article, not even the text for any of the nominated articles in the main article is referenced! Strictly under WP:V, that could all be deleted as well (I won't, but it does need referencing). The same arguments that are affecting video game deletions could also apply here, in the way that specific elements and databases of a video game are being deleted (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft locations), this should also apply to television programmes as well. You could go as far as class the articles as Top Gear fancruft and trivia (it could violate WP:NOT#GUIDE if television programme segments were included in the same reasons as for other topics, ie. game and travel guides). Due to the above arguments, notability cannot be established for all the articles. Don't get me wrong, I love Top Gear, and its appointment to view television for me every Sunday, but I feel that specific sections of episodes (in the same way that parts of video games have been deleted for the same reasons) are better served by a fan site or a off-site Wiki. --tgheretford (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP KEEP KEEP. Its interesting, its notable and it is enjoyed by a worldwide audience. I dont see a problem here. --Bud (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong KEep". I'll poop in your shoes if you don't keep it.64.130.183.199 (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep These are the only real informative pages on this subject. Why are they up for deletion? 81.110.245.215 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Filled with useful trivia information that would otherwise clutter up the Top Gear Main page. Kindalas (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "useful trivia" an oxymoron? - fchd (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE most of the info was originally at the main Top Gear Article, and somehow got spinned-off for reasons I don't know right now. I suggest merge to one article separate from the main Top Gear Article. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:There is no deadline and it meets notability requirements. I oppose a merge because the others are essentially a subarticles of the main Top Gear article. Per summary style, these should be kept & expanded accordingly. — BQZip01 —talk 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have seen no guarantee that anyone will add references from third parties to meet WP:V and WP:N --tgheretford (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an informative piece on a segment of an immensely popular TV show. Might I add that the Power Laps section is very informative, and useful. I have to ask this, why in the world would you propose this for deletion? BlackbeltMage (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely notable, and take a look at Wikipedia:There is no deadline for the slow development, if you must do something, merge them altogether into Top Gear segments or something of the sort. ~Ferdia O'Brien(T)/(C) 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep
Wikipedia:There is no deadline syas the following: "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." and "Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea.". [[Guest9999 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep - moderately sourced and definitely notable. Sourcing and references should be expanded, but that is not a reason for deletion. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately sourced? The only references quoted are to the programme's official website! That certainly can't be counted as a Reliable source! - fchd (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The program is the only source of and arbiter to the information. Any third party sources would merely be deferring to the program as the source of their data. There is no third-party source possible. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, that makes a case that the articles definitely fail WP:N. Remember you need multiple, non-trivial, third-party references. As much as I love the programme, I'm afraid that changes my vote to Delete. - fchd (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think another problem is that as the show somewhat straddles the line between fact and fiction it is debateable how much any of it can be presumed to be verifiable by primary sources. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep with major edits - There are 2 issues here, the first is the notability of a section of a TV programme beyond the notability of the programme itself, the second is that the segment of the programme has spawned a performance benchmarking phenomenon (http://www.fastestlaps.com/track1.html) for production cars. I would suggest that the major information be merged with the Top Gear page (i.e. that the laps are a weekly segment of the show, that they are production car times, that 'The Stig' drives the cars listening to nonsense, and so on), while the list of times, including information about the times which Top Gear do not list, what the supposed time penalty for driving in poor conditions is reckoned to be, that the "Top Gear Track" is in fact a track laid out on Dunsfold airfield by Lotus and utilised by Top Gear under the guidance of the track's operator, and any other encyclopedic type information distinct from the semi-fictitious Top Gear centric information (which as suggested will reside on the Top Gear page) would reside on this page. It might seem that I have an Axe to grind, due to the ongoing discussion on the Power Laps page about 'unofficial' times. Think what you like, but consider my proposed solution on it's own merits (or lack of), thank you.Meio (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Top Gear Test Track is available and could be expanded with both Power Laps and SIARPC if you so wish (and possibly eliminate two of the articles in one pinch). --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That merger seems quite reasonable. Someone should do it ASAP before the pages are summarily deleted and all content lost. - mattbuck 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fear not, for I may or may not have saved back-ups. Tehe. DBD 12:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the Closing Mod please keep both Power Laps and Star in a Reasonably Priced Car intact till one of us can figure out how to shunt it together into Top Gear Test Track and make the wiki linkys work? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the discussion thusfar, I think it is exceptionally unlikely that any admin is going to close it as delete. [[Guest9999 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
You never know. Starting the merge. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, merger complete.....but the AfD template is screwing with the redirects. Also strikethru the now redirected pages. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the AfD tag from one of the new redirects pending the conclusions of this discussion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete/Merge - now that the power laps and SiaRPC have been merged to Top Gear test track, I suggest that the other two articles be downsized, and Cool Wall merged into the main article, and Cheap Car Challenges used to marginally expand the episode list. - mattbuck 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Cheap Car Challenges, merge Cool Wall with main article - Cheap Car Challenges are a major feature, and are very notable. Using the episode guide, it is hard to find detailed information on these. Cool Wall is notable, but short enough to place in the main article's subheading for it due to its indefinite hiatus. Luigi6138 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Major? Cheap Car Challenges? Try around what, 90 episodes, divided by 8 challenges, over 10 seasons....less that 10% of the bulk of the episodes made. SIARPC and Power Laps would be "Major" parts of the show, not Cheap Car Challenges. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy close as disruption amplified by good faith. Random832 (talk·contribs) acted in good faith, but it is not necessary to always bring other people's speedy deletion attempts to AFD, especially when the speedy deletion reasons given are not one of our Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If none of the criteria for speedy deletion apply, simply remove the tag, explaining that no criterion applies. Uncle G (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
procedural, was tagged for speedy deletion with a reason of "Complete work of fiction - No such entity exists" by 212.183.134.209 (talk·contribs·WHOIS). —Random832 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's an article from National Geographic that states that it (or something very similar) exists. "Other current micro-nations include the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom on islands in Australia's Coral Sea—formed by a group of gay-rights activists in Queensland...". Phyesalis (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- the article has plenty of references for notability and verifiability, and makes it clear that the territorial claims of this micronation are not internationally recognized. PubliusFL (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - While I'm sure the nom meant this AfD in good faith, one Speedy Deletion tagger with a claim that contradicts easily found sources is only a reason to remove the speedy tag, not put the article up for AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, especially when the speedy deletion tagger is an IP account with an apparent history of vandalism. PubliusFL (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Local independent parliamentary candidate standing as a "party" - almost no votes, no assertion of notability, not even any references to prove it actually happened. Every UK election throws up many hundreds of such "parties" which have little to distinguish themselves from each other and very few voters who take any notice of them. Err... that's WP:NN. andy (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Public Safety Democratic Monarchist White Resident party doesn't even have a redirect, and this - individual, I assume - is far less notable than the noble Commander. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the Bill Boaks article although I was well aware of him, as any democrat should be. I'm grateful to you for the reference. :) andy (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that Boaks regularly changed the order of the words in the title of his candidatures, and never claimed to have a party, so the situation is somewhat different. Warofdreamstalk 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepDelete. No assertion of notability? The table for the 2005 election results states, 'This table indicates those parties with over 500 votes nationwide', there are 60 parties in the table not hundreds. British Public Party got over 500 votes. Please see discussion regarding notability [11]. I don't think there are sources for any of the constituency results for the 2005 elections but I don't think we should delete all of them! Please see article Ilford South (UK Parliament constituency) for constituency the election relates to. Tom (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This doesn't address the substantive issues raised in WP:NOT. The (very limited) discussion about notability you refer to is simply about some people's ideas of how long a list should be, not about WP's concepts of notability. Tiny little "parties" are almost certain to fail the notability test so let's at least see some substantial local references to prove this party has some pretence to notability. If not, then it must have been a party that no-one came to! andy (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of WP's concept of notability must be about how long the list should be or the list would have been shortened no? You assert that the party is both 'tiny' and 'little', how little does the party have to be before it fails the notability test? To be consistent we could shorten the list to only parties that received a 1000 votes or more but some other editors may disagree. Tom (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number of votes recieved is not the criterion. That is, in fact, irrelevant. Wikipedia:Notability explains the criterion. Please read it. And the length of the list on the template has nothing to do with this discussion, which is about an article. Uncle G (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I say above, the alternative would be to shorten the table to just those parties that have 1000 votes or more. We should also fairly apply the notability rational to all the other parties in the table and delete all those that don't have sources e.g. UK Community Issues Party, Local Community Party etc but this would seem overkill which is why I vote for speedy keep. Tom (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We apply notability criteria fairly. That does not mean that either every party or no party gets an article. "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. The primary criterion is multiple published works documenting the subject in depth from reliable and independent sources. Some parties satisfy that criterion, and get articles. Some do not, and warrant no more than lines in election results tables, because that is all that they have outside of Wikipedia. You do not seem to have fully understood "the length of the list on the template has nothing to do with this discussion", moreover. How was it unclear? You also have the wrong idea of what speedy keeping is about. Your rationale is not a speedy keep rationale in any way. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid rationale. It's not a rationale for speedy keeping, and AFD is not about assertions of notability. That's only what prevents certain classes of article from being speedily deleted. Here, at AFD, we decide whether things actually are notable. And no, as pointed out, that discussion isn't a discussion of notability. Here, we are discussing whether this subject warrants an article. And the criterion for that is whether this party has been documented in depth in multiple non-trivial published works from reliable and independent sources. That is what demonstrates notability, per Wikipedia:Notability. If the sole documentation for a party is a line in an election results table outside of Wikipedia (which are published, by the way, and which are sources for articles such as the one that you point to), then that is all that it should garner inside Wikipedia, and it doesn't warrant an article, merely a row in a table in an article such as Ilford South (UK Parliament constituency). So not only have you not made a valid speedy keep rationale, you haven't even addressed the subject of notability at all. Cite sources. Those are your arguments for notability. Boldfaced words and an invalid rationale aren't. Uncle G (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've done my best to expand the article, but the only sources I've been able to find are lists of election results and the party's own website. The other Google hits appear to be discussions on forums where someone has asked a questions along the lines of "anyone heard of this lot?" I don't think that the bar for articles on political parties should be set too high - having one elected councillor will almost certainly generate enough references to ensure that the party can be considered notable (and I'd certainly consider that a good article could be written on the Local Community Party, which has a number of councillors, although the current article doesn't really demonstrate this). Some other parties may be notable for unusual views, activity in trade unions or specific campaigns, or any number of other areas. But if nobody outside the party has troubled themselves to write even one line of prose on the party's views, it's not notable. Just possibly, there might be sufficient evidence in the local press which hasn't made it online, but based on what I've been able to find, it has to be a sad delete vote. Warofdreamstalk 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the above discussion, I agree that the party should be on the _list_. I don't believe that it deserves its own _article_, especially not such a minimalistic one as we have at the moment. And this would apply to most of the parties at the bottom of the list, although a mass nomination probably isn't the way to go. Tevildo (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bloody hell, that's the last time I work on the red link project :-( ,Tom walks away crying...Tom (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People sometimes wikify list entries with wild abandon. That doesn't mean that every entry on the list is a subject that qualifies for an article. (This is most commonly a problem with lists of people and characters.) Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. I don't have a problem with including its name on a list of political parties, but there's nothing here that makes it deserve its own article. Terraxos (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable... may never be. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Despite many "merge" opinions, no one has countered the deletion arguments here. I will spare only Jana Morgan (which I will redirect to The Fabulous Five) as it is the only one of the articles to have any real content. Mangojuicetalk 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally listed this one under SD because it was identical to the "other" Katie Shannon listing. Agree with the reason for overall deletion, though I'd consider this one SD because of the dupe. Bagheera (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These pages are all about characters, major and minor, from a children's book series, and have no notability asserted with them. CastAStone//(talk) 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in the Fabulous Five books (or some such). Once there is enough encyclopedic material about any particular character, it can be broken back out into a dedicated article. Hqb (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There isn't very much on any of these characters. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above example. I don't really know anything about this series, so I couldn't provide a valid reason to warrant deletion (other than the obvious no notability asserted and extremely short so likely no notablity available). Regardless, I think they should all be merged into one article, then someone has the opportunity to expand upon the characters and provide references (including notability), if available. I think deletion might be warranted if a few months down the line the state of them once merged isn't improved upon. Bungle(talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT. None of these characters seems to have achieved independent notability, not even the Fab Five individually, that I can find. Which merge target, though, I'm undecided. Because many appear in both The Fabulous Five and Taffy Sinclair books, neither is appropriate; similarly, List of Fabulous Five characters suggested above is misleading. List of Taffy Sinclair and Fabulous Five characters is achingly ungainly, but is the best I can come up with. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They are all completely non-notable. I understand that merging is the preferred course of action in a case like this, but I don't think even the entire group taken a whole passes notability guidelines. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I tend to agree with Doctorfluffy - these characters aren't notable enough to have their own entries outside of the main article. --Dawn bard (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. the wub"?!" 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improve - Although the Longaberger is well known and probably notable enough in and out of the industry, the article is not well referenced, thus looks suspiciously like original research. I'm sure that there are reliable third party sources. They were once featured on the TV show, "John Ratzenberger's Made In America" on the Travel Channel. No real content has been added for a whole year, so probably it should be tagged for ((expand)) and ((unreferenced)) for a while before we delete it.-- Emana (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nom, but that is not grounds to delete an article of a notable subject. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's had 2 years to be improved, however if others feel it will be improved, I'll Withdraw the nom.--Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect. I'm redirecting to word wrap for now but if anyone has a better idea for a target feel free to change that. I'm doing this so that anyone interested can perform the small merges suggested below. Mangojuicetalk 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned page, seems more like a HOWTO than an article. It's poorly sourced and seems to be the result of Wikipedia:original research. Its significance as a phenomenon is not explored. In September, 2006, it was listed as a PROD and then deleted. More recently it seems to have been restored. Tony Sidaway 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also apologies to RHaworth, who restored, for not discussing this undeletion with him before coming to AfD. I didn't realise that the article was a restoration until I had opened this discussion. I've notified him. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two parts to this article; selective minimal merge to scrolling and forum spam respectively. There probably are reliable sources that talk about this, but I think the 2 distinct topics in this article, which don't really flow together, are better situated in the other two. In the second part, there's too much emphasis on Slashdot as most decent sites should know to parse for a high number of consecutive non-space characters. –Pomte 08:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A technical term whose meaning is not obvious so a definition is needed. It is being used in this way from places such as here or here.
I am totally mystified by the accusation of "original research". The article is self-defining in a way - it contains examples of page widening - what more needs to be said? OK, possibly a couple of external links to show that this is the accepted term and to point to examples of trolling.
I was surprised at the relatively small number of Google hits for the term. The article has been around for over five years it certainly should not be deleted just because some anon has prodded it.
A slight change of wording converts any "how to" aspect (and in any case it would be an how-not-to!) into an "how it happens" statement. Merge into scrolling is inappropriate - it deserves its own short article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think these two topics need to be separated, and merged to appropriate locations if they exist. If appropriate locations don't exist, I think this material could simply be deleted. I'm not sure we need a definition of page widening, and the info is kind of obvious. The second topic is more vandalism than trolling, and it seems rather obscure to me. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a hoax, we're actually celebrating this. By definition, that's no hoax. People have tried to post this in the past, and it has been deleted. How can we band together if we keep being thwarted by people who deem this not to be a legitimate celebration? What makes Oktoberfest a celebration? These are just issues of scale and popularity. I'm not out for personal gain, I just want people to be able to find out about this holiday and know that it exists. Information on the web is scant at best, so this is a good place to start.Jman1783 (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Justin Manzo, author[reply]
There's something to be said for wanting to publicize the event, and I certainly cannot fault you for that. However, Wikipedia is for articles on subjects that are already notable. Once your event grows, or receives significant coverage from independent sources, then an article would probably be in order - and, I add, that when it is popular and widespread, chances are good that the level of interest will incite others to write the article for you. Good Luck, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. No assertion of notability or discussion by reliable independent sources Trugster | Talk 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking current notability and coverage in independent sources. No objection to recreation once notability is established. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looked at the website. Real men don't write things like "strip off the end of this url and type in the answer.htm in word form". Mandsford (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete garbage. JuJube (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject is not notable, and article appears to be a marketing strategy Jonwatson69 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some marginal claims to notability, but the sources (poorly formatted as they may be) just don't cut it -- most of them are trivial mentions, or just plain unreliable (or, in one case, actually another Wikipedia page). The awards she's won don't seem notable enough, nor is the fact that she's been an opening act. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete, Under The Deletion Policy for "Criteria for musicians and ensembles," this girl clearly fits reasons 1, 4, 5, 7, and 12. Only one of the above criteria is needed for this particular subject to remain in wiki, so this article appears to coincide with guidelines. Sources need to be cleaned up on this one, and I will try to help out fixing this article. Sk8trboyyy unsigned comment added by Sk8rboyyy (talk • contribs)
In response: Candice Jarrett does not fit criterion 1, which states that she must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." As TenPoundHammer correctly points out, all the sources that report on Candice Jarrett are unreliable and trivial. For example, source 3 claims that Ms. Jarrett had a radio interview with the BBC also has the blatant appearance of a marketing page.
The "Power Performers" claim is also highly questionable, as a search of "Candice Jarrett" at Power Performers and College Power Performers yields nothing, despite the website of Candice Jarrett imploring us to "contact Candice's management, Power Performers, at www.collegepowerperformers.com."[12] Additionally, Power Performers claims that "unlike those bureaus who feature a select roster of presenters, we do not have to find bookings for a specific group. Instead, we are free to recommend any and all speakers and entertainers, including those that are listed exclusive with other bureaus and agencies."[13] Translation: "we don't actually have contracts with any celebrities, but we try our darndest to hire them for you."
No other source meets criterion 1's threshold. Sources 1, 2, 5, 11, and 20 come from her personal website. Information also comes from promotional and/or non-notable blogs, including sources 3, 6 (clearly promotional--see here), 7 and 10 (also constitute "Media reprints of press releases" and "Works comprising merely trivial coverage" as described in criterion 1), 14, and 19. Source 4 is another Wikipedia page. Sources 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are online profiles or videos that anyone can create. That leaves source 15; however, merely appearing somewhere on the VH1 website and nowhere on the main alphabetical artist listing means nothing--this same site appears to host numerous other non-notable artists. On said album page, her album rating is "5.0 stars," suggesting that very few people visit. As for source 18, a political blog's single link to her YouTube video for the purpose of mocking her does not constitute "reliability" nor confer notability. In sum, there is not a single source that lends any significance or notability at all; this is far from the multiple independent sources that criterion 1 requires.
Now what about criterion 4, which states that an artist must have "gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources"? I have already addressed the lack of such sources. Anyone with a guitar can take it to France and sing some songs; the presence of reliable sources shows that said singing was actually important. Yet in this case, they are absent.
Criterion 5 states that the artist must have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Yet source 15 reveals that the label for Candice Jarrett's sole album is "Cann," which only lists Candice Jarrett and looks like some unremarkable shell company located in her own hometown.
Criterion 7 demands that an artist must have "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" (emphasis mine). I find it highly doubtful that Candice Jarrett is the most important artist in her area, and even if she were, there are absolutely no sources to back up such a claim.
As for Criterion 12 (has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network), find a source besides that promotional blog and prove that her alleged interview lasted longer than a half hour. No other criterion appears to come close, and the aforementioned criteria are a major stretch. Therefore, while it is true that an artist need only to meet one criterion, Candice Jarrett has met none. Jonwatson69 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE - RESPONSE, while your opinion is noted, it appears that you inject a lot of speculation where the facts should be. A rating of 5.0 doesn't neccessarily indicate that few people visit her profile on VH1.com. Even if it did, there is no fact or evidence to back that up, and wikipedia is all about the facts. As I said before, the subject is clearly noteable - if proper sources can be cited. I've already started gathering them. Check my latest edit to this entry. Sk8trboyyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8rboyyy (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response: 1. Please do not leave unsigned comments and then retype your recommendation in bold. It gives a skewed impression of the Wikipedia community's opinion. 2. On that particular album page, a 5.0 user rating is perfect. For a perfect rating, every single person who visited must have rated her a 5.0. If more than a handful of people other than her family or closest friends bother to rate her, what are the chances that no one will ruin her rating by selecting 4 stars? Pretty low. 3. If anything, I would think that broad declarations that she meets all those criteria would be lacking facts and evidence. For someone who is "clearly noteable" [sic], it sure isn't clear. 4. The latest source you included has numerous problems. First, most of the article is unavailable to those who haven't subscribed. Second, it looks like nothing more than trivial coverage by a Syracuse paper of a Syracuse-hosted state fair. If Wikipedia included articles on every state fair performer across the country, it would be overrun with irrelevance. Third, the article is dated September 1, 2005 and states "she'll play the state fair's Coliseum stage at 1 p.m. Friday and Saturday," yet Candice Jarrett states, "on 2 August 2005, Candice Jarrett performed at The Great New York State Fair." Which is it, and as a corollary, can any of these sources be trusted? 5. Thou dost protest way too much. On Candice Jarrett's history page, you responded to a ProD by removing it and remarking "subject appears to be a biography about a noteable individual" as if you were some disinterested observer stumbling upon the page and giving your unbiased opinion. Yet your passion for this topic, your ability and strong desire to "help out" in "fixing" this article, and the singular purpose of your user account suggest a conflict of interest on your part--see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Jonwatson69 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be notable. Nakon 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All music guide has a listing for one, apparently self-released, record. No bio. I don't see much indication that she's gotten significant coverage. Friday(talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete it... for now, i understand where sk8tr and watson are comin from. i think that as is, candice jarrett's profile should be deleted from wiki. jonwatson seems like a bully tho because he obviously has made this very personal.. dude it must have taken u like 10 hours to go through that suff... u were a little too thouro and prolly are an ex boyfriend ha ha and sk8tr is most likely a drooling stalker who has a crush on her. chill out dudes, its not that serious. in my opinion, having seen her site, jarrett has her act together and will probably end up in wiki sooner or later fully meeting the criteria. there are so many articles in wiki that should be bumped no contest but she must be a smart blonde cause she has dooped u all into a heated discussion about her. ha ha on u then because this really isnt noteable but u spent hours of ur life on it. my final word is to delete it and reinstate when the criteria are fully met which i believe will happen in the near future. BZAHRG!!! PandaWearsPants (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jonwatson's extensive research. In looking myself, sources are definately either trivial or self-published. Many blogs are also mentioned which are not reliable WP:RS. VH1 mention is totally insignificant. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't find much assertation [sic] of notability here. The articles are poorly written, and I can't see at first glance if the band are notable (Google searches are unhelpful with a name like this) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC entirely (which I actually find surprising for a band that claims to have been around for 30 years). None of the albums were on notable labels; no evidence of any chart singles or anything else that would make them notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AfD tag added to article by Floaterfluss (talk·contribs) but nothing more done. The creator of the article added the comment below to the empty page here - which is an exact copy of what the article says. I can probably guess the reasons for nomination - something like spam, content, notability, that type of thing. Skirts CSD on all of those, anyway. Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gay Network is UK-based chat and dating service which is fully-owned by 4D Interactive Ltd. The service is also broadcast on BSkyB Channel 874 in the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmclella (talk • contribs) 2008/01/08 12:46:27
Delete - no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge with the articles on the films - Why have the cast lists for the two films merged? Or is this a cross-section? The Transhumanist 02:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete - I see no reason to merge the casts from 2 movies. The Transhumanist 13:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a logical creation as near duplicate info required for two articles, cleanup make into a table specify characters, and which film(or both) etc. There would be refs to the info listed. Gnangarra 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no need to have a cast list for either movie (or any, really) separate from the article on the movie. And combining two like this seems even less well-advised. Mangojuicetalk 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article fails WP:V and WP:RS. No sources at all are cited, nor is any explanation given of how this book is notable. A brief search fails to turn up anything worthwhile; Google has a few hundred hits, but nothing that really looks like a reliable source. JSTOR shows no hits at all. Unless someone comes up with a reliable third-party source that discusses this book, the article should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. Goel is a notable writer. Would be helpful with some review or like-wise, that discussed the content of the book. --Soman (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my nomination, the problem is that I can't seem to find any reliable third-party sources about this book. If you can, then please add them. If not, then the article should be deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia standards on verifiability. *** Crotalus *** 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An outside publication about the book is required to establish its notability.Biophys (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book --CltFn (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked through the first 10 pages of Crotalus' web search and I don't believe I've seen anything in terms of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. You can't just say "Keep and source" if there are no realiable sources to do that with. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable singer; his best claim to fame appears to be having been part of a band called The Rising, which put out one two albums on a major label and then got dropped and vanished; I haven't seen evidence that they actually meet WP:BAND. I will also be nominating his iTunes-released solo album. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. PKT (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Will be on American Idol 7 (starting in 1 week on 15 Jan) per commercials - ref YouTube but AI7 spoilers have been removed from article per policy. Mjf08 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article can be recreated in a week if that is the case. I do see online that he is on a leaked list of the top 50 candidates. As of right now he isn't very notable. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will be on American Idol along with thousands of other people. If he makes Top 10, in about 6 weeks, then he can have an article. Maybe. I have my doubts about all top ten entries. Corvus cornixtalk 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While there seems little point in claiming he's one of the favourites (unverifiable beyond ads and discussions) and noting that given the article's survived a year there seems little harm in letting it last a few more weeks while we sit out the first few AI7 episodes, looks like a number of the WP:BAND criteria are met:
4. Toured in the US with Maverick/The Rising, performed on the Rock Boat and has performed a number of times at Genghis Cohen, the Viper Room, among others.
Keep. Satisfies WP:BAND. Also potentially #7 with his regular performances in Buckhead, Atlanta over a number of years.Kmkroeger (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Above user has been indef. blocked as sock. Torc2 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some questions about meeting WP:BAND. Was the Maverick album ever actually released? (Several of the sources seem to think it wasn't.) Was Johns still part of the band when it signed with Columbia? (And no release ever came out from Columbia anyways.) I don't think Beverly Martel counts as a major label; could be wrong. If The Rising did tour nationally, that should be indicated in the article, and that would meet WP:BAND. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your change because I can't find any references mentioning a tour. Perhaps you can? Brianyoumans (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amongst all the Springsteen 'The Rising Tour' noise and with the official flash-based site gone from maverick.com and archive.org? Not with a cursory Google search, no. Mjf08 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then again there is this 'Touring with Maverick Records’, THE RISING, was a blast! Not only did we tour the states we also got to tour the sea (on the now famous Rock Boat) as well as appearing on the Sharon Osborne Show.' and this:
08.06.2003
THE RISING ON TOUR NOW!
Don't miss THE RISING's fall tour, kicking off in Los Angeles on August 7th at The Roxy (http://www.theroxyonsunset.com/)!
For the full tour information and updates, check www.therisingmusic.com
Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but this has no details on the tour. It may have been simply a tour of some clubs in California. I didn't actually look at the personal Myspace page, after the thing exploded visual crapola all over my screen. But, a personal Myspace site is not really a good reference anyways. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your remarks about Myspace are unsurprising but given the very first point is already satisfied there seems little point wasting any more time hunting for verifiable information in a sea of Bruce Springsteen resources. Mjf08 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a more intelligent Google search this article popped up from the Nashville City Paper ('While getting signed to Maverick Records was a major step for Atlanta-based rock group The Rising, the band realizes it's only the beginning. That's why the quintet is taking their music on the road, playing smaller venues and trying diligently to build a fan base.') along with this one from Music Morsels, 'The Innovative Monthly Music Industry Newsletter': 'They have the record deal from a major label, they have an album about to be released early next year with songs going to radio, and they are poised to tour the U.S. and beyond to support the release.'. There's your verification for 1, 4, 5 and 11 (even though any one of them should satisfy WP:BANDMjf08 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I think Mjf08 might be treading of WP:COI grounds. I know when Elliot Yamin's album was going to come out, Rate Your Music (and several other review sites) were spammed with "street teams" of people doing nothing but plugging the artist. Torc2 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so but at least it's no secret. Then again we're talking about contributing to a balanced argument and making a few minor edits; hardly 'street teams of people doing nothing but plugging the artist'. If you don't like it, don't count the vote (but do consider the information that spent some time to collate). Mjf08 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a secret has nothing to do with it. At minimum it's a conflict of interest, and possibly it's just advertising. It's also a bit disturbing that the only other keep vote is from a new account that's made no edits other than voting on this AfD.Torc2 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the WP:COI article you referenced you're flat out declaring these edits as giving a 'priority to outside interests' over the interests of Wikipedia and going on to imply that they're 'just advertising', even though his article existed for over a year beforehand and most of the offending edits were minor. Apparently being transparent with allegiances rather than choosing a more opaque username wasn't the best strategy, or even hosting encyclopaedic content here rather than on an 'about' page hosted elsewhere, though given the hostile reception received as a new user the enthusiasm for contributing to this community resource is waning. As per comment above, the very first point is satisfied so the rest is academic IMO. Mjf08 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing this on the first pass but if you don't like the other vote then take it up with the user directly - it's no surprise new people are looking at, interested in and contributing to this article now. Mjf08 (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I also cannot find any references anywhere to the Grammy nomination. Can you provide a source for that? Torc2 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Short of scanning a ballot, no, and besides - it's academic given the first point is (well) satisfied. Mjf08 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - *Being on the ballot is not the same as being "nominated", and not being able to provide a verifiable source of the statement excludes it from being a basis in Wikipedia to keep. The reviews, albums, and tours for The Rising do not establish sufficient notability for a separate article on Johns. #8 is unsourced, and merely being on the ballot is not sufficient evidence of notability. #9 is unsourced, #10 is unsourced (his name isn't anywhere in the link provided) and does not establish notability (contributed how?), #11 and #12 are unsourced. Torc2 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lee aka Johns is prominent, if not the subject of, allthearticles, especially Crossroads: Michael Lee Of The Rising and The Rising's Michael Lee came to the US with a dream: Recording a demo in 2001, Lee went to Los Angeles where he showcased for several labels, eventually inking an exclusive pact with Maverick Records. He then began assembling the elements of his new band, picking and choosing from the talent the LA music scene had to offer (enhanced #1, struck out #8, sourced #11 & #12) when the rest of the sources are found this info will go in the article). Note that it was Lee/Johns who was signed by and released with the major labels too so he personally satisfies #1 and #5 at least, as well as #1 from the composers/lyricists section (which was just added). I trust and hope that you will be updating your vote accordingly (or rescinding it given the sock puppetry debate, unless you still think you can provide a fair assessment of the facts).
It's kind of distressing that you'd label due diligence as "two hours wasted", but let's look at the updates. Links in #1 are still all about The Rising and do not support independent notability enough for a separate article about its lead singer. (The Nashville link is the strongest argument for it, but would still be best served by redirecting Michael Johns (singer) and Michael Lee to The Rising.) #4 is still just about The Rising, is still unsourced, and how does one tour the US in a boat anyway? #5 is still only about The Rising and signing with a major label is not the same as releasing an album on a major label. #9 is unsourced and not sufficient to establish notability. #10 is still unsourced and probably not sufficient for notability (contributed how - singing? composing?) #11 is again about The Rising, and doesn't satisify notability guidelines ("Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" - those are local stations, you also changed the wording of the requirements). #12 is still only about The Rising. And the next #1 is simply not satisfied; none of the examples are notable. You've given, at best, a decent argument against an article on The Rising being deleted, but nothing about Michael Johns has been established to the requirements of WP:V or WP:N for inclusion. I also think it'd be fair to add Future Unknown to this AfD. Torc2 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it's possibly interesting to document The Rising for historical reasons, this is missing the point as the true subject is Johns (as clearly identified by the articles) around whom The Rising was formed, but not until *after* 'inking an exclusive pact with Maverick Records'. The guy's aired on national TV and radio, been on a national tour, released at least THREE albums both as a lead singer and soloist, been signed THREE times with THREE different labels (at least two of which are indisputably major), recorded the promo/theme track for a multi-award winning documentary, been the subject of multiple independent reviews, performed repeatedly at a number of music 'landmarks' like the Viper Room, held regular scheduled performances at a number of venues in Atlanta over many years and is now featured on commercials around the country for the highest rated show on television for 5+ years running while said to be one of the favourites., and this is just the stuff dredged up so far - there's no doubt more to come. Apparently WP:BAND is merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion so hopefully common sense will prevail. With a 2000+ word debate and an unjustified sock puppet accusation over the suitability of a 100 word article it should hardly be surprising that nitpicking over article subjects (#1), grammatical errors (#4), geographical coverage (#11), etc. is getting tiresome, especially when this time could have been spent improving the article.
You're still just not clear on what WP:N and WP:V means, and you're still using word games to inflate your guy's achievements. OK, again...line by line for your latest:
ONE: Very, very, very important: The achievements of the The Rising have ZERO affect on Johns. Any articles about The Rising that included Johns is OF NO USE. His solo album is not sufficient to warrant WP:N. Notability achieved by The Rising do not automatically transfer to each member separately. That a clear Wiki rule: WP:NOTINHERITED. Stop using anything involving The Rising to propote Johns. It is notapplicable.
The notability of "The Viper Room" is not transfered to the band playing it, per WP:NOTINHERITED.
"Signed three times with two majors" OK, first, the Rising signings DO NOT COUNT again. Maverick is a mid-level indie, and signing with Columbia is meaningless if they release NOTHING. The threshold for WP:BAND is two albums on a major. Johns has one albums out on a minor label. Not sufficient per WP:BAND. His alleged appearance on American Idol is WP:CRYSTAL material, and cannot be included until after it happens. That's it. There's no more room for debate on this. Subject has been sufficiently beaten to death. Torc2 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(There was no article on 'The Rising' anyway and the content has been incorporated into this article where it belongs - Mjf08)
(A 15 year old label that's signed 60+ artists including Alanis, Madonna and The Prodigy etc. is hardly 'minor' - Mjf08)
(except for the commercials featuring him on national television - Mjf08)
That there was no article on The Rising is irrelevant to this article. If that band met WP:MUSIC, that band should have an article. Future Unknown is not a Johns album. Beverly Martel is not a major label, and anybody can publish through iTunes (see Tunecore), and self-published or independently-published albums released this way (such as though through CDBaby) are generally not sufficient indicators of notability. Do the commercials give Johns' name? Having your face flashed on a commercial is not sufficient notability. Torc2 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NOTINHERETED rule works both ways - Maverick signed Johns and then created The Rising around him (per articles/quotes above), the two main reviews target Johns while referencing The Rising, and you've completely omitted Beverly Martel who (like Maveric) signed Johns himself. In any case The Rising isappears to be dead and Johns is just getting started. We do agree that this subject has been beaten to death however so what's left of this weekend is going to be spent working on the article itself (which is probably what should have been done from the start).
This sock puppetry accusation and rebuttal is relevant to this discussion. Mjf08 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Yes, it is. User was determined to be sockmaster and blocked 24 hours. Torc2 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, If he is on Idol, the article can be recreated. Thedjatclubrock :)(T/C) —Preceding comment was added at 12:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been completely overhauled since the AfD and and addresses (with verifiable references) many of the WP:BAND criteria (both as 'The Rising' and independently).
The Speedy Keep vote stands as the open AfD is causing confusion in variousforums and American Idol (season 7) starts tomorrow. In any case it wouldn't be the first time an article has been kept on the basis that it's better to keep something that might not be notable than to delete something that might be. Mjf08 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and other comments. Not notable, even by musician standards. PAWiki (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge. Verifiably satisfies around half the items in the notability guidelines (and looks like that's just the stuff found on the Internet; no print, magazines, TV etc yet). The AI7 commercial is conspicuously absent and it's not WP:CRYSTAL material if he's in the promos. Appears the nominator's concerns have since been resolved too. That said there's no need for 4 separate articles so lets Merge The Rising (apparently already done) and the album(s) (todo), thereby deleting 3 of 4 articles. samj (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just spotted that the AI7 commercial was deliberately ommitted as a spoiler but guess it will be added soon as the season premiere is only a few hours away. 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete The absence of reliable external sources is pretty much fatal to the article. Not just for notability but also for verifiability. We can't do the merge because the information can be removed for lack of sourcing. The only outcome per policy is delete but I'mm happily undelete this later as and when some sources do emerge. SpartazHumbug! 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, all references are to the organization or its "parties". No independent coverage shown. Argyriou(talk) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find a 3rd-party source to support a national youth parliament in Canada. Found 3rd-party evidence of provincial youth parliaments, but not national. PKT (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the original Youth Parliament of Canada article. I placed a "merge" on the article pages a while back and it was removed. I'd like to raise it again. While the "new" Youth Parliament of Canada may be organized by different people, etc., it's a revival of a preexisting idea. Giving the old and the new their due and their own sections in one article would be my preference.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily oppose a merge - the original Youth Parliament of Canada article could start with "The YPC is the name of two organizations; one which existed from X to Y, and a revival of the idea which was founded in Z." However, given the complete lack of reliable references to the new article, the merged article would end up with about two sentences more than it has now. Argyriou(talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most productive idea. You'd basically toss many people's honest work in documenting this organization out the window if you take the reactionary route and delete it. Being the official, national youth counterpart to the Parliament of Canada is enough to make this information notable enough to warrant existence on Wikipedia -- and the rationale for deleting the article is that nothing has happened ... yet. Which is thus by default as the election has yet to happen. Merge the two, then; the organization doesn't have "new" in its name anyways. --216.16.236.2 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "official national youth counterpart to the Parliament of Canada"? Is this organization sponsored by the Parliament of Canada, or somehow recognized by it? If it is, then the orgnization is pretty notable. However, no such claim is made in the article, and no documentation of such a claim has been presented. Argyriou(talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. What this article really needs is a re-write, as it is currently too much a news-ticker about its internal processes. While a new and fledgling organization, with a tenuous degree of notability, I have read newspaper reports of this group that are no longer available on line. Just because a news article can't be accessed online is no reason to disregard it. As for merging, AfD is not the place to decide that point, other to say that there is absolutely no connection between the two organizations and to do otherwise is essentially "passing off", to borrow the parlance of intellectual property types. Agent 86 (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made that point when you removed my merge and I still disagree. Take for example, the Montreal Alouettes article. The old team folded and the new team is a completely different legal entity. But all that is clearly explained in the article and could be so here, to the benefit of the readers. When you created this article, you wrote in the edit summary: "create new article for new organization not affilated with older defunct organization." I appreciate that you feel this organizational distinction is very important and I don't disagree -- but I do feel that this can all be clearly expressed in a single article. Even as its creator, you write above that you believe the article is too focused on "internal processes." I agree and I believe the article split along organizational lines is part of that problem. Lastly, I've taken part in a number of AfDs where merges are proposed, so I don't see why I cannot raise it here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because a news article can't be accessed online is no reason to disregard it." However, if the alleged news article isn't even listed in the article, that's good reason to disregard it. Right now, there are exactly zero independent reliable sources referenced in the article. Supply some independent references to prove that this organization exists, and is notable, and I'll be willing to reconsider deleting the article. Argyriou(talk) 17:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Youth Parliament of Canada. The first issue, and one I've been thinking about since i saw this page, is that this "new" organization isn't properly called the "New Youth Parliament of Canada". The incorporated name (or name they will be incorporating under) is simply Youth Parliament of Canada. Second, as has been said, while it clearly exists, there are few verifiable secondary sources on it at this time. Maybe once there are, a separate page can be created - Chabuk[ T • C ] 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With no verifiable secondary sources, it would be appropriate for anyone to delete pretty much the entire section about this revival from the merged article. Argyriou(talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. And as you know, AfDs are currently underway for two of the parties, Young Conservatives and Congress for Tomorrow (although that's been blanked), neither of which have external sources, either. So I guess what we'd be looking at in the event of a merge is a short section on the "new" Parliament, with a citation-needed tag.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking further, I may have been over-generous in weakly supporting any mention of the org in the encyclopedia. This org hasn't even held its first event, so it may be a huge stretch to even say it tentatively meets WP:CORP. As for being the "creator", it was only to split off the new org from passing itself off as the successor to a non-partisan organization with different values and goals. Agent 86 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.--Kubigula(talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Reading it makes me think it's a hoax, especially since google returns only 8 hits, most/all(?) mirrors. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your observation that this is a hoax, could be interpreted as offensive or inappropriate because the article was created by an user, Pularoid, and I am sure he doesn't agree with hoaxes in Wikipedia. Although, Luiz Pacheco was a writer with published works in Portugal and an older article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, who was the theme of a television documentary on Portuguese television where José Saramago and Mário Soares, among other figures, commented Luiz Pacheco's eccentric life and work, I think Pacheco wasn't too much famous and reputed. Pularoid (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorrry, Pularoid, I didn't mean any offense. I didn't realize that the language difference made it so difficult for me to read and understand. My apologies. The sentence "The deadline arrived, yet no one got killed at least for two more months." really threw me. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't read them, but there seem to be a fair amount of external links on the Portuguese article. Perhaps someone with language knowledge can look at them and give a better idea of meeting notability. matt91486 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable; see here and here, for instance. The article obviously needs the attention of a Portuguese speaker, but that is no reason to delete. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I don't know much about him, he's obviously notable as his death this week was breaking news here in Portugal. Also lots about him on the newspapers. Húsönd 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Needs attention and sourcing, but fulfils notability and verifiability requirements. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! This man was one of the most important writers, editors and literary carachters of 20th century Portuguese literature! The Ogre (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Non-representative team, precedent for deletion. Woody (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tim Conway might enjoy this. Mandsford (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of University of Florida Heisman Trophy winners[edit]
It's not an article. It's just a list of people in a table. This should be in University of Florida as a table and not exist separately as an article. miranda 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need for such a short list having a separate article. This list already exists at both Florida Gators and Florida Gators football, so there really isn't any content to merge. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Information is also in the Heisman Trophy article. PKT (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Content is in several other articles and with only three winners it is completely unneeded. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7 — Caknuck (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Hasn't done anything noteworthy. I cannot find anything on google of importance or notoriety. Furthermore, the article was created by User:Mattc6735, and that was that users only edit. Is this just a case of self-promotion and over-promotion? Kingturtle (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD#A7 - no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. the wub"?!" 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns! I think we should keep it. El Buscón was one of the first picaresque novels, written by the very well-known poet and playwright Francisco de Quevedo. I do need some time to expand it so that it matches or at least comes close to matching the length of the Spanish Wikipedia article on the same subject: which is at: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Busc%C3%B3n Thanks! --Polylerus (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to assuming good faith and giving articles more than two minutes to grow before nominating for AfD? Keep and tag for notability and sources and per official policy let the process work. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note for the record, btw, that the novel almost certainly passes WP:BK #5, even if no secondary sources appeared. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An English translation (The Swindler) is part of the Penguin Classics series [14]. I think we can spare room for all of the Penguin Classics. Zagalejo^^^ 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ridiculous. One of the most important prose works by one of the greatest Spanish writers. --Folantin (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were almost no novels in any language in 1626. This came with two primary source links, and the first page of Google results for the term is almost entirely devoted to it. New page patrollers must be more cautious. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, nominator changed his opinion after new sources were added. Fram (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB, prod was removed with a claim that the external links satisfied that, but they do not. Ifctv is 404, techcrunch and geekentertainmnet are blogs and do not pass WP:V and can't be used to establish notability. The code project is not independent of the subject and can't be used to establish notability. The only thing presented in the external links which is reliable is the wired link for which there is a grand total of 140 words on consumating. This is hardly significant coverage. Crossmr (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - this is a spam article. Could be 'speedied', IMO. PKT (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Wired article alone denotes the notability of Consumating, listing the number of users at 10,000, while List of social networking websites has this at 21,000, although I do not know the source. We have several networking websites with less users than this. Alexa lists it as breaking into the Top 10,000 websites in 2006, although it has fallen since then. We also have an article on Ben Brown (blogger). This article however does need some work. The359 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is well made spam. -- Emana (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does no one know how to use a search engine? I'll see you a WIRED and raise you a WSJ. Plus a Red Herring, Violet Blue, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While WSJ is reliable, red herring clearly isn't as the author tag points to [15] with the wonderful keyword of blog. Sfgate looks fine though and appears to satisfy requirements. These need to be worked in to the article though.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you demonstrate that the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? Between wired, sfgate and wsj, thats enough to establish notability anyway. Unfortunately this article doesn't even say who wrote it and links to a generic staff listing which could have changed drastically since 2005. With no way to verify the author of the material, there is no way to meet that criterion.--Crossmr (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, "staff" is people who work for the organization. Half the stuff in my hometown newspaper is attributed to "staff" or no-one at all. Also, all of the stories at Red Herring appear in blog format now. It's no different than CNet in that respect. The actual blog posts all have the term "/blogs/" in the URL, so this is not likely a post to their blog, anyway. Additionally, TechCrunch is a professional blog with serious partners and backing and as reliable a source for this sector as any. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not just staff though, that's specifically blog staff. The link seems to be down anyway. As far as techcrunch being reliable, that isn't the thinking over here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Techblogs.--Crossmr (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Is there any other staff list?) That isn't exactly a groundswell of opinion you're pointing to. Blueboar said "well, except for experts" and "blogs are primarily opinion anyway", and DGG said "blogs who can be shown to be authorities can be reliable". Since Techcrunch is an incorporated company and not just some guy throwing his thoughts on blogspot (like I used to), I'm not sure what argument can be used to separate it from other online-only properties like CNet. It's quite ironic, though, as we are discussing the reliability of a source which is probably a larger business than 75% of the daily newspapers in the US. In any case, we agree on one thing: we already have more than enough to establish the notability of Consumating. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That exception for self-published sources (which a blog generally is) is already in WP:V. if it can be demonstrated the person is a recognized expert on the subject (and published by a reliable source as such) then his self-published work can be used in that field. If anyone wants to use a blog as a source they have to either demonstrate it meets that or that its a blog only in name, when in actuality its an article with editorial oversight hiding behind the blog name for marketing. While its known that there are reliable sources which run those kinds of blogs, the onus is on the person who wants to use it to demonstrate that editorial oversight is there. if there are professional blogs we're always going to consider reliable and usable in establishing notability (there is an issue in notability establishing that getting covered in something print is significantly more notable than an online professional blog) those need to be addressed on the reliable sources noticeboard and maybe a subsection so that people know which ones have been investigated and found to meet wikipedia standards.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
June 2005 blog post indicating the site was concluding its "experiment in blogging" for the time being. Unless you have more substantive reasons than your own wish to reject them out of hand, I believe I have demonstrated the necessary bona fides for this particular source. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its hardly trivial as this is a recurring debate with a lot of internet related topics, also accusations of wikilawyering can be see as an assumption of bad faith, uncivil, or even a personal attack, and referencing it as such was completely unnecessary in making your point. The site currently has a blog section, and the author is attributed to a a simple link of /blogs/staff (which is frustratingly still not working). Without an in depth investigation there was no obvious way for me to know that the site discontinued blogs at some point and this article was produced during that time. in AfD people constantly try to use unreliable blogs for sources and asking that someone provide evidence that it meets our standards is not an unreasonable request since there isn't (too my knowledge) a page like I described above which lists sites which have been checked and verified to meet WP:V even though they are presented as blogs.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for getting testy. I posted while I was on deadline in RL. --Dhartung | Talk 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) - Wouldn't a blog acknowledged and supported by a reliable news source been seen as a more reliable source than any other blog on the internet? The359 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not necessarily. What makes sources reliable is the fact that they are known for fact checking and editorial oversight. Some places let their staff put whatever they want in a blog and only get involved if something they've written causes a big to do. Other places treat blog postings just like articles and only call them blog in name. They're edited and fact checked just the same. The latter are the only useful ones to wikipedia. A blog which isn't fact checked or edited by a third party is a self-published source, regardless of where its hosted. Unless the person self-publishing it is a recognized expert in the field (which may or may not need to be demonstrated) they don't pass WP:V. In terms of establishing notability we also have to note the difference between a paper medium and an electronic one. Both make their money through content generation, however blogs typically do it solely with ads, while newspapers and magazines do it with a combination of ads and sale of the medium itself. In addition to that paper is a limited medium and what they choose to print is far more notable than what appears on a blog who is capable of generating tons of content with no real care for how notable the subject of their blog really is, since the cost of hard drive space is minimal and their bandwidth is recouped through advertising. When it comes to anything with blog on it, we need the site where its hosted to indicate that they stand behind the content as they would any article on the site.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire for caution, particularly in BLP situations and less vitally in notability, but the idea that "anything with blog on it" needs to follow some sort of authorial chain of evidence is a bit ridiculous, as is the concept that the only blogs that matter are those of name experts. Red Herring and TechCrunch are primary publications in this field, which doesn't lend itself to print coverage. It is the reputation of these sources in the field that we need to consider, not technicalities such as the use or non-use of the word blog, which is a method of publication. --Dhartung | Talk 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete We're not a webhost, guide to playing wow, etc..etc..if its been reverted several times delete and salt the earth.--Crossmr (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is gonna be salted, wouldn't it be more logical just to indefinately fully protect it as a redirect? J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is only appropriate if the target article discusses the topic. PowersT 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I had nominated this for speedy, but was declined. The page simply details his work as a local councillor and support for a local MP. Since the claim for notability is limited to local government I'm nominating for deletion as per the guidlines for biographies WP:BIO which state "just being an elected local officia... does not guarantee notability." BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN local politician. Toddst1 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local councillor lacking any substantial, additional claim to notability. BlueValour (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. PKT (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not assert notability as per WP:BIO. The relationships with other notable people are irrelevant as notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED and the relationships are purely family, rather than working, and while Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences may be notable again, that does not confer notability on people associated with it. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PKT (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 years as a local councilor seems to be his best claim; not quite good enough in my book. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, neutral, I checked his website and he does not appear to have any publications. Changed vote following Jitse esp introduction of Bottomley projection.--Salix alba (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be three non-automatic incoming links which would go red, plus several mentions at Google Scholar [16], even ignoring the 19th century patents. --Rumping (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, leaning towards deletion. There are quite a number of things that may together make a case for notability: participation in the International Mathematical Olympiad, the Bottomley projection, his work on magic series and other work on recreational mathematics (though the associations with Florentin Smarandache make me wary), family connections, his political career. On the other hand, if there are no secondary sources then the article should probably be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --If the Bottomley projection were widely talked about, that would give him notability. However, it seems even less notable than he is. No citations in the Bottomley projection article except to Bottomley's own work, and very few ghits, most of which are trivial or taken from wikipedia. LeSnail (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIf Bottomley projection is notable (and it has not been proposed for deletion), then its inventor is. MikeHobday (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The text is mostly copied from www.imf.org/external/np/mae/mft/sup/part1.pdf . It should have a been a speedy delete. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Accounting Standard is tools to implement and measure corporate governance quality." Pure original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A well written essay I must say, but fails WP:OR--Pmedema (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a professional accountant I find the article rambling and nearly unintelligible, but besides that it is subject matter covered by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. PKT (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete As argued, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles is broader concept, while Accounting Standard is specific, precise and highly technical. It has force of law when mandatory, hence to make corporate governance better, Accounting Standard has bigger role. Therefore matter covered by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles does not equals with Accounting Standard. So don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapovadia (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. Accounting Standards are notoriously imprecise, although standard-setting bodies around the world are working diligently to improve the situation and remove ambiguities. Be that as it may, this article is redundant relative to the GAAP article, and it omits some pretty important information about accounting standards, such as which organizations are responsible for establishing Standards, for example. PKT (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And hence it is good if some one write about Standard setting body etc. and hence the article should continue to enrich the article. AS are more precise compared to concepts. No set of rule can be absolute precise. Rules are made up of language, a social science; and hence some subjectivity is expected in Accounting Standards, but the limits the options in choosing a policy. AND THEREFORE THE ARTICLE ON ACCOUNTING STANDARD SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. It provide a platform to pool of knowledge.
Comment - Some sources would be nice. shoy 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Those involved are either red links or of unestablished notability. SilkTork *What's your point? 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to have been released, thus fails WP:MOVIE, specifically WP:NFF. Also I note that the Plot section of the article is a copy of what's in IMDb. PKT (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, with no prejudice against re-creation once the film has actually been released. (Or received some sort of independent coverage.) Terraxos (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1. Non-admin closure. Hnsampat (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an obvious hoax. No other refernces found. Boson (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has all the signs of a hoax. The school is real, of course, but no evidence at all points to the existence of "Hodunis erectus". Tim Ross·talk 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this should have had a db-nonsense put on it at the start. The 3 sentences in the article don't even make sense.--Pmedema (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and I've tagged it as such. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. BLACKKITE 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring that the article is clearly POV and needs a major re-write the simple fact is that served a short while as a local councillor and would fail to be notable according to the WP:BIO guidelines. You could argue that notability is derived from the fact that he was, controversially, a British National Party councillor, but this is only one episode and doesn't confer notability as per WP:BIO1EBlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Beackon would not be included had he not been the first extreme rightist to be elected to a public post in Britain for very many years. The campaign ending in his removal also upset the political balance in Tower Hamlets. Since then the BNP have made gains in other areas becoming an increasing political force.
In saying that you believe this to be POV (which I do not think it is)you appear to say that this is not a ground for deletion ("ignoring").
Beackon is notable because he was the first, although subsequent BNP councillors may be of little interest individually.
Whether or not the BNP may be described as fascist is a continuing controversy. However Derek Beackon was formerly a member of an openly Nazi organisation - The British Movement, which would have entailed his swearing an oath to Adolf Hitler. Streona (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV The article is clearly POV. It starts off with a phrase like "unemployed nazi bus driver" and has phrases like "Beackon was not the most capable or articulate choice available", mentions his "lack of capability" and calls him "an otherwise unprepossessing individual". None of these are verified and clearly written from an anti-Beackon stance. While you and I might share that stance, it is not for Wikipedia to take that view.
Notability I'm aware that Beackon was the first BNP councillor. However my view (and hence the proposal for deletion) is that one incident does not endow notability. The article itself mentions that he has faded into obscurity. I think the episode rightly belongs in the British National Party article, and when you strip out the unreferenced and POV statments in this article it is all, pretty much, already there. Of course, the reason I've nominated for deletion is to see if there is an consensus on that view. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is unfortunately notable, as shown by this press coverage. Any POV issues can be taken care of by editing rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per Phil Bridger. AFD is not for clean-up or even for merging. Discussion can continue on the talk page. --JayHenry (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Being the first BNP councillor would seem to make him notable, and he has received press coverage from reliable sources; but it's also clear that he's done nothing significant since, and I doubt this biography can be expanded any further. I wonder if it might be better to merge this into another page, but it shouldn't be deleted outright. Terraxos (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly notable as he is well covered in both media and academic works. Furthermore if a motion to keep is agreed I will guarantee here and now that I will undertake to overhaul this article and make sure it is properly referenced. Keresaspa (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, as promised I have expanded the article with references and will continue to do so as and when I have time. I have also added in some stuff on his post-election career and attempted to weed out some of the POV stuff. I feel the article is now a reasonable keep. Keresaspa (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep- content issues should be worked out on the talk page. Friday(talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for deletion -- article is too off balance for a bio, and suffers from undue weight b/c of the indictment section which takes 50% of the article. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The subject is a former State Representative in Pennsylvania who has been indicted in a corruption investigation. [17], [18]. He is also named in a civil suit [19]. Information in the article is factual and drawn from sources, no apparent POV. Montco (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see POV in a BLP where an indictment takes up 50% of the article?--Jkp212 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Being "off balance" is not a valid reason for deletion, and I don't see any POV issue here in any case. He was a state official, which easily satisfies WP:BIO. What next? Should we delete Richard Nixon because of all that Watergate business? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this no-name guy to Richard Nixon is faulty. It's not appropriate to have a BLP of a little known individual be comprised of 50% indictment. If you want an article about that event, then create it, but it should not dominate this man's bio. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being "off balance" certainly IS a reason for deletion of a BLP, if there is otherwise no interest in reporting any aspect of this person's life other than the charges. This is a WP:BLP -- read up, please. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As has been stated, concern of bias is not a deletion reason. The article might need improvement, but he clearly meets notability as a state representative. matt91486 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is neutral, factual, and fully sourced. The individual is doubtless notable due to his service in the Pennsyvlannia legislature, including leadership positions, and for the political scandal that has received considerable attention in the local and national press. "Weight" issues are not a reason to delete an article. If weight is a problem then the nominator is free to add more info to improve the balance. ·:· Will Beback·:· 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sensitive to the WP:BLP concerns mentioned, and unlike some editors, I would be willing to consider deletion on undue weight grounds in an extreme case. This, however, is not one. To me, the weight issue not as troubling because the allegations (misuse of one's public position) are related to the very thing that makes the subject notable (status as an elected official/political appointee). When you have this close nexus between the source of notability and the source of the negative information, it seems to me that it is fair to make mention of the negative information. As I write this, the article has 2 sentences about the indictment. In light of the fact that the information has been widely reported elsewhere, this does not strike me as giving the matter undue weight. Xymmax (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:BIO, which states that elected state-level officials are inherently notable. I'd support the addition of some information about his record of legislative accomplishments (if any) to provide appropriate weight, but deletion isn't going to help anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tag, and expand. There is plenty of material that can be used to expand the article. As it stands it is unbalanced and in violation of WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Granted, this article needs to be expanded (something I have been trying to do), but deleting it is unreasonable. An elected official indicted for corruption is inherently notable. It is also verifiable; it is a fact (and there are multiple sourced) that show he was indicted. As far as undue burden is concerned, add more information about his bio or his term in office before he was indicted. --RedShiftPA (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets basic criteria of WP:BIO, negative information is sourced meeting WP:BLP. Undue weight is an issue for editing and talk pages, not a rationale for deletion. When the negative information amounts to two complete sentences, "undue weight" is hard to swallow anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The history of this article shows clearly and unambiguously that it was created for the single purpose of reporting the charges. This is clearly not any kind of BLP. The editor who created this article did not include any information on this individual's public record other than the charges, and since that is the only reason this article is here, and there is apparently no interest in expanding this article to provide balance, then it should be deleted. There is NO context around his political career, NO context around the charges, and this article has absolutely NO value as a "biography" other than as a platform for putting the "news" out there. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. I have learned NOTHING about this living person other than he is a democrat and that he is up on charges. This is a clear deletion candidate. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reference to the above, it truly does not matter what was the original author's intent (and I don't mean to question User:Nyttend's motives). Wikipedia is a collaborative project - we weed out problems over time, and improve the articles that are here. If this article does not violate our core policies, but you perceive defects in it, then keep it and allow this process to take place. Add additional appropriate information, or remove inappropriate/unsourced information, but don't delete an article because you disagree with the original author's perceived intent. (For clarity's sake, this comment was added after Nyttend's below.) Xymmax (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author, I would like to note: I don't generally work with biographical articles, although sometimes I'll do it when a source appears in front of me. That was the reason for creating this article: I read the article in the local paper (the Beaver County Times) about his indictment, and seeing that he was a former state legislator, I knew that he was notable and wrote an article that used everything that I had before me. I'm an Ohio native who has never really "lived" in Pennsylvania, and I'm not a political science student — I had never heard of the guy before reading the article, and don't exactly know where to find more. There's no reason to delete the article on the aforementioned grounds — I would write a similar article on any other former state legislator if I found such information. I'd appreciate it if motives were not assigned to me incorrectly. Nyttend (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sincerest apologies to Nyttend. This editor appears to have an inpeccable history here on Wikipedia and I clearly failed to assume good faith on his part in characterizing the editor rather than the effect of the edit. I nonetheless think this article stumbles into a very dangerous area and I am temporarily removing all references to the charges according to WP:BLP, specifically "Do no harm", for reasons I will place on the talk page shortly. Meanwhile, please do not restore any material related to the charges until we reach agreement here or get a professional opinion from a BLP reviewer.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter for the article talk page, not the AFD discussion. Friday(talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article on a non-notable mayor of Thuringowa City Council. Was one of 15,481 people to get a Centenary medal, and has been major for a long time. Appears to be part of a walled-garden of articles relating to the City of Thuringowa. Twenty Years 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's not exactly the prime minister, but he is the mayor of a municipality of almost 60,000, and has been for quite a while. The article needs more cleanup (gosh, do you think this puff-piece article might relate to the upcoming election in March?), but I'm not sure it needs to be deleted outright. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Below WP:BIO, and below my personal inclusionist criterion for mayors of cities of 100,000 or more. No sources showing that he meets general notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for much the same reason as Brianyoumans. Article needs clean-up and more assertion of general notability but does have enough to keep it here. --VStalk 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable per WP:BIO. The municipality is being abolished in the next couple of months, and the likelihood of finding independent reliable sources on this topic is at best marginal. Should also be noted it was created by someone who claims to be in regular contact with the individual in question, so may be a WP:COI situation. Orderinchaos 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what if the municipality is being abolished in the next couple of months, he is running for mayor of Townsville in March and for the life of me can not see why this artical is up for deletion...if you ask me someone has asked someone else to add it because it never worked last time they wanted anything that is to do with Thuringowa deleted. And just for the record So what if i am a friend of the man i only started the artical because i seen it on a list of articals that were needed and if i didn't start it WikiTownsvillian was just about to.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO is pretty clear about state or federal participation. The only councillors or mayors I'd support would have to be notable independently of their municipal role (the exception is Lord Mayors). I most certainly would vote down an article on David Boothman who is the mayor of City of Stirling, which is nearly 3 times the size of Thuringowa and by far the largest in Western Australia, just the same way if he had an article. Orderinchaos 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as I feel bad for voting to keep Thuringowa-cruft, he's been a mayor of a large municipality for a long time, and verifiable sources are abundant. Rebecca (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OIC. Written by an editor with the name of "Thuringowacityrep", it is thinly disguised campaign material. The only sources provided are from the municipality's own website, not quite independent. A mere suburban mayor of a soon to be abolished LGA. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment Can you people wake up and listen for once, Just because i used thuringowa in my name does not mean that i have anything to do with the council and to say that this is thinly disguised campaign material, well thats's just plain crap, if you look back you will see that [User:WikiTownsvillian] (notice the name) was going to do this artical next but i beat him to it. Plus the page was started back in July 07...well before any talks of the city merging with Townsville or voting in a new mayor...do you how stupid this sounds, So what if Thuringowa city is ending soon, Les will still be here and this is a page about him, i see that the Tony Mooney page is allowed to stay (just see how it is all a bit one sided.)and just because the ref are from the Thuringowa city website is not a cause for deleting the page, you need to put a tag at the top pointing out it need more refs.....really come on now this is really getting petty now and is really starting to show what some people are like on here. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC) already voted keep above, so changed to comment.[reply]
To prove the point I'm making, find one non-self-published source which states the guy's date of birth, place of birth, and education. This is the problem I have with councillors and mayors generally, and why with possibly only one exception I can recall, I've usually voted against keeping them. Orderinchaos 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, long-term mayor of a large city, notable in my book. I'm opposed to arbitary limits based upon city populations to determine who is notable and who is not. Why not 50,000 or 500,000 instead of 100,000? Lankiveil (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I would agree that Mayors of large cities are notable, however no matter how much the creator of this article denies it, Thuringowa is not a city in the sense of "large populated urban area". It is a suburban LGA in the greater Townsville area. A Melbourne example may be useful. John So as Mayor of the City of Melbourne is notable. Janet Halsall, the Mayor of the City of Casey (larger than the City of Thuringowa and the City of Melbourne, for that matter) is not. Nearly every suburban municipality in Melbourne is larger than Thuringowa, and I would struggle to say that any of their Mayors are notable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, very similar situation to the case I was describing with my local mayor (David Boothman in Stirling) - we're a top 10 LGA, only Casey is bigger in Victoria, but there's no way anyone here is notable, unless they've either gone on to serve as state MPs, or been charged by the Corruption and Crime Commission, in which case they meet the independent sources criteria necessary to pass WP:BIO. Should be noted neither Townsville nor Thuringowa have more than half the population of the 25th listed entry at List of cities in Australia by population (third table). Orderinchaos 13:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply to comment The issue i have here is that why is it only the Thuringowa mayor that is up for deletion...and tell me why the Townsville mayor Tony Mooney is ok and why is George Colbran ok, and Lindy Nelson-Carr do i need to keep going....it looks like a pick on Thuringowa yet again, and you know you can see what i mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuringowacityrep (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for some tips. If you feel that the other articles about non-notable subjects, nominate them for deletion. However, given that Nelson-Carr is a minister I am not quite sure why she gets a mention. I personally would be inclined to keep Mooney and delete Colbran, but that is just my opinion and this is not really the place for that discussion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Lindy Nelson-Carr a state MP (and in fact a Queensland Government minister)? Orderinchaos 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's two core standards for a political figure to achieve notability - either a current or former holder of an automatically notable office (eg. member of a state or national legislature) or a significant political figure independent of any particular office. "Significant political figure" is defined at WP:BIO as has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Tyrell does not hold an automatically notable office. It is not clear from the article or a quick internet search if he meets the "significant politicial figure" standard. To resolve this debate, can anyone provide links to the in-depth independent coverage required? Euryalus (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look for yourself. A search of Factiva comes up with plenty of reliable sources, as would be expected of a mayor which as long a service as Tyrell. I detest it when people would rather vote delete than actually do their own research. Rebecca (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is not directed at me, as I have not voted Delete or anything else. I don't have access to Factiva so the sources you refer to aren't immediately available to me. A simple internet search turned up nothing much but I agree with your comment below about google - generally where I can find some good sources I add them to the relevant article directly, then vote Keep in AfD's. In this case I couldn't find any but am willing to reserve judgement in case anyone else can. Euryalus (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK here is a small list of Ref's that are not self published, i am doing this to prove a point to a few editors on here, plus i will be adding these ref's to the page itself...here we go...
1: [20]
2: [21] (see number 8)
3: [22].
This wasn't hard and i was not going to go looing at the other 200,000+ links i found buy typing in his name on Google —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuringowacityrep (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, Google is not the be all and end all of searching. None of those three that Thuringowacityrep linked are particularly good sources, but there are plenty of newspaper articles on Factiva - at least enough to make a quite decent article about the man. If verifiable sources is supposed to be the criterion we use today, then why are we still here? They're there in abundance. Rebecca (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a total re-write but its subject seems notable. The Townsville Bulletin is an obvious starting point for reliable sources on this topic as it seems to be an OK quality local newspaper. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I just looked at the article and it is as good as any of the other articles about mayors etc take Tony Mooney, John H. Campbell or Maureen Hayes just to name a few, i do feel that it could use a bit of a re-write but other than that it seems fine. RockandRolldownunder (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, Dhartung, and OIC, as not meeting WP:BIO. NN person of a small LGA soon to disappear who is not notable outside such a small realm. Fully support the nominator's rationale in regards to the walled garden status of this and many other articles by it's creator. Thewinchester(talk) 11:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comments - 1) this page also has a redirect page at Bad Blood (Film) that would also need to go if this is deleted. 2) there's a more notable film with the same title, starring Jack Thompson and Denis Lill, made in New Zealand in 1981, and c urrentl;y at Bad Blood (1981 film). If this is kept, then some form of disambiguation may be needed. If not, then this title should redirect to the 1981 film's page. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If the article creator wants develop this article further and wants to userfy this article he/she is welcome to leave me a message on my talk page to request for userfication. Yamamoto Ichiro会話 06:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a fresh article which is still work-in-progress. We need to hear the authors' plans for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as a work in progress that has escaped into the wild. I have no objection to such an article as we have similar bibliographical lists for other publishers and d20 is notable through the Dungeons & Dragons/Wizards of the Coast connection. 23skidoo (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What he said - Yeah, this would seem to be something that should be on some guy's Sandbox, assuming he knows it exists. Just move it there would be the best bet, it's obviously a work in progress. Howa0082 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but userfy - 23skidoo hits the nail right on the head. There is nothing wrong with the topic; other similar and much less notable lists exist. The problem is that this is clearly a work in progress and hasn't been formatted correctly yet. Typically such things are kept in sandboxes. Please note, however, that this is the work of a newbie contributor, who probably doesn't know about user sandboxes and such. He has a lot of material in here and is trying to organize it. This page should be moved to a user page, and some explanation left for the creator. Please don't bite the the newbies.Freederick (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the title of the article says "all"; that's an invitation to linkfarm. Even if this were a list of notable and near-notable books (as I believe most of the other list of.. articles are) the d20 wiki is a far better place to put it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - look at the source; it is indented with tab characters. This text came from somewhere as a piece and had the "work in progress" bits tacked on to the top and bottom. This is someone throwing sand in the gears and is probably using a copyvio to do it. --Jack Merridew 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a lot that is wrong with this article despite it being a list and non-encyclopedic (though I seriously doubt that we can bring in COPYVIO since you can't copyright a list of products), there are several factual errors in the list itself. I think this very, very new user has positive intentions, they just lack the knowledge at this point of what to do. Web Warlock (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we upgrade this to Speedy Delete? the Editor in question has not made anyother edits to any articles. Web Warlock (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - keeping a list like this would be like keeping a list of all poems made by school children in the US. the size of the list would be unmanageable, as well as i think... there is something about WP is not a place for lists? maybe a list under each companies own articles of thier d20 books would be better, but a single list for just everything that has the d20 logo slapped onto it is kind of silly sounding. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was I don't agree at all that we should discount sources simply because they are not on-line but significant concern about sources has been raised and its unusual for a software suite to only have offline sources. Given the concerns about possible COI and unsubstantiated sources the result is delete. SpartazHumbug! 11:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Vpmi. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#G11. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Isn't there a speedy code for recreating previously deleted content? Even if not, the article is Fully buzzword compliant, but noncompliant with WP:CORP. Argyriou(talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Speedy Deletion criteria for recreated content, but only if it was deleted following AfD. Usually, most recreations retain the flaws that got them speedied in the first place, which is why some articles are repeatedly speedied under other criteria. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article fails to establish notability, and is not properly sourced. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First it is important to thank you for discussing this rather than simply deleting it. An older and very different version of this article was deleted in early December. After 1 month of repeated attempts for clarification and justification behind that decision (to which no reply was given) this article was republished in a very different and scaled back version. I suggest that user Ultraexactzz compare the original deleted article to the one today. The article today is very short and presents only facts about the product, notable references, and links to other articles in Wikipedia. Unlike another software link for Microsoft project, no screenshots are presented of the software or list of features. It was written using the AtTask, Inc. article as a template. Contrary to the view above, I believe the software is notable as defined in the Wikipedia:Notability section where it says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Should you disagree, I think it would be reasonable to ask why the sources listed do not qualify for notability. They are all third-party magazines, journals (including PM Network, the only publication sent to all Project Management Institute members each month) and widely disseminated books in the project management world. In both books, you will find that VPMi is the ONLY project management software tool noted. One of the books is used in classrooms across the world for advanced degree classes in project management. Please compare to other software listed on the List of project management software page to see that many list no references yet are not being challenged as notable, ie., Basecamp, JIRA (software), Central Desktop, Artemis, ProjectInsight, Microsoft project, Teamwork (software) and others. A claim above is made that this is self promotion and product placement. VPMi is added to this list because it is a notable project management tool. To the extent that this can be construed as product placement is simply a reality of the software being a product. By definition, listing a software tool and including it in the List of project management software and Wikipedia makes it a product placement. The same can be said for every other software tool listed on Wikipedia. The salient question is whether or not it is notable and not Wikipedia:Spam. I have not read anything that would lead me to conclude it is not notable. The content is not blatant advertising and the article is there to provide content to a list for notable project management software. It enhances the value and quality of the list.--Tilleyg (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim of notability that I can see, other than "Well, some sources mention it, so you need an article." I don't think we do; there are a bunch of similar products, and this one doesn't seem remarkable or important. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Brianyoumans, to say that VPMi does not seem remarkable or important leaves me wondering the basis for your conclusion. It seems subjective. VPMi was recently given a large technology audit by The Butler Group, Europe's leading IT Research and Analysis Organization. VPMi is one of the only project management SaaS applications they have reviewed. The Butler Group, a highly respected research firm felt VPMi was remarkable and important. Please let me know why you disagree with them.--Tilleyg (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the AtTask article, I just proposed it for deletion. It was only written 5 days ago, and had slipped by for a few days. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tilleyg makes a good point that other editors appear to be missing. Xe has cited independent sources that document this software package: several non-press-release newspaper articles and two books. "Not properly sourced" appears to be based upon the erroneous premise that we delete articles just because they don't spoon-feed the reader which paragraph comes from which source, and "doesn't seem remarkable or important" is not justified in policy, since by long-standing consensus we don't use editor's personal opinions of what to them seems famous, remarkable, popular, or important as the criteria. Notability is not subjective. Tilleyg has cited sources, in the article no less, to attempt to show that the PNC is satisfied. (I roundly applaud xem for doing so.) Editors have not even looked at those sources, and as such certainly haven't rebutted the assertion that they demonstrate notability. Remember: A single keep with multiple cited sources will outweigh any number of "delete, doesn't seem notable to me" opinions. The ball is in the court of those wanting deletion to actually read and evaluate the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom. It has become apparent since October 2007 This WP:SPA account has contributed nothing to Wikipedia other than related to Vpmi and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Perhaps if notability can be established with source that don't require a library card to fact-check, and sources that are not trivial coverage this may have legs. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never read anything that said you have to contribute a pre-defined amount of content on Wikipedia before any of your content can be included. That seems absurd. That said, I have also submitted content to Resource management and Risk management. Both times unrelated to the Vpmi article.--Tilleyg (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps if notability can be established with source that don't require a library card to fact-check". No wikipedia policy puts this limitation on sources. I strongly doubt that there will ever be a policy that puts this limitation on sources. A case study on the product in question does constitute more than trivial or incidental coverage. Taemyr (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's is a trivial mention from the book cited (Schwalbe, Kathy (2007). Information Technology Project Management Fifth Edition)[23]"...like VPMi Enterprise Online (www.vcsonline.com); see front cover for trial version information ". reads like a paid adition rather than a scholarly mention--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion of a paid addition is presumptuous. The author of the book should be contacted before making such claims. I am amazed at the relentless effort to remove this article when by all accounts it is better referenced than any other article listed on [List of project management software]].--Tilleyg (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure on what policy is on Wikipedia for entry of vendors and thier products, but as the Analyst and author of the report on VPMi mentioned I can say it is a very useful product that will help many small organisations bring PM disciplin to project work. However, at Butler Group we are independant, and do not provide endorsements for vendors or products, we analyse and report on the IT market. I am willing to discuss with anybody the strengths and weaknesses of VPMi and how it potentially will help create a new segment of the SaaS market, but can not provide an endorsement of it or the vendor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.122.241 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) — 91.110.122.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Is this report published? Wikipedia welcomes knowledgeable editors but requires that any contributions is sourced, if you wish to include content from sources you have created you might want to read our policies on self citing. Taemyr (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several independent sources exists.Taemyr (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article about a fictional character has no references, and in particular no reliable secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article is made of in-universe material and trivia, so there is no argument for having a separate article under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Pagrashtak 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I usually hate people writing "delete per nom" in AFDs, but I don't think I can add anything to this well-stated nomination. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. From article: "A theme song has already been made for this beachy utopia. An elite group of singers known "Funkettes" perform with a lead male singer, usually one who is dashingly handsome."
--omtay38 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:SPEEDY. Speedy deletion criteria does not cover hoaxes. Thus the AfD. --omtay38 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - personally I would think this falls under "3. Pure Vandalism" - as it is a "blatant and obvious hoax" Kavanagh21 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence to suggest that the school is notable, or that significant coverage exists in independent sources. Merging some information into ColneBrightlingsea, the town in which the school is located, might not be a bad idea - but there does not appear to be any independently sourced (or sourceable) information to merge. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested alternative made by Exact. Colne has 20,000 people and, according its article, nine primary schools, three high schools and two colleges, so I'm not sure how much detail can be provided. Maybe a spinoff article can be made from Colne #Education and training, as with other school districts. Mandsford (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Oops.[reply]
One thing about the merge: the school is located in Brightlingsea, Essex, not Colne, Lancashire. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you caught that. Brightlingsea is a town of 8,500 and its article isn't as big as that of Colne. There's no reason that this can't be merged to Brightlingsea, with an appropriate redirect. I'm curious as to what Google news search turned up, as described below, since there's a difference between a school in Colne, Colne College and this particular school. Mandsford (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the nomination, and am embarassed that I missed such a major detail. I am also curious about the news search, as I was unable to find anything relating to this particular institution. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Secondary schools tend to be notable and a Google News search shows abundant 3rd party WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only items I could find involved a staff member's involvement in a fundraiser, and the fact that she was picked up at her place of business, "Colne Community College". If there are alternate terms or searches, by all means - I'm happy to withdraw the nom, if we have sources. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Google News search for "Colne Community School" [24] got several hits. Among other things, the school is an early adopter of UK random drug testing [25]. It is used as an example for school issues [26][27]. I will work the new material into the article as I find the time. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a large (in UK terms) High School with a sixth form this is notable. Ofsted categorised the school as "Innovative". The Princess Royal opened its sports facility - a royal opening is notable as highly unusual. Plenty of sources to expand the page. We delete when an article cannot be expanded not as here, because it needs work. TerriersFan (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Terriers Fan. Dahliarose (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Cleanup and Expand - For the same reasons given by TerriersFan and Gene93k. A simple Google search produced the same kind of results as found by Gene93k, and I am at a loss how Ultraexactzz did not find them, except that he used different search terms to the most obvious ones (for UK editors, that is) as well as initially getting the location of the school wrong. The point about not deleting when extra work can improve the article is thus most apt. DDStretch (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination, as the arguments above are persuasive. In my defense, I was searching Google for terms that didn't come up with anything, not realizing that there were different, more accurate terms. I didn't have the right location, either, so - of course! - there wouldn't be anything local where I was looking, because the school wasn't there at all. I should have taken more time with this one, but - from where I was sitting - it looked to be a clear case. I can't non-admin close, as I'm involved in the discussion - but I invite anyone else to close this nom as Withdrawn. Thank you. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 13:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While the Happy Tree Friends series as a whole is probably notable, I really don't see any evidence of the same being true for individual characters. This article has no references at all, third-party or not. Most of the other character articles are in similar states, but this AfD applies only to this single article; per Template:AfD footer (multiple), "...for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." There was little point in going to the trouble of a mass nomination before seeing if deletion was feasible. PowersT 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was There doesn't appear to be a groundswell to delete this article and the policy looks like it may have a few kinks to work out. As such this can only be no-consensus but the lack of reliable third party source suggest that this could be relisted as soon as a consensus on this kind of article is established. SpartazHumbug! 11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability WP:BIO as a local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. The article seems to claim notability as a council Leader however the links all seem to be campaign pages rather than independent sources and I have not been able to find any sustained coverage from independent sources that justify a claim of notability. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, common practice on Wikipedia (see WP:OUTCOMES) is that local councillors in major metropolitan cities such as Londonare likely notable enough for articles, even if councillors in most cities generally aren't. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it states they are only like to be notable if they "(a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage" which I don't think is the case here. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as..." Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this I've started a discussion on WP:OUTCOMES to try and clarify which bodies are notable. I think is intended to apply to city wide bodies. If you take the examples listed (Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco and London) and include councillors in the count you would have 44, 50, 11 and around 1,500 people in each city notable for being elected. If you just included the London Assembly the London would have a more reason 25. Please pop across and voice an opinion! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider that the leader of a London borough council is more notable than a member of the London Assembly. The latter body actually has very few powers. Most decisions that affect the people of London are made by either the central UK government or the borough councils. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, delete per WP:NEO and the fact that the article consists of nothing more than a definition. Mr Senseless (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Busking already covers the topic in appropriate detail. PowersT 15:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable neologism. JuJube (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that this is some sort of hoax or someone teasing their mate. There is indeed a person by this name born on this date but I can't find anything about him being a poet. The purported source link is dead and the library system comes up empty. The purported award doesn't even exist, as far as I can see. Then there's the inherent implausibility of someone starting a career of "underground" poetry with gothic titles like Death Poems and Screams of the Raven at the age of 5. The article is its author's only contribution. Haukur (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dead link, no confirmation, improbable dates - it's a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus? I don't like closing AfD's as no consensus (it's the closers' duty to check arguments against policy, and usually one side has policy backing it up), but this is, well, a no consensus as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Em? Utterly unreferenced - utterly subjective. We are not a jokebook. Were this an article reporting studies of national humour, that would be one thing. But a list of jokes is a) unmaintainable b) unverifiable. In any case I suspect variations of many of these jokes are told across various nations. Docg 14:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that a long list of jokes would be unencyclopedic, but we have articles about different varieties of humor (or humour, for people who think we Americans can't spell), such as Gallows humor. What's considered humorous is an insight into a particular culture, in the same way that what's considered offensive is. Examples of what does/did make people laugh in another place or time can be encylopedic, in the same way that a legend, fable, proverb, etc. would be. The "not a jokebook" guideline is in place to set boundaries on such articles, not to prevent them altogether. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then create an article on East German humo(u)r and find, if they exist, some serious sources that analyse it (it can use one or who jokes as examples - providing they are also used by the analytical sources). Anything else is just "a jokebook" (as this is) or "original research" (which we also don't do). In any case, this article is useless as a start for a proper one.--Docg 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trust me, this is not East German humour, any more than a Polack joke would be considered "Polish-American humor". 72.151.55.27 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. `'Míkka>t 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the article is so badly referenced, I have no reason to disbelieve that assertion.--Docg 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator deleters-voters were not diligent enough to check the references of the article (or simply don't know German). The topic is researched, valid, and referenced. It is just the article did not attract attention of people who (a) love informal stuff so much to waste their time on jokes and (b) love formal stuff so much to write a bullet-proof wikipedia article - a rare combination I guess (especially if added good command of German...). `'Míkka>t 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of books at the end of the article does not equal referencing. Almost nothing in the article is attributed, so what if anything, came from those books is wholly unknown. Sticking references at the end of an article meets neither the demand for attribution not verification.--Docg 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A yet another example of lack of due diligence and disrespect to fellow wikipedians. "sticking references" was in fact a part of a major serious expansion of the article and your "wholly unknown" is lack of god faith. When accusing someone, you better have a proof handy, colleague. On the other hand, in your defense I have to notice that the german wiki article, de:Witze der DDR, was deleted. `'Míkka>t 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete baleete, per nom QTC 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic and may be a violation of copyright, as the jokes are mostly unattributed. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bah, everybody wants more BaleetionsQTC 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't be any more blunt then to say unencyclopedic.--Pmedema (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to German humour, which is a more appropriate place for this (semi-sources) content. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. East German jokes is a type of literature. If Wikipedia has an article Spanish proverbs, if Wikipedia has an article Trobairitz (occitan female troubadours), then why not E. German jokes. Please don't discriminate against funny literature. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because, isn't a valid rationale for the problems noted in the nom. QTC 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a subject has had three books written about it then it easily passes WP:N. Any other issues raised should be addressed by editing not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the last 2 books are not "about"; they are annotated joke collections. `'Míkka>t 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Google books also [28] and more immediately show serious research sources for the topic. `'Míkka>t 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? Look again?--Docg 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes I did. Want some quotes for proof? Here you are:
"Trabi jokes, like Ulbricht and Honecker jokes had make rounds for years in the DDR. But the ridicule was tingled with affection, for the Trabi was also loved like a weirdly funny neighbor or an endearlingly daft old aunt or uncle, especially so because it was practically the only immediately recognizable symbol of DDR identity. And unlike DDR political humor, Trabi jokes could be openly shared and freely embroidered: Why does the Trabi have a heatable rear window? - To keep your hands warm while pushing." And this is not from a jokebook. It is amusing how recently wikipedian's laziness has become the major driving force in AfD. `'Míkka>t 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You provided a link to a list of books that mentioned DDR and Joke in the blurb as a killer argument. Sorry if I don't take that too seriously. There were idiots travel guides in your evidence. Want to show there's serious study of German jokes you will need to be more specific. I see you now have, so I'll think on that.--Docg 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, nearly all major topics mentioned in the article are covered in the books. I will try to find some time to make a fresh start with the article (unless someone else beats me). `'Míkka>t 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Blurb", "killer argument", "sticking references at the end"... - this kind or derogatory civility makes me mad much more than when someone calls me "anti-Romanian KGB spy". Is this how you earned your proudly brandished "barnstar of civility"? FUI mine was simply an argument, not "killer argument", and as a rule when I vote an article to keep in the case of strongly split voices I usually put my keyboard where my mouth is. `'Míkka>t 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no reason to have a collection of jokes unless they can be individually demonstrated to have had wide circulation through published sources. These jokes don't even go beyond politics; they're mostly about Honecker. I'm not convinced that there's any true purpose to this article except to push a political POV. Everyking (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What politial POV would that be? "GDR resurrectionism", maybe ? -- Matthead DisOuß 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. The jokes are almost all hostile. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somehow, somewhere (userspace?). How does one reference jokes anyway, especially GDR ones, which could hardly be made public in print, movie, standup comedy or the like? The article is anything but pretty, and translating jokes a bad joke itself, but then these illustrate Cold War history, which set them apart from any random collection of jokes. That the German article was deleted [29] is also a joke itself, deletions being the favourite running gag on de-Wiki aka. Löschopedia, which has its own Hall of Fame of German Deletion Champions. -- Matthead DisOuß 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep GDR jokes were indeed a major political force, and there are suffficient sources. DGG (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable political phenomenon.Biophys (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP To remove this would be utterly ridiculous. The jokes of the GDR are indeed an insight into the GDR's own unique culture. Many of these jokes - especially those with regard to Honecker and the governing authorities throughout the GDR's history - would never have been allowed to be told outside one's own house for fear of imprisonment fo enciting anti-Socialst behaviour. Therefore, the jokes would never have been formally recorded. Furthermore, the jokes are very GDR specific and as there is very little accurate literature / information in circulation with regard to what life in the GDR must have been like this page offers an interesting and unique insight into the GDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.58.160 (talk • contribs) 03:57, January 14, 2008
Re: "never have been formally recorded." - they have been; especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. `'Míkka>t 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and most other "list of jokes" articles. These pages are like article-size trivia sections not attached to any other articles. Many "keep" arguments amount to WP:INTERESTING ("...this page offers an interesting and unique insight into the GDR"), WP:BIGNUMBER ("If a subject has had three books written about it then it easily passes WP:N") and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("If Wikipedia has an article Spanish proverbs, if Wikipedia has an article Trobairitz (occitan female troubadours), then why not E. German jokes"). szyslak 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep This doesn't seem to be the usual kind of local pol article but being a vice chairman of the tories isn't exactly an exclusive club. However this is clearly a notable person although some sources would be nice. SpartazHumbug! 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for nominating is that it failed WP:BIO, it is a biography of a non-notable person and the guideline states that local politicians and candidates for office are not automatically notable. The article asserts notability beyond this because Margot James is an 'out' lesbian and because she is an 'A' list candidate. These reasons resulted in an 'keep' in the previous AfD discussion in August 2006. I do not believe that the intervening period has proved notability, while lesbian and gay Conservative candidates are still a rarity it is over 15 years since Michael Brown became the first open homosexual Conservative MP and the fact that she is an 'A' list candidate is solely a reflection of a political party's selection process, which I would contend should not confer notability (e.g. winning a primary in the US would not confer notability to a candidate who subsequently loses). BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, common practice on Wikipedia (see WP:OUTCOMES) is that local councillors in major metropolitan cities such as Londonare likely notable enough for articles, even if councillors in most cities generally aren't. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it states they are only like to be notable if they "(a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage" which I don't think is the case here. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as..." Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is asserted. Whether the notability is sufficient is frankly a question that could go either way. WP:OUTCOMES (which is in no way binding) suggests that she may be worthy of keeping just on the basis of being a London councillor, so this additional notability should push her over the edge. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those not familiar with Greater London's local government, there are two tiers - a 25 member assembly covering the whole metropolis and 32 boroughs + the City Corporation, which have hundreds upon hundreds of councillors between them. I think the outcomes page has in mind the metropolis wide councils rather than the individual boroughs, and certainly that's been my experience of past AFDs where the sole claim has been a London Borough councillor. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually brought to my attention in a different AfD. I'm on the fence about this one now, since there does still appear to be some notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These AfDs have raised an interesting contradiction in Wikipedia's guidelines. Personally I think WP:OUTCOMES may have been written by someone unfamiliar with London government who confused councillors with GLA members. I think GLA members are notable, some represent constituencies covering about 500,000 people. Councillors, on the other hand, are on the bottom rung, there must be at least 1,500 councillors in London. I stand by all my nominations (including this) being one of thousands isn't that notable, you need to able to assert notability outside of local government. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this I've added a section on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Seeking to clarify notability for elected members in London. City-wide elected members are notable, not London local councillors. The examples listed in WP:OUTCOMES Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco and London have 44, 50, 11 and around 1,500 members if you included councillors. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments in previous discussion. Catchpole (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course keep. She is vice chair of the Cons party. Besides which, she is one of the most significant figures in development of the modern conservative party attitudes to sexuality. She is regularly interviewed by national media. No brainer. Jagdfeld (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established since Aug 2007. Doesn't seem to fit wp:bio guidelines for pornographic actresses. Vinh1313 (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her first listed items of note are having breast augmentation (nearly a prerequisite of porn) and resembling an actual notable actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneHappyHusky (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are added. Johntex\talk 23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per the consensus below. Brings up an interesting conversation at WP:OUTCOMES. Certainly no bias against recreation if his career advances further in a way noted by reliable sources, or if concensus on the inherent notability of his position changes. Pastordavid (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO, which specifically states local politicians and candidates for office are not automatically notable. The article fails to assert notability for anything else and reads remarkably like his own website. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ample precedent that being a local councillor and/or a parliamentary candidate does not confer notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, common practice on Wikipedia (see WP:OUTCOMES) is that local councillors in major metropolitan cities such as Londonare likely notable enough for articles, even if councillors in most cities generally aren't. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it states they are only like to be notable if they "(a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage" which I don't think is the case here. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as..." Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he's on a Councillor on a Borough Council. London has (I think) 32 of them, each with 60 or so members. If he wins the parliamentary seat, he becomes sufficiently notable, but for now, Delete - fchd (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from the ignorant - are these borough councils the highest municipal authority in London, or is there some kind of city-wide council as well? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this I've started a discussion on WP:OUTCOMES to try and clarify which body is notable. I think is intended to apply to city wide bodies. If you take the examples listed (Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco and London) and include councillors in the count you would have 44, 50, 11 and around 1,500 people in each city notable for being elected. Please pop across and voice and opinion! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that, I interpret these borough councils to be sub-municipal bodies. I am a strong proponent of keeping articles on municipal councillors, but this seems a little far. Delete, although I'd be happy to reconsider if I'm misinterpreting anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete article provides no context to even start determining notability. Basically a cut-and-paste of some mission statement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography as per WP:BIO which states "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The notability claim would perhaps be that she is the youngest person appointed to an executive position in a UK local council, but there is no reference to back this up (as per WP:V) without this it should be a speedy delete. Even with this I doubt it's that notable. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I too was unable to find anything to verify she's the youngest councillor to hold an exec position. As such, that part of the article should be removed, and there's no other real claim to notability there. Lankiveil (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and ample precedent on local councillors. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The basic claims to notability are that he's a councillor in Ealing who has unsuccessfully contested a Parliamentary seat. This clearly fails WP:BIO, which specifically states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Nothing outside of his political career even has a whiff of notability. The page only has one substantive editor and is orphaned (if you exclude category pages). It may well be a candidate for ((db-bio)) but I suspect that would be contested. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ample precedent that being a local councillor and/or a parliamentary candidate does not confer notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This person doesn't seem notable in or outside politics. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete. Hut 8.5 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be a strange mirror of Laura Harring (correct name for this person). Situation seems a bit strange & I haven't been around Wiki much for the past few months (thus not sure how policies have adapted lately) so thought I'd bring it here as a first step rather than attempting to speedy or prod it. PageantUpdatertalk • contribs 12:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. A common form of vandalism/hoaxing—copypasting a legit bio article and substituting a different name. Could be vanity; could be attack. Deor (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Poker strategy. Note: before initiating a fly-by delrev, please consider the following: The article evolved during this debate. Much of the debate centered around how to source and stubbify the article, where this was done, all those votes are given far less weight after-the-fact. After the action was taken, the new sourced stub looked to several of the participants like it was redundant to Poker Strategy. The concensus formed around redirecting there seems quite clear. This is a case where counting the bolded words from 6 feet away can mislead you to conclude that the closing admin got it wrong. Read carefully, please, before you object. JERRYtalkcontribs 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense, unless I'm mistaken? There have been a dozen edits since 2002. this one must die. BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (re:nonsense - No, patent nonsense is strings of random characters, bits of unrelated documents pasted together, and things like that. Things that don't make any sense.) This is an essay, which should be deleted in either case. Obviously unencyclopedic original research in essay tone, and we already have articles on poker strategy anyway - TheBillyTalk 11:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep as stub has been created. The topic could certainly merit an article if done right, but in this case there is zero here to act as a starting point, so "delete now without prejudice of a way better article being here someday" is my view...2005 (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Changed to Keep below) agree with User:2005 psychology in poker is a major component of the game but the way the article is written, it offers very little in the subject and appears to be completely original research. was surprise to see that it has been around since 2002.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 2005 above. A legitimate topic, but this short essay is not a useful starting point. Lankiveil (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep And make into a stub until someone has time to write a real article. What's there now is nonsense, but replacing it with a one or two sentence stub that can be later expanded makes sense to do. Rray (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you do just that? Find a source that can be used to build an article and cite it in a short stub. Be bold! Show that what you want to be done can be done. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the same reason you didn't. Just haven't gotten around to it. Although now, it seems like someone else has taken care of it. I'm already familiar with the "Be bold" link, thanks. Rray (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one exhorting the closing administrator to "make into a stub". You are. As I said, the closing administrator isn't an edit-on-demand service. If you want something made into a stub at AFD, be bold and do it yourself. Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "exhorting" anyone to do anything; I'm participating in the deletion discussion and expressing my opinion about what should be done with the article. As far as I know, I'm allowed to participate in the discussion without being obligated to actually do the work myself in any given time frame. Rray (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be nonsense, but certainly seems to be original research. Unless this can be linked to published info that defines this term.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Switch to neutral based on rewrite. I still have a slight reservation, but not as strongly as before.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rray. The nature of the game itself would suggest that a reasonable article could be written with proper sources on the subject (or the study of the subject). There are game theory elements as well. A short stub would be acceptable. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But since this isn't a short stub, it must be unacceptable. I reiterate the above: Find a source that can be used to build an article and cite it in a short stub. The closing administrator isn't an edit-on-demand service. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring cleanup, revision, rewriting, etc isn't a valid deletion reason. No one suggested that the closing administrator is an edit-on-demand service. Indicating that the article could be appropriately rewritten as a stub and kept is a valid contribution to the discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted. Rray (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
… and it implies, as I said, that if it hasn't been written, it isn't acceptable. And, on the contrary, you and xe both took the closing administrator to be an edit-on-demand service, you in as many words and and xe by adopting your rationale. As for deletion rationales, you yourself said "What's there now is nonsense". That is a deletion reason, per policy. The closing administrator isn't an edit-on-demand service, and upon reading a rationale that says "It's nonsense. But a good stub should be kept." will delete the article for being nonsense, unless you do as I said, put your edits where your discussion comments are, and create that good stub. A boldfaced word doesn't magically make an argument into a keep argument. Administrators read rationales. Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about who should do what. I expressed my opinion about what should be done with the article, not who should do it. And someone here agreed and made the article into a stub, so the process worked just fine. Rray (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been updated as suggested above. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks good now. Maybe later it can be properly expanded a bit.--Pmedema (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mark as stub, and start expanding. Topic is notable, and very true, and easily sourced, I own numerous books on the psychology of poker players. The most notable being "Beyond Tells". Personally I will help expand this article if kept. LessThanClippers (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the source changes that were made.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article quality is not the only factor to consider. We're not voting on whether an article is good, we're discussing whether it belongs on Wikipedia. We already have Poker strategy, Bluff (poker), Slow play (poker). Anything we could put here we could put on an existing poker strategy page. There is no worthwhile discussion to be had on "poker psychology" outside the context of strategy...and even if you argue that there is, a page should only be created as split once the strategy page gets unwieldy. This page is redundant. - TheBillyTalk 20:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is partially covered in Poker strategy. I'd suggest merging, but there's no content currently in the Psychology article to merge. PKT (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are two source citations, which are useful. And given the titles of those sources, readers will probably try to look up the subject of poker psychology in the encyclopedia. So why not merge? Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poker strategy. Content can be expanded upon there until it becomes large enough to split for reasons of WP:SIZE. -Verdatum (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see where your coming from but the difference here is that Poker strategy's focus is on the game. Poker psychology's focus is on the player, their mind, their personalities, the psychology. I feel that they are sufficiently different enough to have them separate.--Pmedema (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself states that "poker psychology" is part of Poker strategy! So this article is unnecessary, despite it inducing giggles in myself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being part of something else doesn't automatically make an article unnecessary. Texas holdem is a type of poker but warrants its own article separate from the main poker article. The Empire Strikes Back is part of the Star Wars series of movies, but it also has its own separate article from the article about the series of movies. In fact, thousands of articles exist which could theoretically be encompassed in an article about a broader subject. Rray (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but those are quite possibly the most ludicrously illogical comparisons I have ever heard. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're more logical than the reasoning you gave to delete, but maybe we can just agree to disagree. :) I don't doubt that you mean well. Rray (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no need for an article that's only content is "Psychology is a useful skill in the game of poker". The article Tell (poker) already does a great job of describing the usefulness of knowing human psychology in the game of poker. Teleomatic (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Game theory is a totally different concept. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, very very different. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is notable because of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. At least two books have been written about the psychology of poker. Being a neologism isn't a valid reason for deletion anyway, although I don't think this qualifies even as a neologism. Rray (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Autobiography. While the article claims multiple competitions won, there is no claim to competition for the country or at the highest level of the sport. No sources provided, although a Google search provides a number of relevant hits. A prod was removed without improvement to the article. Deletegadfium 10:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a good high school jumper, but the bar is set much higher for notability. 2.03 m is nowhere near the world record. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An area where we do seem to fail in guidance coverage is activities which have grown up outside of the traditional reliable sources network. Magocracy gets mentions in a number of places [30], though - without searching through them, none seem conventionally "reliable". If those involved in D&D were readers of The Guardian there would likely be the reliable sources needed for this article. That those involved in D&D worldwide almost certainly outnumber the total readership of The Guardian doesn't count in Wiki guidelines. (Oh! This is strange - my first search for Magocracy produced 44,000 hits, then I searched again and got 650, then again and I get 9,500!) Anyway, do we deal with it on Wiki, or do we let the well established D&D world deal with it themselves? Working within existing guidelines I'd agree with the nom, though I'd suggest a merge and redirect to an appropriate article within the Dungeons & Dragons cat or Fantasy role-playing games cat. An article on governments would be good, but I couldn't see one. If no appropriate article can be found, then delete.SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep with reference to The Golden Bough and LtPowers comments. There is scope for this article to develop in interesting ways. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 12:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you might be confusing Ghits with notability. Magocracy is not a term that is listed in any dictionary, but was created as part of a role-playing game, which has extensive coverage on lots of fansites. These sources cannot be considered to be reliable secondary sources, because fansites are a form of self-publication. My argument here is that the term Magocracy has no significance outside of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise, i.e. it has no real-world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. There has been a move on Wiki for accepting certain sources - such as internet forums and blogs. When redrafting WP:Bio I created a section "Specific examples of sources" and put in the sentence "Widespread and sustained coverage on the internet, resulting in demonstrable wide name recognition on several significant internet forums and blogs". However, it was felt that the wording was too soon. My feeling is that we increasingly need to have a further discussion on this topic. Until we get agreement that wide coverage on internet forums and blogs is an acceptable source then we have to follow existing guidelines, and so this article fails - but if we had that wording then articles like this and others on street artists, etc might struggle a little less on AfD. I hope that is clearer - if not, we can continue this conversation on my talkpage. Regards SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are mistaken; there is no established move to accept anything other than WP:RS as the guidance note on evidence of notabilty.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also mistaken is the notion that this term is exclusive to Dungeons & Dragons. The term has been used in other role-playing games. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (even though I find the article hilarious!). This is not notable in the real world. At best, these mages may use their powers to get a girlfriend other than an AmazonWarrior Princess. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your comment here made me laugh, Jack Merridew. Rray (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to lighten things up a bit. --Jack Merridew 13:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, it should be thaumocracy :-). Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thaumatocracy, rather. The notion means "government by mages", not "government by magic". There is a significant difference: while magic does not really exist, magicians did for most of history, and still do. Whether they are effective at what they do is beside the point. Still, the term magocracy is the one in popular use, as a Google search shows; thaumatocracy would be a neologism. Freederick (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has real-world significance and I have added a citation for this. The article currently emphasises the D&D aspects but has already made some effort to cover other works such as Star Wars and the Wizard of Oz. Some more cleanup might be done to cover other fantasies such as the works of Jack Vance but this is not a reason to delete. The title of the article is debatable but the word seems an obvious coinage for the concept and seems to have usage outside of D&D: Google books. And the title can be changed without deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the source your provided does not mention Magocracy at all. Please address the issue of negolism, rather than sidestepping the issue.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of this in the source you added to the article[31]. The term Magocracy is not used at all, unless I am mistaken.--Gavin Collins (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source discusses the topic. The title that we give to this topic is not especially important for this discussion because the article can be readily renamed. I made a similar point above so your hectoring is redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you may be confusing the world of fiction with the real world. The term Magocracy is a term used in fiction, but there are no reliable sources to suggest it has been used outside the genre of role-playing games. As regards the real world use, there is no primary source that provides evidence it has been used at all. The source you have provided suggests that wizards and mages have been rulers, but there it provides no evidence that permanent order of governance has ever been created based on the assertion that magic can be used to control the natural world. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. "Real-world significance" seems adequately established in that this is a concept with at least some currency; as is pointed out, this is an "obvious coinage." Not sure what "plot summary" is included in the article I read. Societies governed by magicians or wizards are a recurring theme in fiction: the concept could support an article, and this title is a good place for such an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That a form of government is necessarily fictional is not by itself evidence that it's not notable. It certainly does have some cultural relevance, as it is a form of government often found in fictional settings that contain magic-users. It also has some real-world political relevance, as societies have in the past been ruled by people who were though to be magic-users, even if they were not in reality. Obviously, the article needs expansion and more sourcing, but it's not inherently unnotable. PowersT 15:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that this article has "real-world significance" nor is it obvious that it is inherently notable because it is a form of government as it is a neogolism that has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate your assertions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I neither used the phrase you quoted, nor claimed that the topic is inherently notable. I also did not claim the current title was not a neologism. PowersT 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources can easily be found for this article's subject. Powers makes a good point that being fictional does not equate to being non-notable. Rray (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keepComment - I want to say keep because I know that it is a used terminology that is sourced. I want to say delete because we will be opening the door to anythingocracy. Will we then acknowledge F___ocracy or DumbF___ocracy? But that is probably not the case and would be each viewed for their merits. Changed my mind to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I find it remarkably curious that you are using not only the same buzzwords as the nominator, but the same unusual misspelling as well. Communion of minds? Freederick (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while I am perhaps not allowed to cast a vote as I prefer not to be logged in, I'd suggest that the contents (in a trimmed form) be put in an article dealing with fictional forms of government or such. Thus there would be a little home for hive societies,wizard states and whatnot (while real world examples are colourful enough). 88.148.206.233 (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate, sourced article. The arguments against it tend to cluster around the fallacious notion "magic does not exist in the real world, therefore magocracy can have no real-world notability". Actually, it is not necessary for magic to work in order for magocracy to exist; it is only necessary for a group of people to believe it works, which was the case through most of history. The reference to The Golden Bough underscores that point. Once you abandon the fallacy, there are no serious reasons for trashing the article: it is referenced, and the breadth of the references clearly demonstrates sufficient notability. I would like to see some more reference to real-world phenomena like the Hittite magic-ritual-performing rulers, the druids, the actual passages in The Golden Bough, etc., but it seems these references are in the process of being supplied. Even outside of historical context, the fictional appearance of this government form in such influential books as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or the Earthsea series guarantees sufficient notability. The article needs more work to expand its scope beyond game connotations, but is definitely a keeper. Freederick (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thugh I would not have thought so until i actually read the article--and Freederick's explanation. This sort of article is one of the major justifications for building an encyclopedia based on community input. DGG (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sorry, one less-than-notable source for the term isn't enough to justify this neologism's inclusion in the encyclopedia. Majoreditor (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query. If, as many of those who are recommending delete contend, the issue is that "magocracy" is a neologism, does that mean that we are in agreement that the concept itself is notable, just not the word used to describe it? If so, then shouldn't this be a rename discussion on the talk page instead of a deletion discussion? PowersT 13:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, considered the content, not the title. If folks want an article on a political concept, fine, but this isn't it. This is D&D-cruft mapping itself onto the real world. Look at the categories it is in, the repeated D&D references. Said political article would use a different title and different content and so has nothing to do with this. --Jack Merridew 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a neologism isn't a criteria for deletion unless it's an article about a neologism where reliable sources can't be found to demonstrate notability. So the many "Delete" comments which cite nothing more than the word being a neologism should hold little weight in the closing of this AfD. Rray (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I said that it was a non notable neologism (per WP:NEO), not merely that it is a neologism, and as such it should be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes multiple references to reliable sources which indicate notability. Rray (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article includes sources which use the term, not sources which discuss the term. WP:NEO requires sources which discuss the term to prove notability. Mayalld (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is the name, that can be changed. The article is not about the term, so we don't need sources that discuss the term. The article is about the concept. PowersT 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seemingly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The article includes multiple references to reliable sources, which is usally a clear indication of notability. Rray (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's certainly a neologism, having been coined in the 1970s. But, given its broad usage in the gaming sphere, it is arguably notable. That said, most of the cited examples in the article strike me as original research. However, insisting that real world examples be found or the article must be axed seems a bit unfair; there aren't any real world examples unless you count certain theocracies. My suggestion is to transwiki the word to the Wiktionary, define it, and provide a brief etymology. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
!vote, but comment I honestly don't think the notability of the topic is questionable. The book by Sir James George Frazer is apparently very well known and he has a whole chapter on this idea in his most famous book. It also seems that the notion shows up in the oddest places. That said, the article itself feels largely like original research and I'd personally remove the D&D references as being largely irrelevant (not to mention causing the ire of Galvin and Jack). I'd vote keep, but I'm not sure how to tie Frazer's work into LeGuin and Oz without it being original research. If someone can manage it, more power to them.
OK, as I wrote that I did some further searching. This would seem to relate Frazer and LeGuin. As would this paper (see page 64) So keep but needs a major rewriteHobit (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete There is no content worth merging. A redirect to whatever NPOV title we get for this as suggested by Uncle G is likely in order. But there's nothing worth salvaging here and Uncle G's article is not yet in mainspace. Uncle G's suggestion is also highly relevant and should be taken seriously. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then those dictionaries are woefully out of date, since the words "Asiaphilia" and "Asiaphile" have been used in print since at least 2000 and 1997, respectively. I've found several sources that discuss the phenomenon of Asiaphilia, including ISBN 0971580804 (chapter 4) and ISBN 0816638241. It's also known by the name Asian fetish, and according to the first of those sources which name is used varies from one's point of view. We should treat this subject neutrally in a single article. Asian fetish is currently protected from editing. If it were not, we could attempt to use those sources and merge the twain. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As explained at Talk:Asian fetish#Should this article be renamed?, my view is that we merge both this and Asian fetish, just like they were merged as a result of the previous AFD discussion, into a single article, but that, as was discussed in the last AFD discussion but not implemented, we pick a name for the subject that is not inherently non-neutral, as both of the two names are. I've provided a start to this at User:Uncle G/Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men. Since there's no content here worth keeping, and since the scope of an article by this title would be inherently non-neutral, this should simply redirect to the merged article. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Used by Time magazine 2004, [32] Village Voice 2006 [33] ... so it's not just a non-notable neologism not found anywhere. That said, there isn't much to the current article but a dictionary definition. I'd say expand or merge as per Uncle G. Not putting that in bold, because then someone might ask me to expand it :-). --AnonEMouse(squeak) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge The current article is more suitable for Wiktionary with no reliable source. It's nothing more than a collection of see also links. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will put in a reliable source eventually when I find the time, I've already listed a wealth of sources below. Tkguy (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD discussion overwhelmingly leans towards delete. In fact, the article does not even seem like it has been closed properly. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The article will become unprotected on January 14th. I am a bit cautious about merging the two terms, because being a Japanophile or a Sinophile is not the same as having "a thing" for Chinese or Japanese women. That also raises interesting questions about the definition of Asian fetish. I think this discussion should be closed soon, because the last one back in '04 overwhelmingly points towards delete. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who mentioned Japanophilia and Sinophilia? I and Lukobe mentioned this article and Asian fetish. Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article in question is about Asiaphile. It was just my opinion. I guess Asiaphilia and Japanophilia were related to each other but I guess not. миражinred (speak, my child...) 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best it deserves an entry in Wiktionary. At worst, it's the NPOV language of activists.165.123.139.232 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, indeed, a name with an inherent slant on the subject. So, too, is Asian fetish. See above for the solution to both. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Asian fetish did survive AfD 4 times, one of them started by me. However, Asiaphile did not. The previous discussion points towards delete, and should have been either deleted or merged. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not a dictionary.--Crossmr (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Asian fetish, the biased title of which allows it to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK essay. - Headwes (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing WP:NEO I'd like to change my stance to delete. Beyond the mere dictionary entry that it is now, it seems this article has little potential besides turning into another POV essay like Asian fetish. - Headwes (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because this is a name for something that comprises a slant on the subject that is inherent in the very name itself. See above for the solution to that. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to neutral article name per recommendation by Uncle G. While there is no doubt that the word exists and can be demonstrated to having been used in contemporary media, there is no way to create a NPOV article from this page name. JERRYtalkcontribs 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, noting that there doesn't seem to be an article for the album or the band.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Song by non-notable German hip-hop group. Only claims to notability is that it was played by a "youth radio station" and was sampled by a notable Romanian hip-hop musical group. h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 09:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I, like the nom, can not find significant, or really any coverage of this song online that would satisfy WP:N. And as per WP:MUSIC, in this case it is best to redirect to the most related article, which in this case is the artist. SorryGuy Talk 05:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no assertions of notability. The article claims they exist, but gives no reasons why they are notable. And even that claim that they exist carries little actual proof. There is more proof that I exist ([34]) than for the Anthem Game Group. Delete. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The company is listed in the game credits for three of the games at least, I haven't checked all of them but they are credited on Guitar Hero III Mobile(in the game app's credits), PREY Mobile 3D, and their "founder" is credited on the Greg Hastings'Mobile Credits.Their current website lists that they developed graphics on Guitar Hero III Mobile and the game credits confirm this.I also just found, that the listed founder is also credited on the Playstation 2 Greg Hastings' Tournament Paintball MAX'd Answers.com. They are also listed here Gamasutra.com --JamAt2 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are also listed on Gamasutra's Job Connect [35]
Delete being listed in the credits of a game does not count as significant independent coverage. This company fails WP:CORP big time. JERRYtalkcontribs 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small non-notable company. RMHED (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The nominator, 220.253.8.139 (talk ·contribs), writes: There is no such term as "J-Ubarn, J-hiphop, J-soul, J-rock" or whatever. This article is POV, and utter nonsense. Furthermore there are no references, and the term is not used in Japan for music at all. In fact, J-urban is a term used by design company Sumimoto.
Any Japanese popular musician is classified as J-pop in Japan, they are then sorted into their main genres. Such as the group Orange Range being listed as Pop/Rock/Mixture by HMV [36], the largest retailer of music in Japan.
Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 09:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to J-pop. . . although that article needs some improvement as well. I cannot find reliable sources to independently establish j-urban's notability, although it certainly is a phrase in common use. However, I am confident in its (J-pop's) basic notability, and there is plenty or space in that article to accommodate treatment of what appears in the absence of sources to the contrary to me to be a sub-genre. I suspect that for obvious reason the earliest treatment by reliable sources would be in the Japanese language. I'll list this with WP:Japan to see if any of those guys can weigh in. Xymmax (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to J-pop I've never lived in Japan so I don't know what their culture is like over there, but if there's J-Pop and people are so into it, I don't understand why you say there can't be other genres. Yet at the same time, I don't see people saying T-Urban or T-Rock or T-Soul or C-Urban or C-Rock or C-Soul. I agree with what has been said by the previous posters: it should be merged with J-Pop, and let's not forget to get rid of the list if we get rid of this article. However popular the term may seem, Google brings up just 44,000 hits for it and over a million for J-Pop (I will admit that article needs help as well). ― 金魚花火 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently seldom-used neologism that has not caught on and is unlikely to anytime soon. JERRYtalkcontribs 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the current lack of reliable sources, it rather looks like OR that shouldn't be merged.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Removed Self Promo Content and Non-notable. --Dieterman (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless third party sources can be found AlfPhotoman 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She has some press coverage (dropping the middle initial yields a few more), BUT she is in a field that generates press releases and announcements, which doesn't automatically make one "notable", just announced. Jacksinterweb (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the most promising-looking of the links in the article are actually links to sites that don't seem to have any content at all about the subject of this article. A reasonable attempt to locate sources comes up empty handed. JERRYtalkcontribs 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Potentially non-notable performer. Googling for him yields no results that are related to anything, and there's no listing on IMDB or NNDB. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 06:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I used to be in the choir with Michael. He was a great singer and should definitely be noted. You should try and google Paulist Boy's Choir. However, they have changed to a mixed choir so I don't know how much that will tell you. I also found a small amount of information on him at this website: http://www.boysoloist.com/artist.asp?vid=3508 and http://www.boysoloist.com/artist.asp?VID=1315
Hope this helps!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.41.34 (talk • contribs) 17:57, January 15, 2008
Whether or not the group should have a Wikipedia article is not the question here; the issue is whether or not one of its performers needs a page. Being a great singer doesn't make you notable. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 03:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Potential WP:HOAX. Googling for "Jieming Unit" yields no hits. Potential attack page on someone named Jieming? Either way, the page fails WP:RS and WP:N. Bundling another related page that was created by the same editor. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 06:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also noting that the "inventive" units used would not include kilojoules squared for a quantity in the order of 1E76 - you could drop the kilo and change the order to 82. Strong hoax likelihood; I wouldn't waste much time over this one. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as hoax. No source, can't find any outside reference, originator's sole contributions, reads like a hoax. Can any German speaker tell us if the originator's username "Kuhvorreiber" offers a clue? It should mean something like "cow-before-rubber". JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save It is true that at first sight it seems to be a hoax, but that was due to unfortunate timing in the creation of the original page and my updated version. As much as I hate to make excuses for the previous page, the original pages were written by my brother after looking through my notes before I had a chance to sit down and type up as much as I could. I the community understands. If this breaches some sort of verifiable aspect of Wikipedia, I'm very sorry and would be willing to delete the page until the first release of the NMSR. I'm sorry for any inconvenience.
Comment sorry, SayHeyKid999, now that you have expanded the article it looks even more like a hoax. For the "verifiable aspect of Wikipedia", read Verifiability; you will see that everything requires confirmation, and "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" require exceptional confirmation. Bring it back if and when there is somthing peer-reviewed and published. I shall not hold my breath. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jieming Field per merge and redirect that page to Jieming Unit. Regarding Jieming Unit, however, I was also unable to find any references on Google. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Probably a hoax or something. Ask this user about it, apparently one minute is too much effort to deal with a contested prod properly and list it here, so I'm doing it for him. Procedural nomination. UsaSatsui (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its clearly just another one of the hoax airport / stadia this editor has created through their various sock puppets. (Caniago (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete probable hoax, even if not would fail WP:CRYSTAL anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V for lack of evidence. No sources or even specifics offered, none found. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear hoax. If all the other stadia and airports reported by this editor exist then there can't be any room left for this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominated and voted for deletion nearly 3 years ago, a list full of OR and personal opinion, never complete and certainly able to be merged with Oxymoron. Jmlk17 06:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a list of oxymorons, OR. TJSpyke 07:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There does seem to have been a mistake in that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oxymora 2 was closed today by Strothra (talk ·contribs) as "delete", but as a non-admin who cannot actually delete articles. I'm going to speedy close this debate and reopen the other one for an actual admin to close. This seems like the best way to square this circle. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that this movie even exists, which suggests this is a hoax article. The article contains a link to a spoof YouTube trailer. Proposed deletion was removed with no edit summary. Bovlb (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think this article deserves more then 26 hours to mature to be honest. Although there is definatly definitely no feature films by that name, so it will have a hard time meeting WP:Notability. Ferdia O'Brien(T)/(C) 06:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, obviously. If no feature film by this name exists, why should the article be given more than 26 hours? Maxamegalon2000 06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because just because a feature film of that name doesn't exist, doesn't mean it isn't something else, mislabelled. Ferdia O'Brien(T)/(C) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#G3, vandalism ("blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation"). --MCB (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unsourced and unencyclopedic, though those are cleanup issues and not deletion issues. My main concern is that I don't think it's sourceable, as I can find no evidence that it actually exists. If it's a real movie in production, then there'll be something about it to show notability. Even an independent film will have some coverage upon release, if it's notable. There's none of that here. Mr. Depp's involvement is not sufficient for notability, as there appear to be no sources to prove it. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteanother day, another poorly written hoax by bored college students. Arcticle proclaims movie will make millions because "Johnny Depp pwns lives" (wrong use of word) and movie is proclaimed to be simply Johnny Depp reading a phone book. I know with the WGA strike, studios are desperate for screenplays (despite the fact they have hundreds stockpiled), but not this desperate Doc Strange (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an actual feature length film. It is a proposed film, an idea for a film. It most certainly exists, however, and should not be deleted.Caseyrose707 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then surely you won't have a problem showing actual sources to confirm its existence. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There's no reason for sources if he only proclaims it's a mere idea - "proposed film" according to Caseyrose707 - that's never been made and most likely never will. No sources were found anywhere. No IMDB page (if it exists it would be there), no relevant google hits, no Google News hits. Doc Strange (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability -- the article appears to be a hoax with no such genuine headline involving Johnny Depp. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is in fact a hoax. I tripped over this by accident and thought you all would like to be informed that it started with a joke topic made by someone on the Sweeney Todd boards over at IMDb and one of the people involved apparently thought it would be "cute" to make a wiki page for something that does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.3.32 (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe this fails WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING, and due to this articles resemblance to a DVD Booklet, this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. The article has no references of any sort, fails to assert notability, and has received only minor improvements since its inception, almost exactly a year ago. Ferdia O'Brien(T)/(C) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Canley (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete all SpartazHumbug! 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prodded by Dchall1 on the grounds that it fails WP:MUSIC. Since this has survived an AfD before, I think it should go through it again rather than simply get prodded away. My opinion is pretty much the same as it was in the previous AfD (keep). - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my vote on the last AfD (as Danny Lilithborne). JuJube (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably wouldn't have prodded it had I noticed the previous AFD. That said, I see no reliable sources, and the article has been tagged as lacking them for almost a year now. A quick Google search doesn't turn up any, and most of the results are generic hits. I have to go with Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article that survived an AfD can't be deleted via prod - TheBillyTalk 10:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They should be judged on WP:WEB rather than WP:MUSIC, because they're an internet phenomenon more than they are a live band. Per note 1 "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Content which has been packaged into material form, such as onto CD, DVD or book form, but which is still primarily only available for sale via the Internet, still falls under these guidelines." As far as I understand, they only sell their CDs on their site and through online retailers (IIRC they used to sell on the old MP3.com before it committed temporary net-suicide and re-launched). For references to their notability, the external links section shows one review by "Associated Content", A site with alexa rank 2,400, and which has a wikipedia article that survived AfD, so that seems to be a non-trivial mention. They need at least one more for "multiple secondary sources", but one good mention suggests they aren't totally unknown and that further evidence of notability can be found, so I think it's premature to just trash the article - TheBillyTalk 11:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think those in this discussion should read the discussion for the previous nomination last year. I can't see any new points being raised here, so I can't see why a different conclusion should be reached. Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A few of their videos/songs have started a sort of internet meme. There are articles on them to be found, too. Grazfather (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - they're not obviously notable, but there do seem to be enough sources here to justify a keep. By the way, I'd point out to Dchall1 that articles that have previously been through an AFD process (whether successful or not) are not candidates for being WP:PRODded. Terraxos (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Restore to redirect. Pastordavid (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created the page as a redirect for the show Yo Gabba Gabba!, a kids show which has a character named Brobee. I think it's stupid, that whoever changed it to some definition, caused this, because this page is much better suited as a redirect. It's not a necessary one, but a valid one. That's just my two cents. --Victor(talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either of you could have simply put the redirect back in place again. That's something that you both have the tools to do, that doesn't require an administrator to hit a delete button, and that requires less than a third of the edits that it took to bring this to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the redirect is a worthwhile search term, so that's why I didn't do it. MER-C 11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, of course I could've put the redirect back, but if I did, you would be saying something from the other end, like "OMG WHY'D YOU REMOVE AFD NOMINATION". So unless we can agree to bring back the redirect, I won't change it till then. --Victor(talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleted per WP:CSD#A7. The only claim for notability of this person ventured was her medical history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a declined speedy and by the decliners comments, he would decline as a prod, too. Aside from obvious BLP concerns here, the lead refers to her as a "lesser known wife, mother and homemaker". Her claim to notability is that in 2001 she was the fourth person that Duke University Medical Center performed a procedure on. Note - she wasn't the fourth ever - she was the fourth ever by that hospital. The procedure was first done in 1983. While it's a good thing, having a lung transplant doesn't make you notable. SmashvilleBONK! 05:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom. This could likely be speedied, but I'd like some other opinions. GlassCobra 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Doesn't look like much of an assertion of notability to me. See also WP:BIO1E — even if the information about her were deserving to be kept somewhere (far from obvious) it should be on the transplant article, not as a separate piece. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable bio. Jmlk17 07:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fourth person to have a certain operation at a certain hospital? Not a claim of notability at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - The user has been nominating redirects for deletion and seems to have messed this one up, no harm done though. It would appear the user meant to nominate the redirect "Edmund rice camps" for deletion not the article. Message left on user's talk page. Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss(talk)(contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nominator may mean "Edmund rice camps"? It is a redirect, with quotation marks Fosnez (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Ditto the first response. Please clarify - having many redirects is no grounds for deleting a worthwhile (if perhaps underdeveloped) article. Are you simply wanting to reduce the number of redirects to this article? If so, I'm sure there are more appropriate procedures available than an AfD request. Rob Lindsey (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete looks like a hoax. JuJube (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer and WP:V. I personally was leaning towards a neologism, but if it's a hoax, good enough reason to delete anyway. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Possible hoax. External links are to LiveJournal pictures, and are broken anyway. Google gives back 3 results, 2 of which are from WP. GlassCobra 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as non verfiable. — Xy7(talk) 19:07, 14 January 2008 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any proof that this is a real school district. There's a Huntington Local School District, but it's a significant distance away from the Cincinnati metro area. School districts appear generally considered to be notable, so I'll withdraw it if someone can find convincing proof of its existence. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although, like Nyttend, I'd vote to keep if proof was shown. A school district that covers several counties? I don't think so. Mandsford (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Ohio, the idea of a school district in several counties is not a problem; my local school district covers parts of four counties. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cannot WP:V without sources or a specific school. DoE search yields zip. The bottom of the article places places the district in the Fairfield-Cincinnati area. The district claims parts of Fairfield, a city with its own school district. It is also close to the red-linked "Hamilton City Schools", rated by the state as one of the most improved urban districts. This smells like a hoax but there are at least 4 places in Ohio called Huntington. I'm not 100% sure. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: note that there is no city called Huntington in Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be notable; written in a spammy tone; only 'reference' is the school website. -- Mentifisto 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Aren't institutions of higher education, such as colleges, considered inherently notable? Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. It's a real institution, in Fayetteville, NC. If the problem is the spammy tone, then that can be fixed. This one needs to be linked, since there is a Category:Bible colleges. For additional categories, see, e.g. Johnson Bible CollegeMandsford (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Start OverRewrite. Original content should be tossed, but the college is generating WP:RS coverage that comes with higher ed institutions. An editor is currently trying to fix the article. Otherwise, I'd suggest stubbing and starting over. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. I thought it was only borderline WP:CSD#G12 yesterday, but it's blatant. (home page [37] and history page [38]) • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is an academic institution, there is no valid reason to delete the article, but it certainly could be cleaned up dramatically. Use of third party sources could help. — BQZip01 —talk 04:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A good number of Google News Results that contain "Carolina Bible College" I have not vetted the sources though. Fosnez (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colleges are inherently notable, and this school is no exception. Alansohn (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been tagged with ((confusing)) and ((context)). It is written like some sort of internal report, which assumes widespread knowledge of the matter from the reader. Frankly, I do not see any encyclopedic value to this, nor do I see where this is going. The author made his case on the talk page, but I am utterly unconvinced. I suggested that Wikisource would be a better place for this, to no avail. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article with this information likely could be written, but this isn't it. Confusing, non-encyclopedic, not in a proper tone, format issues and doesn't seem to be fixable in its current state. Would require a full rewrite. Even then, might not pass AFD. Pharmboy (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nutshell description that leads WP:DEL explicitly states:
Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion.
IMO, the opinion expressed above, and several others here, are not compliant with policy, that articles are regarded as needing work should be improved, not deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That many Guantanamo captives are accused of being "al Qaida facilitators" or of having known "al Qaida facilitators" is well documents, from reliable sources. Captives had their continued detention justified by this allegation. IMO that makes this term notable.
Respondent is incorrect that "Al Qaeda is spelled wrong". There are different conventions on how to transliterate Arabic. There is no universally accepted standard. The DoD transliteration scheme is to transliterate it as "al Qaida". Every time the DOD uses the phrase they always write it as "al Qaida facilitator". I think it would be a mistake to correct the phrase, from the way it is written by the DoD. Even if this was a good idea, it is, IMO a very weak justification to delete this article. Geo Swan (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's too confusing and it has no senseOlliyeah (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not an encyclopedia article now, and I don't think it could be. How do you distinguish an "al-Qaeda facilitator" from just a member of al-Qaeda? I don't think anyone would seriously insist on this as a meaningful distinction? Superm401 - Talk 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respondent asks: "How do you distinguish an 'al-Qaeda facilitator' from just a member of al Qaeda?"
Respondent questions whehter anyone would seriously insist that this was a meaningful distinction.
Respondent is overlooking that Joint Task Force Guantanamocounter-terrorism analysts (1) make exactly this distinction; and (2) in effect insisted it was a serious distinction. The captives named "al Qaida facilitators" had also frequently been distinguished as being "members of al Qaida". Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, particularly Superm401 and Pharmboy. I could argue for a (brief) article on this topic if a notable individual affiliated with Al-Qaeda was described as a "facilitator" for the group. An article would be useful in describing the term and why it exists as any sort of distinction between that and other types of Al-Qaeda member. Terrorist itself redirects to Terrorism, so an article on a particular type of terrorist (the facilitator) doesn't seem appropriate, unless context and sources would indicate otherwise. But, I agree - if there's an article in here somewhere, this isn't it. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We cover topics that are, necessarily, incompletely covered. Back before Fermat's last theorem was solved, or the four color theorem was solved, we would still have had articles about them. It may be that none of the references currently available to us contain an explanation as to what Joint Task Force Guantanamocounter-terrorism analysts actually meant by this term. Just like Fermat's last theorem this topic worth covering. Maybe some of the references will contain an explanation as to what JTF-GTMO analysts meant. How could the article exist, without containing an explanation, if that explanation existed? Because checking all the references is hard work, and they haven't all been checked yet. Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term is notable, because it's put to serious use. At first glance the article appears to be of sufficient quality. Perhaps it was improved since the above voted delete? Mathiastck (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with the suggestion: contain usable information, but yes, in a confusing way. i think the best is to merge the uable content with the suggested article, them delete this. its talkpage also seems to be a battlefield --Drhlajos (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the person who put Confusing and Context on the article in the first place. I did not mean this to be a prelude to deletion. I would have used Prod if that is what I intended. I just wanted the article to be easier to understand. Clearly there is a notable subject here and, while work is needed to make the article more useful, it should be kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. My thought is that we should not list the specific detainees in the article. After all, they have never been charged with, or convicted of, being Al Qaida facilitators. I think that the detainees should be listed in a separate article. What we need in this article is an explanation of what various people mean by the phrase "Al Qaida facilitator". --DanielRigal (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I started this article. changed to move see below.
Several of the opinions stated here are counter to the WP:DEL.
The concept of an "al Qaida facilitator" is an important one, because allegations that individuals are an al Qaida facilitator, or know an al Qaida facilitator, has been used to justify their continued extrajudicial detention.
I am concerned because it seems to me that nominator's nomination does not in the tradition of good-faith nominations. Note: I responded, at length, to nominators concerns on Talk:Al Qaida facilitator. Rather than honor the wikipedia's tradition of reasoned discussion, nominator chose to make this nomination.
Nominator didn't show the usual courtesy of giving me a heads-up of this nomination -- also not in the tradition of good faith nominations. Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the concept may be a notable one, and state as such in my comment above. However, a discussion of the concept of an Al Qaida Facilitator is different from a list of detainees who have been so described. There isn't anything in the article that tells me what a facilitator actually is, especially in relation to non-terrorist facilitators (i.e. of discussions or debates), or other non-facilitator members of Al Qaida. If there is a source that differentiates between facilitators and non facilitators for Al Qaida, then the background already in the article could serve to document official uses of the term, bolstering the notability that the independent source provided. However, the article as-is would work better as information about the detainees themselves, as opposed to their position in the organization. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I add that, if the only distinction between members of Al Qaida and Al Qaida Facilitators is that the Department of Defense has designated some detainees as facilitators, then this term might be better suited as a subsection of the article on Al Qaida itself. Otherwise, the article would boil down to the following text: "An Al Qaida Facilitator is a member of Al Qaida who has been described as a facilitator by the United States Department of Defense." We need more information on the term itself, not necessarily on those for whom the term has been used. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to comments made here by Geo Swan, let me just point out, that if the concept of Al-Qaida facilitator is a notable one, how come the article makes no attempt to explain what one means by Al-Qaida facilitator? How come the article does not even attempt to explain the concept? What is it that makes an Al-Qaida facilitator different than another Al-Qaida member? And how is an al-Qaida facilitator any more notable than, say, a Republican Party facilitator, so that we need a separate article on Al-Qaida facilitators? The article should focus on these two questions. I probably would not have nominated for deletion an article that only tells this difference and mentions no names. Also, the so-called ISN number of each Guantanamo detainee liste is a detail whose removal would actually improve the quality of the article. As far as I can tell, the article on George W. Bush makes no mention of his social security number. What we want is encyclopedia articles intended for people who want basic knowledge about a topic. What we have now is an intelligence report that only a CIA operative would find interesting. I do not think there is anything worth saving as part of an encyclopedia. Ultraexactzz gave the right guidelines on how to start over with this article. And note: start over, not expand. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO nominstator's detailed content questions belonged on the article's talk page. Not in ((afd))
Nominator asks for an explanation of how an "al Qaida facilitator" differs from an ordinary "al Qaida" member. From the context one might guess that "al Qaida facilitator" is a synonym for "al Qaida cell leader". Some of the documents will refer to a single individual by both terms. One might guess that JTF-GTMO authors thought the two terms were interchangeable. However, if one of us, the nominator, or myself, or one of the rest of you, were to insert that conclusion in the article that would be a violation of the wikipedia's policy on "no original research".
Nominator asks why being accused of being an "al Qaida facilitator" is any more noteworthy than accusing someone of being a "Republican Party facilitator". Well, no one is holding anyone for years, without offering them a meaningful opportunity to challenge the allegations that triggered their detention -- because they are suspected of being members of the Republican Party, of facilitators for the Republican Party.
Nominator criticizes the article for its use of the captives ID numbers.
As I mentioned above, I strongly believe this kind of detailed criticism of an article's content really belongs on the article's talk page.
Why include the ID numbers? Simple. The entries in the list are ambigous without them. Arabic names, and Afghan names are not like the names we are familiar with in the English speaking world. After centuries of international commerce, international conquest, international colonization, English speaking phone books are full of surnames from all over the world. English-speaking people have a rich name-space for surnames. Relatively few individuals have names like John Smith, where they can be confused with their homonyms. This is not so with the Guantanamo captives. About twenty percent of the names of the captives are homonyms. Without using the ID numbers there would be constant confusion over who was being referred to.
Nominator mocks this article writing: "What we have now is an intelligence report that only a CIA operative would find interesting." -- It seems to me this concern is just an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I know, for a certain fact that the wikipedia's articles on war on terror topics are read and appreciated. I've had people reader's write me emails telling me they appreciated articles like this one and found them useful.
There are plenty of topics that I find uninteresting that the wikipedia covers. But I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of those topics. Geo Swan (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I request a relisting because nominator lapse from the normal courtesy of informing the article creator has circumvented the deletion sorting being put to use. Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRYtalkcontribs 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this appears to be a classic example of what WP:NEO calls "neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources", and which "are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." <eleland/talkedits> 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the term "Al-Qaida facilitator" has not itself been the subject of any serious treatment. There's a difference between using a term and actually covering it nontrivially. In addition, it's all coming from the same source, one which no rational person would trust to be objective on this topic. <eleland/talkedits> 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a question from the author, I’ll expand on this. Because this article singles out one specific class of detainee and doesn’t address what an Al Qaida facilitator is, I can see no other purpose for this article than to attract attention to these people. —Travistalk 03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just isn't encyclopedic. Tavix (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of Al Qaida facilitators or Category:Al Qaida facilitator (i.e. create category, then add to all captives' articles). As an article, this should but doesn't provide a definition of the subject. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IAW WP:DEL (namely the "nutshell" at the beginning of WP:DEL; mentioned above already); I can also see some information here being moved to List of Al Qaida facilitators and this page being expanded to include what a facilitator actually is (a simple stub article used for clarification). I agree this article needs work, but it doesn't meet the criteria for outright deletion. — BQZip01 —talk 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify if not enough information is present for an article a wiktionary entry would be applicable instead. — BQZip01 —talk 04:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be easier to think about things like WP:N if the article could start by defining what an "Al Qaida facilitator" is (or what the DoD means by the term, anyway). That's pretty basic WP:LEAD stuff, and also is pretty much the difference between whether this is indiscriminate info or something which could turn into some kind of informative article. The term does seem to be used enough in US military and white house circles that I could imagine an article, but what we have here is pretty far from what we'd want. (also note the existence of Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators for whatever it is worth). Kingdon (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking it means, "we don't have any real evidence about this person, but he knew a guy who knew a guy who's al-Qaeda, so he'd better learn to love his stylish orange jumpsuit." <eleland/talkedits> 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move -- After reading the comments above, and thinking about them, I am changing my suggested action -- from keep to move to something like List of alleged al Qaida officials].
Many of the objections above are that the article doesn't define how an alleged "al Qaida facilitator" differs from a garden variety alleged al qaida member.
The definition(s) that lie at the root of the invention and use of this term may not have been made public.
As Eleland suggested above, this term may be used by junior analysts who merely heard the term, and used it without any acquaintance with the definition(s).
Approximately a third of the captives in Guantanamo were accused of being members of the Taliban.
Approximately half of the captives in Guantanamo weren't accused of being members of either the Taliban or al Qaida. (I know that adds up to more than 100%. Some captives were accused of being member of BOTH groups.)
Of that third -- approximately 170 men -- a minor, but significant fraction were labeled as some sort of al Qaida official. "Al Qaida facilitator" was just one of those labels. Other labels included: "Al Qaida recruiter", "Al Qaida lieutenant", "al Qaida financiers", "al Qaida cell leader", "senior al Qaida operatives.
Bearing in mind the comments above I think all these labels could be described as "officials". I think the distinction made between the garden variety captives and those singled out merits coverage, without regard to whether we know the definition of the alleged duties of those singled out.
I'd welcome alternatives to "officials", or "officers". Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forgive me if this sounds like nitpicking, but your style of commenting makes the reading of this discussion more difficult and confusing than it needs to be. Using a bullet point for each and every statement is unnecessary and, frankly, distracting. AfD discussions normally have bullets only for major points, i.e. “Delete,” “Keep,” “Comment,” etc., so your extra bullets only serve to make your comments more difficult to follow and understand. Respectfully, —Travistalk 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As a Wikisource administrator, I wish to make it clear that this is not the purpose of Wikisource and would not be allowed to be transwikied. As such, I vote "Keep", and remind future voters that Transwiki is not an option. If the information is to be kept anywhere, it must be on WP. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedied as recreation of previously deleted material per AFD of 2005. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With so many major notable roads in Canada's largest city, it's hard for me to see how a small street in suburban Willowdale merits an article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pemberton Avenue has no historical significance, unlike Homewood Avenue, De Grassi Street, Palmerston Boulevard, or Vaughan Road, all of which are side streets or local collector roads with historical significance. Homewood has Victorian housing, De Grassi lends its name to a popular television program, Palmerston has antique streetlamps, and Vaughan originally linked Toronto with the City of Vaughan. Johnny Au (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vaughan Road is also a local thoroughfare, unlike Pemberton. Johnny Au (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the added bonus that we've done this before — meaning that this could potentially be speedied as a G4. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this was a G4, all right. The article was word-for-word identical to the deleted version. Speedied. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. If notability can be established, the article can be restored. — Scientizzle 16:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This theatre company fails WP:CORP as it has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notabilty outside its local theatre scene.A search provideds lots of Ghits, but nothing more than routine theatre publicity and PR releases. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any demonstration of notability here.--Crossmr (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Existence is not the same as notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Living Water International. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does it fail per nom, it has nothing to do with the subject - it's primarily about water sanitation. Two questions, though:
Keep I don't doubt Hu12's SPA concerns, and at the moment the article reads like a press release/newspaper article, but this NPO appears to be notable. It has received finding from the US government's OPIC agency [39] and the Google News hits show that it operates in a number of African countries including Kenya [40]: "President Kibaki thanked Living water international for being instrumental in providing water to the arid regions in the country, noting that the NGO had so far drilled 300 boreholes across the country." I'll try to improve the article before this AfD closes. Bláthnaid 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article a quick rewrite, with new sources. Bláthnaid 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRYtalkcontribs 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks legit. all promo/spamishness has been edited out --T-rex 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No violations seen at this time — BQZip01 —talk 04:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does need to be sourced better, but is a verifiably notable agency with several news article hits. Sidatio (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete due to insufficient reliable sources (i.e. only one, which hasn't been verified yet either). Fram (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements: Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, won a well-known and independent award, or distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Article has been tagged requiring notability since April 2007. References are primary sources or un-verifiable sources such as forum posts. Brenotalk 07:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might be a quality xcast, but 2500 viewers per episode doesn't exactly scream "Notable!". Lankiveil (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
2,500 listeners source reference comes from the Dice Tower forum. They could say any number; but it couldn't be proven. --Brenotalk 08:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, among other things (which I'm still researching! Please don't decide this any time soon!), The Dice Tower is the longest-lasting (112 episodes so far and going strong), most regular and most respected audio podcast covering the world of boardgaming. In addition it provides listeners with wonderful multi-cultural insights. I am checking on awards and publications now, and will provide that information within a few days. Thank you. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split — I have questions about notability, but there are a lot of references. The formatting of the references need to be fixed, especially the one that initially looks like a self-reference (it's titled like it's a like to the Dice Tower Wikipedia article). I'll keep checking in and may change my opinion later. Val42 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRYtalkcontribs 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteYes there are lots of references, problem is some are forums and blogs which aren't reliable, also some of them are simply pointing to a company which has used a favourable review by the host as advertising. They're not significant coverage of the subject itself. Honestly I question their relevance to the article. I've removed the sources which fail WP:V from the article. I don't see significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources independent of the subject. Boardgamegeeks seems to have some sort of relationship to it which makes the only source the knucklebones article which hasn't had the text linked in any manner.--Crossmr (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its adequately notable could you provide the references which shows it meets WP:WEB?--Crossmr (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Others are doing this work, as noted above, while I already do more than my share of fixing other articles here. I listened to the podcast and am satisfied as to its bona fides and notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing in the podcast that would establish its notability. Notability can only be established by sources independent of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But listening to the podcast allowed me to determine the likelihood that more sources could be found. And as I consider it sufficiently likely, my opinion remains that the article should be kept per WP:DGFA: When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree this sounds like a clear case of ILIKEIT. This is a debate for deletion. If you really feel the citations are out there you need to provide them. The article is up for deletion because of the lack of citations which would meet the requirements. The opinion has been submitted that those citations don't exist and simply stating "I think they do" doesn't make any kind of compelling case.--Crossmr (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually like it all that much. But I have long experience in this field and know a notable product when I see it. The trouble is that sources will either be web sites (which you would pooh-pooh) or hobby magazines, which are a chore to wade through. Since others are looking for such sources and seem to be having reasonable success in finding them, I am leaving it to them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not spin. A comment such as I listened to the podcast and am satisfied as to its bona fides and notability goes against varifiability requirements. Notability on Wikipedia is based on independent secondary sources, not listening to the show and saying it satisfies notability. --Brenotalk 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not required to create a perfect article in the course of this discussion. What we are doing is assessing the balance of probabilities that the article is capable of reaching a satisfactory level. My point is that, having looked at the article and sampled the product, I have some confidence that more sources can be found. If I had to do it myself, I know how I'd go about it but I'd have to take some time and spend some money. You don't get to hustle me into doing that right away. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a boardgame fan, this is a tough choice, but frankly it doesn't pass WP:WEB and the sourcing is painfully inadequate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from WP:WEB: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". BGN is respected and independent of the creators. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The podcast seems to be hosted on BGN, as they use their forums, etc. This isn't a case of distribution and no longer makes it independent of the podcast.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The podcast is no longer distributed through BGN but has transferred to Boardgame Geek, I gather. The transfer indicates that the podcast is a production which is independent of those sites. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From looking around Boardgame Geek I don't see anything more than a community site. On this article's references from this site (refs 3 and 6) these are forum pages. Due to the inherent unreliable nature of user-generated content, this would not pass as a respected medium. --Brenotalk 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BGG is well-respected in the designer board game community; the recent Knucklebones article described "having your game climb the BGG rankings" as the main aspiration of a game designer, so either way, I still think that part of WP:WEB applies here. Also, if user-generated content is inherently not respectable, we might as well give up on all of wikipedia. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and since funagain does the actual hosting, both BGN and BGG are definitely independent of it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone else does the hosting doesn't mean that another party is truly independent of it. If the new yorker carries your column its one thing. If they give you an office, an email address, a company car, and still try to call you freelance, that's another thing. Also yes, user generated content is not considered verifiable on wikipedia. Its self-published, which fails WP:V except in a few rare cases.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, but since The Dice Tower is featured on both Board Game News and in a Knucklebones article, that seems to qualify as multiple independent sources. It appears to me that there is clearly NOT consensus for deletion.
The Knucklebones article is a hardcopy reference, and while perfectly valid on Wikipedia, does not give editors without physical access to the magazine a chance to review it or even know if the article exists. As for claiming Board Game News as an independent secondary source it is clearly not, as each article ends with Posted by Tom Vasel: one of the hosts of the show. The opening line Hello from the Dice Tower! is also a giveaway. Please don't speculate on concensus of discussion, as we should leave that decision to an administrator. Thanks. --Brenotalk 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My bad about the Board Game News. I guess I didn't scroll down to the end of the article. I know that BGN itself is separate from TDT. As for the consensus, I'm not speculating. When half the respondants say "delete" and half say "keep", there is clearly no consensus. I'm not talking about what the administrator might decide, I'm talking about actual consensus, which is clearly absent. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reviewing the article references today to ensure we have WP:RS independent, reliable secondary sources for WP:V verifiability, and therefore pass WP:WEB notability requirements. The Knucklebones article I'm not able to confirm (anyone who knows where an online version of March 2008, p. 28 please let me know). As I mentioned above Board Game Geek articles [41] are written by one of the show hosts. Fun Again Games [42] is where they host their RSS feed [43] and the page is a html render of their show feed. Board Game Geek Guild [44] is a fan forum site managed by one of the show hosts. Gift Trap [45] is one of the show hosts reviewing their site "Here’s what Tom has to say about GiftTRAP". Cineplexity [46] is again a review from a show host about a different site. Finally, back to Board Game Geek forums [47] thread. Apart from the Knucklebones article, which as I said me personally is not able to confirm, the other references listed do not stand as indepentent, relable sources. As verifiability policy states: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
If criterion 1 is being claimed of WP:WEBThe content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself the only reliable source may be the Knucklebones hardcopy article. Even then this would not meet the requirement that multiple works are published.
If criterion 3 is being claimed The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators ... an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution... Footnote 7 of WEB gives an example of this use, being The Ricky Gervais Show podcast being distributed by The Guardian British national newspaper. This criterion was not designed for websites who merely clone an RSS feed to be considered as an independent distributor. Otherwise Podshow, Indiepodder, and Feedburner would always be cited as an indepentent distributor for every show out there.
I still stand behind my nomination that this article does not meet verifiability policy nor notability guidelines. --Brenotalk 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - TDT Host Tom Vasel has apparently won the "Platinum Pawn Award" for best game reviewer. Yes, I realize the Platinum Pawn may not be on the level of the Grammys or the Academy Awards, and the award is to Vasel and not the podcast itself, but since Vasel's reviews are a major part of The Dice Tower, I'd say this is another brick in the notability wall. Also, just do a web search on The Dice Tower sometime. Sort through the 20,000 results and discount the ones for dice rolling devices, and the unique results for the podcast itself make an impressive list. Aside from the WEB criteria, TDT is notable because of the volume of buzz about it on the web. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that notability is not inhereted or transferred WP:ITSA. While the host of a show may be notable to have an article for himself, a show he produces must be notable on its own. I also don't believe in G-hits = Notability. There's just too many results that are unreliable, user generated, original research, or primary-sourced material. 20,000 results = 7 article references. I have already tried Google News and Scholar searches with no result. --Brenotalk 09:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising or other spam without relevant content, Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, Apparent vanity article, No evidence of notability, Sources and external links are only tangentially relevant to subject of this article. - Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#The_True_Snow_White -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
week delete - the book does exist but the lack of references and citations regarding most of the article is sketchy.[48][49] and the The True Snow White - Limited Premiere Edition [LIMITED COLLECTOR'S EDITION] (Leather Bound) [50]--Pmedema (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The plot section is a more of a summary, rest smells like WP:OR. --Emana (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No established notability, no article.--Crossmr (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the entire artice looks like OR Chris!ct 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Publisher is "The True Snow White Ltd." I wonder what else they've come out with? Mandsford (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an essay about the book including a critique dripping in something that smells like a violation of WP:NOR— BQZip01 —talk 04:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as a totally nonnotable band article with no assertion of notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even enough content to be a stub. -- Emana (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. No notability asserted, no reliable sources found in a search for the band and its members. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn --JForget 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, I don't see any evidence this is actually a real word. There is a subscription citation provided in the last AfD, but it doesn't speak about the origin of this word at all. As far as I can tell from a cursory google search 10 pages in, this is a case of something made up at school one day. I haven't seen a single result yet which could be used as a reliable source. There is a claim its in several dictionaries, but I certainly don't see it at dictionary.com. The only other argument I really see on the previous afd is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which isn't really a valid reason for keeping an article.Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW->I'll withdraw the nomination but with the understanding that its in desperate need of citation. The only current provided citation doesn't elevate it beyond being a dictionary definition.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those summaries seem to have the author throwing the word in to quotes which makes me believe there is some doubt as to its wide acceptance, though there are some references going back before 1900. As long as legitimacy and proper sourcing for the text of this article can be provided I have no problem with it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the term does (or did) exist, it still need references. Just like how we can find articles from respectable sources on Hippies and Bohemians, I think there are references out there. Until references are found, this article is too "iffy" to be on WP. Maybe WP:Userfy? -- Emana (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was made up in school one day, it was a day a long time ago. In addition to the citation in the Webster's Unabridged from the previous AfD, it's in my copy of the OED cited as dating from the early 20th century. Needs cleanup and sources, but it a real and notable term. The perjorative claim looks especially dubious to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quasirandom, who beat me to it. Chris (クリス) (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the Britannica entry for Kumamoto, and the OED entry for Japano-, for examples of use. The Wikipedia article goes well beyond a dictionary definition. Fg2 (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but its completely unsourced. At least now with a citation showing it exists in a dictionary, that demonstrates its a real word, but without any other citations it would have to be reduced to only a dictionary definition.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Common word in common usage, not just in niche circles. Used by media, news and many other sources. Listed in mainstream dictionaries, encyclopaedias and other sources. Source the article a bit better, but obviously a real used word. Ben W Belltalk 04:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only found in dictionaries, either; used by the BBC, The New York Times, The Daily Yomiuri, et cetera, as shown by Google News searches. Dekimasuよ! 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. This looks somewhat promising. The term itself is discussed, not just mentioned in passing, and someone could also find the original being referred to in the text. Dekimasuよ! 11:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I just readded a citation from the online version of "Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (2002)", for "Japanophile," since Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk·contribs) had inadvertently deleted it.--Endroit (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also reverted an undiscussed unilateral move by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard from Japanophile → Japanophilia.--Endroit (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other changes by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard appears to be good work, especially since he cited multiple sources.--Endroit (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This edit by an anonymous person had removed all sources back in November.--Endroit (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a neologism. --Lukobe (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: multiply strange. Japanophile (a common word) is actually a redirect to Japanophilia (a much less common one). The article seems to think that the phenomena started at about the time when western Japanophilia was, I believe, in sharp decline (prompted by Japanese militarism). It's illustrated with the photo of a sole putative Japanophile: Hearn, who so loved Japan that he (i) never bothered to learn the language and (ii) kept complaining about the indignities of his life down in Kumamoto. His own article ignores this and instead describes him as the man who offered the West some of its first glimpses into pre-industrial and Meiji Era Japan -- so much for the thirty or more intercoursing years of informative and admiring comment that preceded him. (Just as one example, how about Griffis's The Mikado's Empire?) Grrr! (Yeah yeah, I should rewrite it all. But sorry, I've got my hands full with other articles, not to mention "real life".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep since nobody here wants to have the article deleted and this is indeed not the place for merge discussions, which may be continued elsewhere, taking into account that there is no imperative that different forks need to have different articles. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is a good branch of Swiftfox and Iceweasel, this article merely repeats the content of the Swiftfox article, but mentions the fact that it is "fully free". I think this would be better off merged into Swiftfox or Iceweasel's article. ViperSnake151 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably belong better in Iceweasel than Swiftfox - the former is another similar fork; the latter is an extension. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, no, it's not. (I could have sworn it used to be an extension.) Swiftfox is probably the correct merge after all. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that this stays. The only reason I have found this talk page is because I was looking for info on swiftweasel. I just searched for on google to find out if 'swiftweasel' versus one of the others was what I had installed on a previous system, hoping for a picture of the logo to remind me, and the entry confirmed this. Worked perfectly. Some more on what "fully free" means, and a history of the split would be good, but I think it's great that the entry exists as it does (expansion can follow at any point). It appeals primarily to a subpopulation, but so what? We are not bound by the size of the book we are creating. If swiftweasel per se dies out (no new development and low use) then at that point combining it under firefox/swiftfox or whatever makes sense. Skandha101 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should stay. The application is listed on a few pages other than its own. Its different in that it is optimized and free vs swiftfox which is is not free, but a proprietary build under a proprietary license. Swiftweasel also has defalut extensions that are not default in any other build. Swiftweasel comes in 64bit versions, all others are pure 32bit. The project also is currently building Swiftdove a optimized build of Thunderbird. Kilz (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Iceweasel would also not be a good choice for merge , because the iceweasel page deals with the fact that Debian created Iceweasel as a fork because of the Debian free software guidelines. There is no information that Swiftweasel is built for Debian, in fact its .deb files numbered and named for Ubuntu. Kilz (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few reasons why I think that deletion or merger is not appropriate.
Swiftfox is a proprietary application under a proprietary license. It dose not contain the same default extensions. Its not open source.
Swiftweasel has 64 bit builds. It is the only Mozilla linux build with 64bit builds. All others are 32bit, even the packages for 64bit prossessors on Swiftfox are 32bit.
It contains defalut extensions like adblock plus, user agent switcher, and quick local switcher.
It has its own settings directorty while swiftfox uses the firefox settings directory.
The swiftweasel project now also builds Swiftdove a mail client with the lightning plugin installed by default. Making it the first to create a optimised build of a mail client.
Per the creators own words, Swiftweasel is not a fork of Iceweasel or Swiftfox, merge with either of these pages would be wrong.
Swiftweasels popularity is steady and possibly growing according to the hits/download statistics for the project. Kilz (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the page does look like a copy of the Swiftfox page, Swiftweasel is a very different product and, I believe, should have its own article. If anything, the article needs a bit more information about what makes Swiftweasel unique. I use Swiftweasel primarily because there is a 32-bit build made for 64-bit Ubuntu that allows the Sun Java Plug-in to function. Swiftfox does not. By the same logic, Iceweasel should be grouped with Firefox. Dan Forward (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you all this is not the place for discussing mergers. If the nominator thinks the article should be merged but not deleted, he should start an appropriate discussion on the article's talk page (Talk:Swiftweasel). --Angelo (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a 64 bit and 32 bit Ubuntu user, I strongly disagree with deleting or merging. Here's why:
- Swiftweasel has 64 bit builds. It is the only Mozilla Linux build with 64bit builds.
- Swiftfox is a proprietary application under a proprietary license and is not open source. It doesn't contain default extensions.
- It has its own settings directory while Swiftfox uses the Firefox settings directory.
- The Swiftweasel project now also builds Swiftdove; which is an email client, making it the first build to create a optimized build of a mail client.
I use Swiftweasel primarily because there is a 32-bit build made for 64-bit Ubuntu that allows the Sun Java Plug-in to function. Swiftfox doesn't.
If anything, Swiftfox and Iceweasel should be considered for merging under Swiftweasel.
--Guilden NL (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use Swiftweasel, over and above Firefox as it's more inline with use of the end user. There is
lot's of features to it that's different from other versions, and it has 64 bit versions that is being
tweaked all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B647888 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not to explain why Swiftweasel is better than Firefox, but to prove if and why the subject is notable to stay in the Wikipedia. By the way, the Swiftweasel creator has left a message three days ago suggesting the software user to participate and "cast a vote to keep the page",[52] nevertheless I have to remind you that voting is evil. Personally I think this discussion should be moved ASAP at Talk:Swiftweasel, because it's basically about a merge proposal and not about the subject's own notability which seems to be agreed by everyone here. --Angelo (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Granted this page is not following the standard discussion of deletion. As such the keep votes will probably win. Because the merge votes state that the voters believe that the information belongs in wikipedia, be it some other page. As for notability. Swiftweasel is now being installed by Automatix. Is included in Arch linux repositories. It is listed in Softpedia. Its web page statistics say it has 3k hits a day, with 200-400 a day downloads. It is listed in numerous blogs, forum posts and other pages that talk about its differences and improvements. While they cant be used to prove points about the browser, they do prove that its being noticed and talked about. Ill even toss in Smashing Magazine while it didnt get reviewed it was mentioned and its icon used. That the developer is pointing out its up for deletion isnt a desired thing in your view, it shows that it is well enough known to maybe have some wikipedia editors as users. The developer didnt ask for people to do anything dishonest. Im doing my best to sort through the 33 pages of google results daily to find more links. I have also tried to add more to the page. I will just keep working on it Kilz (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is simple. Firefox has a list of forks. Swiftweasel is one of those forks. It is a different fork from the forks you mention. Therefore it must be in a different article from the ones you mention. The structure of those articles should be very similar, but the content should differ in the parts where the forks differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.117.23 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If does not violate the copyright of any other article, there is no reason to be merged into firefox ,swiftfox, iceweasel, since they are different builds and "products".
Tblu (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keepJoshuaZ (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This aricle has no reliable sources except the the Oregonian interview on his views on Cascadia. If he weren't notable, his views wouldn't be notable. Most of the sources are his own web site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Au contraire, mes amis. Lyle Zapato is actually quite notable. He's quoted on the following sites in addition to the Oregonian article:
Absolute Write which publishes articles about writing and interviews with authors, screenwriters etc. This was linked in the article.
Bruce Eisner's Vision Thing Bruce Eisner is a writer and a poet, he was particularly impressed with Lyle Zapato's [www.cafepress.com/dactylfractal/ Dactyl Fractal] which Mr. Eisner calls "Hands Within Hands Within Hands -- Lyle Zapato’s Dactyl Fractal Zoom." Mr. Zapato's dactyl fractal art was also noted at various art websites, including Tree of the Day
Lyle's pioneering work on Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies and protection from mental infiltration by the computer program known as "Mindguard," was featured on the website of prominent skeptic James Randi:
“
I've been sent this hilarious spoof — http://zapatopi.net/mindguard.html — from which I give you an example of the delicious pseudoscientific language they have invented:
MindGuard works by leveraging your computer's aluminum-based innards to both detect and emit psychotronic energy using advanced quasi-quantum techniques. Once a mind-control signal is identified and analyzed, MindGuard can generate a specially tuned anti-signal that will jam the incoming signal. If MindGuard is unable to properly identify the signal, it will generate psychotronic white noise to ensure the signal's harmful message is scrambled.
MindGuard is fully configurable and can be customized for the individual user using biorhythmic and eponymologic settings. MindGuard also includes an advanced DePsych utility, allowing the removal of almost all deep-burned memetic patterns — including even commercial jingles.
With MindGuard, you can rest assured that your most valuable possession — your mind — is safe from the nefarious tinkering of evil-doers.
Yep, I'll just bet that if you use this device, not a single shred of mind-control signal will get through to you! And those deep-burned memetic patterns will just be gone, gone, gone! I don't know who got this clever hoax together, but it's obviously someone who is familiar with the kind of nonsense that Lewis Carroll so well expressed when he wrote of borogoves, mome raths, and slithy toves….
There's many other references but I don't have enough time to go into them now.Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is more information and citation in the debate than the actual article. I think it is telling that the article admits the book only gained "some attention". OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two articles in Wikipedia that link to Lyle Zapato's website, including Tin-foil hat and Pacific Northwest tree octopus If Tin-Foil Hat and Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus are still on, why not an article describing Lyle Zapato, a real person? Google "tree octopus." You get 21,400 hits. Google "aluminum foil." The first hit is right here on Wikipedia: Aluminium foil. The second site is Lyle Zapato's Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie. Or try googling "Sasquatch Militia." You get 33,000 hits, the first of course is Lyle's Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs. There's many other examples. So if there's an issue with the wording of the article, please improve, feel free, but deletion on notability grounds, no way, the case just isn't there. Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i also recommend DELETE this article is barly notable. just becuase someone has a website doest mean that their notable. i used to think that was the case sbut if you read the discusions on the criticms of sylvia browne talk page, the kevin trudeau talk page, and the uri gelelr talk page you will se the reasons for this explained in tdetail thats ite asy to understand. it helps to read hte policies so that you dont make mistakes like thinkign in that way. Smith Jones (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We kept the tree octopus article, plus the Lyle Zapato has written a book that is for sale on Amazon. Paul Studier (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. The article needs to make a better case for notability, including information and references included in this discussion. It should also be written in a tone, style and format more appropriate to Wikipedia. Delete. Article doesn't make case for notability, and is written in POV manner.--Skylights76 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Late last year, University of Connecticut professor Donald Leu asked 25 Connecticut seventh graders to evaluate a website on the endangered Pacific Northwest tree octopus (Octopus paxarbolis) as part of an online literacy survey. What he learned may shock you.
According to what little scientists know about it, the Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an amphibious species restricted to the temperate rainforests of the North American Pacific coast. The arboreal creatures abandon their coniferous homes each spring and migrate to the waters of Puget Sound to spawn. Sadly, years of logging, urban growth, overharvesting during the nineteenth century for hat accessories and depredation by its natural predator, the sasquatch, has driven this species to critically low levels.
Of the 25 seventh-graders identified as their schools’ best online readers, 24 recommended this bogus website to another class that Leu had told them was also researching endangered species. In other words, they bought the tentacled tree-hugger hook, line and sinker – fooled by the scientific-sounding text, the photos and the e-mail address, Leu said. Even after they were let in on the hoax, most of the students had difficulty deciphering the clues that betrayed the site’s fictitiousness. Some still maintained that the octopus really exists.
The survey is part of a U.S. Department of Education-funded research ...
STEP 7: Teach the Online Comprehension Skills of Locating Information and Critical Evaluation Critical Evaluation: Use sites such as Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ )
”
So far, nobody has done anything but recommend the death penalty for this article instead of chipping in and improving it. POV problems, notability, that can all be addressed, but just hacking away at something, especially when wikipedia already has articles on the Tree Octopus, etc., just ain't right.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have changed my vote above. But I'll leave the improvements to those people wanting to keep the article. Improve it now, and the outcome of this discussion is more likely to be "Keep."--Skylights76 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a lot of stuff on notability to the article, it's still rough, but a lot of issues have been addressed, I think. Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some others did some major editing after your edits, and now it's looking a lot better.--Skylights76 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks good, but why is the picture of D.B. Cooper missing? Sure looks a lot like Lyle Zapato to me. Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? You can't use a picture just because it looks like a person.--Skylights76 (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I wouldn't advocate that as a general proposition. This may be a special case however. There's the unusual coincidence that the sketches of D.B. Cooper and Lyle Zapato look a lot alike, except that D.B. Cooper in 1971 looks iike a 20 years older version of Lyle Zapato. This leaves two possibilities:
(1) either Lyle is hoaxing us (again, some might say) and he doesn't look at all like D.B. Cooper or
(2) Lyle Zapato and D.B. Cooper are actually the same person who is one of the small class of persons who are living backwards, that is growing younger in appearance as they grow older, like Jonathan Winters in Mork and Mindy or Merlin in the Once and Future King.
While this second possibility might be objected to on the grounds that only fictional characters have ever been known to live backwards, and Lyle Zapato appears to be actual and not fictional, the simple fact remains that no one has ever seen Lyle Zapato and D.B. Cooper in the same place at the same time. So I think the picture should stay and Wikireaders can make up their own minds as to which possibility is the most likely scenario. Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had to look up D.B. Cooper and then the link you provided in an earlier edit of the Zapato page to know what you were even talking about. Obviously it's another of Zapato's gags. I still don't think it's appropriate for the article.--Skylights76 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant to provide the D.B.Cooper image and Lyle's alleged sketch as links, the comparison becomes easier with them. Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non-notable rubbish. JERRYtalkcontribs 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apparently non-notable indie rock label. The label's founder, Robert Ellis Orrall, passes WP:MUSIC with flying colors (incidentally, the name of his last solo major-label album). However, none of the acts on the label seem to be notable, except for be your own PET, who have charted in the UK. Just one notable act out of several seems to indicate that this label fails WP:ORG.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also listing the following related band, who seems to fail WP:MUSIC.
Delete Cake Bake Betty Sick minds think alike. I ran into an edit conflict with 10lbH because I was doing the EXACT SAME THING at the same time. So yeah, I agree there is zero notability here. I have no call on the label - no idea how to properly evaluate.ΨνPsinu 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Anything I manage to drag up about the label just mentions Infinity Cat in passing - no features from reliable sources that I can see. Cake Bake Betty seems to suffer from the same lack of verifiable notability. There just don't seem to be enough credible sources out there to make either article properly encyclopedic. Sidatio (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The label fails WP:CORP and the band, WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy close as disruption. The article isn't a copyright violation. Text written in December 2004 cannot possibly be a copyright violation of a document written in February 2007. Please pay attention to document dates and edit summaries, and stop these repeated nominations. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete as obvious hoax. GlassCobra 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, cannot find anything for this "most revolutionary guitarists of his time", only source given is MySpaceVivioFateFan(Talk, Sandbox) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably is a hoax. Either way, written poorly, unsourced, and not a widely known guitarist, if he even exists. Timmehcontribs 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even requiring an AfD, probably a speedy. Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "changed the history of popular music" yet only on myspace link... --T-rex 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula(talk) 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no article for 'Pause Kurze', google barely displays anything. I don't think she is really notable. -- Mentifisto 01:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be a notable actress. My German is only a beginner's level, but I can't see any reliable sources about her or the series in either German or English. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She competed in the Disney Channel Games. There are a number of sources on her on google. Another thing is that a number of other stars from the European Disney Channels have articles on them and they're not well known in the United States. If they have articles, why shouldn't she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggers76 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fair amount of sources available on Google, but none independant of the subject. Epbr123 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't seem to pass the notability test. An assistant editor of a newspaper who writes a blog. Sent here instead of prod because there could be something I'm missing. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not sure this person merits a biography per WP:BIO or if what he's done is significant enough.--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a couple sources that are strong; the first two, from the TIME blog, 12, may not be too good because after all they are blogs; however, being featured in a section of TIME magazine is pretty big. Alongside that I found this source on ABC news listing him (I found these on this Google search). He's also mentioned in a plethora of other blogs and links, which to me indicates that he's a well-known blogger. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The guy writes funny stuff for a blog, but a lot of us do that with the same general level of notability this person seems to possess. The aforementioned sources are blog postings and a link to a blog posting, respectively. The only strong source I could find was a short bio at the American Press Institute website, which doesn't seem to be able to confirm any notable awards or events that can be attributed to Mr. McIntyre. Sidatio (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that blogs are trying to be relied on to establish notability demonstrates that this person doesn't meet the guidelines, they fail WP:V and aren't usable to establish it. Not only that the blog isn't independent of the subject since he writes for them: [53]. Notability can only be established by significant coverage in reliable subjects independent of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added a few notable references to the article and done some rewriting. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺ 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This person seems to pass WP:N: he has been featured in various media forms and was president of a notable institution. On the point of blogs passing WP:V: Time Blog is slightly different I would say, they are more like online columnists. Not anybody qualifies for that, TIME is a respected magazine. Poeloq (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The page should probably be rename, does (copy editor) really describe him the best at current? Poeloq (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Nothing to merge (or already merged).
(Disputed PROD) There is no need for a high school speech and debate team to have an article that is separate from that of the high school. THis team is very active, but so are teams at many high schools. I can't find anything that makes this one stand out from the rest. Most of the material that is here is already duplicated at Pinecrest High School, but a comment on the talk page makes me believe that a merge/redirect or merge/delete would be a contentious move without a little more discussion from the community. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The forensics team already has a substanstial section on the high school's article already. No need for a separate article. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys really think this article is taking up too much of wikipedia's precious server space, feel free to delete it, but personally I think Wikipedia could spare the space for a few of these teams to have pages... A lot more information WILL be added to this article as it is collected, but if this article is deleted, the information will simply have to be posted on the page for the High School,, further increasing the size of the already "substantial" section. The team, I would add, is known widely nationally, and is far more well known than the school itself and probably the town of southern pines as well (not to mention the hundreds of more obscure stubs that can be found lounging around in here).
If, however, the powers that be are still calling for deletion, I have no power to stop it, so do as you will.
B3RKtalk | contribs 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No demonstration of notability; redirect to the high school article and merge some content if it can be referenced. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only if there's any content worth saving, otherwise Delete. GlassCobra 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. No claim of notability, and a plainly ridiculous subject for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why wasn't this speedied under a group not asserting notability CSD A7? There is zero notability here.--Crossmr (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Pinecrest High School main article under clubs. Add a subtab under it talking about the club. The article alone serves no purpose, but with the PCHS article, it contributes to that article as well as cover the club. ArmoredPersonel (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Seems to have become better referenced since AfD nomination, and no consensus to delete. Canley (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB, previously prod'd and I never noticed. Taking it to AfD. Notability hasn't been established per the guidelines.Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Looks like it could be expanded. Google search turns up quite a few results. If someone put some diligence into it, the article could easily be expanded. Timmehcontribs 01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of them reliable sources independent of the subject which provide significant coverage? That is the problem here. Expansion isn't the issue. The issue is simply a lack of sources provided which establish notability. All we require are two sources which clearly meet the guidelines above, if those are provided, expanded or not, we have notability established. --Crossmr (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to qualify that? Can you demonstrate which sources help it meet WP:WEB?--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite sure whether the articles from this web site meet WP:WEB since I am not familiar with foreign mass media.--Knuckmew (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be established that zdnet affords its blogs the same editorial oversight that it affords its articles, then yes thats a good source.--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus but leaning towards delete. Yamamoto Ichiro会話 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author contested ((prod)). Non-notable local street artist. Yahoo! search yields no sources [54] other than WP article and own personal website. Google search at least yields one third party source, www.artofthestate.co.uk, but that is all. (Note: I disregarded the German websites as "Eine" is a common German word.) 12 Noon2¢ 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Also, article was proded numerous times with it's most popular editor removing templates and AFD before without authority. This kind of behavior is unacceptable and should automatically nominate it for SPEEDY DELETION. MiracleMat (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Where is your evidence for this "unacceptable" behaviour? Looking through the article history I can see that a prod template was added, and was then removed in complete accordance with policy. An AfD template then went on which was not removed. If the article really had been prodded numerous times then it would have been the person who reinstated the prod template who was behaving unacceptably. See WP:PROD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a popular editor does to the AFD template has nothing to do with what the article's ultimate fate should be. However, the article definitely needs to be expanded. Google search turns up several results. The article can and needs to be expanded and wikified, but should not be deleted. Timmehcontribs 01:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google searching, Google News searching, Yahoo searching, etc. turn up a smattering of hits, but the majority of these seem to be either user-created sites or blogs ([55], [56]) or promotions for exhibitions or products ([57], [58], [59]). In other words, there don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources discussing the artist, which is the primary requirement of WP:BIO. While it's certainly possible that this artist will be notable someday (and thus well-deserving of an article), this is not a valid reason to keep the article in the present. --jonny-mt 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Weak keep. Some level of notability is demonstrated by the sources noted below, although I can't verify the nature of that coverage. --jonny-mt 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jonny. Bottom line: just not up to WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was attracted by the Tower Hamlets mention, and checked out the link. There are several photographs of graffiti, and among those is one of a letter which I suppose we are led to assume is by Ben Eine. Not a reference at all. Shame. I like the idea of having articles on street artists - but we need more reliable references than a Flickr account. Such is the problem I suppose of being a street artist - there aren't many reliable sources. I do think we need to address the problem of "reliable" sources for people who are working in "unreliable" fields. Unfortunately under current guidelines we have to delete [keep] this one. But we really should be working to address the problem of how to verify topics that don't come under the glare of the conventional sources. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep with the link provided by So-So Reverso. That's a reliable source. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...which of course I would say as I am the infamous "most popular editor"! I'm sorry if I have offended MiracleMat by removing an AFD but when I read "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." on the AFD notice I thought it meant I could remove this message if I objected to the article's deletion. Apologies for my misunderstanding. Hopefully my mistake should not influence anyone regarding the inclusion of this subject on Wikipedia. Ben Eine is an important street artist in London and Europe. He is, without question, the most prolific street artist in London at present. He is a contemporary of Banksy and indeed the pair did many works together in their early years. Whilst Banksy has gone on to eclipse every other UK street artist, Eine is probably the next most famous along with d*face http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%2AFace . Street art is an important period in contemporary art and has recently been embraced by all major auction houses. Despite this much of it can still be considered vandalism and is not covered by the mainstream news websites. Eine is regularly highlighted by the two most important urban art news websites - woostercollective http://www.woostercollective.com/2007/08/eine_mash_the_tate.html and juxtapoz http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1288&Itemid=50 Eine's work is also beginning to be assimilated into modern culture. A music group Alphabeat have appropriated his lettering on all their publicity material http://www.thisisalphabeat.com/ and his work is often the subject of many photographers as can be evidenced on flickr http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=eine Finally I feel that Wikipedia is an ideal place for people to initially discover up to the minute contemporary art and use the links to find out more. And another thing... if a decision is reached to keep this page then if someone can point me in the direction of a template I should be using then I will gladly incorporate it. Robertlondon (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Ben Eine is a leading figure in the street art scene also a famous printer - the article need more pictures and has to be bigger finding articles on yahoo or not doesn't mean anything - if he is not on yahoo he has to be here - Otomi
Keep As one of the moderators of a street art forum wallkandy.info I would say that Eine is a leading british street artist. There are numerous examples of his street work in London. For example on rivington street there is a huge work which says "Mash the Tate". He is also a very skilled screen printer. Pezlow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perryhill (talk • contribs) 08:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is an important street artist and printer, and plays a major part in todays scene . pokerdonp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokerdonp (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This man is a printing legend,thats before we even get to his fantastic street art letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbitlegs (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very nature of illegal street art makes anonymity (and therefore not doing interviews left right and center) crucial. Lack of online reference material does not make this artist Non-notable. He is featured prominantly in page 20 of the newly published Street Renegades book (http://www.amazon.com/Street-Renegades-New-Underground-Art/dp/1856695298), and also in this month's Creative Review magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by So-So Reverso (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those sound very nice, although I did an in-book search at Amazon and nothing came up. If you have access to these sources, would you mind adding some specific information into the article based on them (see WP:V and WP:CS for information on verifiability and citing sources respectively)? I'd love to see the article improve to the point where my arguments are no longer valid. --jonny-mt 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the Look Inside feature, click on table of Contents. You'll notice that there's a chapter - three/four pages (20 - 24) on Eine. To have a chapter on him in a published book meets WP:Bio. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 08:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They my opinion is changed. I can't fully support it without being able to more closely examine the type of coverage in the book, but neither can I claim that the subject hasn't been written about. Four pages isn't much, but if they cover him exclusively they should be enough. --jonny-mt 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't seem to be a notable band, but isn't a7, also unsourced. VivioFateFan(Talk, Sandbox) 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I disagree about not being an A7. Nothing in this article indicates any sort of achievement or notability. Allow me to paraphrase the relevant points: They are a high school band. They learned a cover song. They played in a mall, then a church. They recorded a demo of a song that wasn't a cover. No label, no records, no touring, no radio. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unbelievably Super Speedy delete - Just get rid of this trash MiracleMat (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB, previous listing didn't begin to address notability. None of the reasons to keep that were given meet current guidelines. Its been unreferenced for an extensive length of time, which again makes it impossible to establish notability. Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as far as I can see, a non-notable Flickr clone that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Lankiveil (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Fotki is notable, but if, in the past year, nobody has managed to provide references for the testimonials at http://www.fotki.com/us/ , it's ok to nuke this article and let someone else start a new one, with appropriate references. Argyriou(talk) 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its impossible to verify the context or how significant the coverage is of these without links. They do link to the ABC news video, but it appears to be an affiliate (not national news) and the coverage is trivial. Less than 30 seconds, and is really just a brief description of the features on the site.--Crossmr (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is trivial coverage at best.. any evidence that the webware award is notable? a simple link to it on the business week one..no real explanation of placing. washington post is trivial coverage per WP:WEB simply a description of the service, and the sfgate certainly doesn't qualify as significant coverage either. if thats all there is to offer, it does nothing to qualify here unless webware can be demonstrated to be a notable and major award.--Crossmr (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unquestionably. Deb (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user a few days ago who refused to register for an account kept attempting to speedy delete this page (and succeeded once - the admin restored so it could be taken here). At the moment, I have no opinion. I can see how this topic could conceivably be notable if sources are found...I can also see how it wouldn't be. SmashvilleBONK! 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2 line stub...no real sources will likely be found. The article is nowhere notable, it's merely a playground that's only claim to fame is it's named after a fictional movie hero. In addition the entire article was apparently written by one of the men responsible for the project, so it fails WP:COI as well as WP:SPAM. Take a look at the Facebook group, headed by a Mr. Dowd, and the article created by a D0wd11b (talk·contribs).
I will also admit that I was the user who did nominate this for CSD. I initially attempted to nominate the article as A3, however due to some template problems it showed up as a G1. It was rejected for being a G1 and having 3 web hits. I'm not quite sure what criteria he used, as I get only 29 all of which are blogs are message boards, and not reliable sources. I am somewhat regretful for the latter edits, as I did try to readd the CSD tag, due to frustration that the appropriate criteria would not show up and not an attempt to game the system. I also attempted to start an AFD however, I would need to register an account (as the AFD process requires page creation), but due to personal preference, I have not.--71.190.162.111 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, it's an intersection of WP:LOCAL and WP:FANCRUFT. How often does that happen? We have articles for famous people who have things named after them, but their notability does not automatically transfer to the things named after them, so they don't have articles on that basis. Unless this is famous for being a playground, say, winning an architectural or educational award, it's not even under consideration. --Dhartung | Talk 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless, of course, Kurt Russell attends the dedication. Mandsford (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obviously nonnotable article. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a playground, which appears to have gotten zero news coverage --T-rex 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Also I can't help but feel that this is a very elaborate hoax. Ben W Belltalk 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, it seems like a bad joke but it seems to be real. They begged for money on AICN, and the 1/182 CAV TF seems to have been in Kosovo at the time. Snake Plissken sounds like just the thing that a bunch of army guys would be able to bond with some Kosovan kids over. --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Twinkle had an issue and didn't post the notice to the page. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if true, it's interesting, but it's not encyclopædic. No secondary sources, so fails WP:V. Lankiveil (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. I've considered the citations of policy, guidelines and outcome below, but as a verifiable, gazetted geographic feature and the lack of consensus on the notability of such an entity, I've chosen to err on the side of keep. Canley (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this mountain pass is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All mountain passes are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline or policy says that? AFAIK, mountain passes are not automatically notable. TJSpyke 01:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure it's an Essay, not a guideline, but WP:OUTCOMES can't be completely ignored. It's the consensus of many. many AFD's and carries weight.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about citing something that actually has any official say? Also, OUTCOMES doesn't mention mountain passes (only mountains themselves). TJSpyke 03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the essay that i felt applied to the situation and the closing admin can decide if my application is correct or not. However I thank you for the great concern you expressed as to how exactly I form my AFD comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apoligize if I sounded rude. I am just sick of seeing people (mainly in school related AFD's) cite that essay as their only argument. OUTCOMES is just a statement (an unsourced statment BTW) of how AFD's usually end. So it's basically saying "similar articles are usually kept, so this one should too" without citing what guideline or policies support keeping the article. TJSpyke 03:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, however i think the message is articles of a certain type usually can be sourced, even if they aren't sourced as yet. I googled and it seems widely verifiable.
Delete No sources, no claims of notability. So it FAILS WP:N and WP:V (a guideline and a policy, both of which carry far more weight than a editors personal opinion and a essay). Also, this article has been a 1 sentence stub since it's creation in November 2006, so its had more than enough time. TJSpyke 03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another example of the misunderstanding of WP:V. And article doesn't fail WP:V if it is currently unverified, but only if it is unverifiable. WP:V is a reason to delete an article if absolutely nothing can be verified, not simply because an editor doesn't see sources placed in the article (see also WP:OSTRICH). Ironically, in this case, the content is verified. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ Spyke. Tavix (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See response to TJ Spyke. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as sufficiently sourced (I've expanded with GNIS data) and by precedent of plenty of AFDs in OUTCOMES, despite what some seem to think. In light of precedent that major geographical features are considered notable, a claim that this is one is surely a sufficient assertion to qualify it if we can prove that it is what it's claimed — and the data confirms it. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still fails WP:N though, the article doesn't even assert why it is notable, yet alone prove it. Also, again, OUTCOMES doesn't mention mountain passes. TJSpyke 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but if you're refering to Outcomes it says: Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable and i'd suggest a pass is like one of these features. Have you checked out any of my sources above? there are more if you google yourself. I'd suggest notability can be satisfied by choosing the right sources from the list.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider a mountain pass as a major geographical feature. It doesn't matter though since OUTCOMES has no bearing on whether an article is kept or deleted since it's just an essay (meaning it's just the opinions of the editors who wrote it). TJSpyke 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Cube, all of your links except the last (and perhaps the third, but not likely) refer to a similar pass in Colorado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on the links and appologize to all (but stand by the principal). Been up for too many hours to dig up good links i guess. I'll bow out till I get some sleep.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this link that Cube already gave is about the right place. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is a stub. Stubs are present in WP until someone expands the stub into an article. Don't be so impatient. Hmains (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been a stub since November 2006, 13 1/2 months is WAY too long. Hell, until this AFD was started it was just 1 sentence (and unsourced on top of that). TJSpyke 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. It's short compared to some. Indeed, we still have long lists of articles that we don't even have at all, yet, after several years. Uncle G (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are articles that have been stubs even longer doesn't mean that this one was OK (it just means the others are even worse, it's like saying one pile of dung doesn't smell that bad because there are large piles of dung nearby). TJSpyke 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and especially Nyttend; natural landmarks are by and large inherently notable. GlassCobra 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only some are, not all. TJSpyke 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Glass. — BQZip01 —talk 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far NONE of the people voting keep have cited any guidlines or policies that support keeping this article, only an essay (which is just an opinion piece). I hope the closing admin keeps this is mind. TJSpyke 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been established that this mountain pass is notable, so not indiciation that it has room for expansion. WP:Editing policy just says that some users like to expand article stubs, it doesn't say expansion doesn't have to happen immediatly. Besides, from November 2006 until today when it was nominated for deletion, it was a unsourced 1 sentence stub. 1 month would be more than enough time to let people expand it, yet alone 13 1/2 months. It still fails WP:NTJSpyke 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! Editing policy clearly says that perfection is not required and explains that. Read it again. As I said, xyr argument is firmly based in policy, whereas yours is not. You have to show that there's no scope for expansion. You have to do the work of looking for sources that deletion policy, as well as the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and indeed Wikipedia:Notability (the very page that you are waving around), say it is necessary to do. (You've shown no indication that you actually have.) It's not something that is demonstrated automatically by the passage of some length of time. Please read and familiarize yourself with our editing and deletion policies. It is clear that you do not understand them. This has been policy with respect to stubs since the beginning of this project, and is policy now. The closing administrator, as I, will be familiar with project policy. Other editors' arguments are grounded in it. Yours are not. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Believe what you want. I still see no evidence that the pass is notable (and that is the job of those saying it is notable to proove it). TJSpyke 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real places are encyclopedic subjects and geography is an important subject for an encyclopedia to cover. Quale (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a stub, but stubs aren't inherently bad. Lankiveil (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Genuine geographical site; coordinates (longitude/latitude) provided. May stay a stub, but someone might be able to expand. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't exist, but there is nothing to proove that it's notable. Also, people have had 13 1/2 months to expand it beyond a stub. If this AFD hadn't started, it still would be a 1 sentence unsourced stub (like it had been since being created, here is what the article looked like since its creation in July 2006 until this AFD started yesterday: [65]). TJSpyke 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing presented which makes this pass remotely notable. I have a creek in my backyard, should I start an article about that? its a geographical feature, I can provide coordinates. Unless someone can demonstrate some notability and coverage of this feature it has no place on wikipedia, not a single person has demonstrated a valid reason why this should be kept, and "not deleting a stub" isn't a valid reason. If I make a stub about my neighbour do we keep it even if we can't find anything about him? I don't think so.--Crossmr (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid reason per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The reason for deleting stubs, as explained in the policy, is that it is impossible to expand them. You have failed to even argue that case. You've argued it for your neighbour, but your neighbour isn't the subject of this article. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major geographical features such as this are inherently notable. The sources verify the pass (contrary to users claims above, it easily passes WP:V. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that all geographical features are notable? AFAIK, the only ones considered inherently notable are settlements (towns, cities, villages, etc.) Things like mountain passes are not inherently notable. TJSpyke 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS has decided that geographical features such as mountains, lakes, etc. are notable, as indicated by WP:OUTCOMES. There is no evidence that consensus is changing, in this AfD or elsewhere. --Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it exists, I don't see why this mountain pass is notable, fails WP:N, and sourcing is a concern, as the current sources show that the mountain pass exists, but no other info likely can be found about it. For the WP:OUTCOMES commenters, consensus can change. Secretaccount 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I've already put up a "strong keep": please note that there's plenty of potential for expansion (we could easily get a picture, for example), and a local editor could likely find local history and other references. Moreover, note that we now have three independent sources, at least two of which (USGS and the Atlas & Gazatteer) are quite reliable. What more do you want for notability? Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
USGS and Atlats just prove that the pass exists, not that it's notable. TJSpyke 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What's missing? Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key word is significant coverage, the sources right now currently prove that the place exists and no other info, there needs to be more sources that cover the subject in detail, google books is a good place to check. Secretaccount 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even aside from the broad consensus seen in OUTCOMES, we already had two references that address the subject directly in detail, and I've now added a third. I'm still not clear: what do you want? Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines can be tricky to understand sometimes. What you have put on the article are not considered to be "significant" references. All four refs (3 sources) as of time of writing merely mention the name of the pass with bare facts of height and location. None of the refs actually talks about the pass or gives any indication that the pass is significant. It's worth reading WP:N as that explains the need for significant references. The relevant sentences are: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Followed later by an explanation of "significant": ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Ref: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." The Common Outcomes page is an indicator of how consensus has gone in previous AfDs, however as it says: "For rules, guidelines, and consensus on a more detailed basis, visit the various notability policy pages". And for the section on geography the wording in Common Outcomes is "Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable". The word "major" is important here. As is the over-riding need for significant references. I add all this information to help those who are struggling in this AfD to understand the situation we have reached on Wikipedia as regards notability for such topics. I hope that helps. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps some of us would disagree on the precise situation we have reached on Wikipedia :-) There's been widespread consensus to keep articles like this, as seen in OUTCOMES; if you want to delete this, you'd likely do better to propose a policy page and try to get it accepted. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outcomes makes no reference to mountain passes, nor to other non significant places whose names appear on maps. I felt I was being helpful in explaining the situation as it stands, and providing the sentences which explain how to judge notability. You can make of the evidence and guidelines what you wish, but it's inappropriate to make false claims about what appears in Outcomes. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it says nothing about mountain passes per se, but we don't have a 10th Amendment or an RPW saying that nothing not explicitly mentioned in Outcomes isn't included — its "etc." naturally signifies that the reader is to expect more than just lakes, rivers, and mountains. Of course, not everything in the world is suitable for an encyclopedia, even if well-referenced (we don't have articles on most individual words, even though scores of dictionaries can testify to them), but this is neither a non-encyclopedic topic nor an inherently POV topic, such as an article on Sinfulness of people who hate Christianity would be. Therefore, what's to keep it from remaining, if it has all these sources to prove its notability? Nyttend (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a good stub, as per above. --Iamunknown 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...If a geographical location is on a map and the map is reliable (as are USGS quads), then it is notable. If we start deleting articles about map locations then we will set a bad precident for numerous stub articles we have about all sorts of geographical places that are oftentimes difficult to reference aside from a map reference.--MONGO 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names on maps are not the criteria for notability. My street appears on many maps, but wouldn't pass the notability criteria. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OUTCOMES is not the authority except as the summary of what we do at WP. What we do at WP is keep named natural geographic features whose existence can be demonstrated on reliable sources, and this is so well established that those saying delete are probably really arguing for a change in that practice--as they have every right to do. I think the discussion above shows the consensus is very much to keep the practice. I think that wise, rather than set us to arguing here over every feature individually. I wish we had similarly firm consensus in many other fields. DGG (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of respect for your experience in these fields, so I am surprised when you say that you feel a mention of a place on map is sufficient reason for inclusion on WP when the spirit and word of the guidelines and policies we have arrived at appear to suggest otherwise. The WP:Not policy page has the helpful and often quoted sentence: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Our guidelines on how to judge and interpret what is suitable do indicate that notability needs to be asserted by a source we consider reliable. That a map or directory simply lists that a thing exists does not appear to me to assert notability by our guidelines. As there are a number of people here, however, who do feel that if a geological feature is named on a map it should have an article, perhaps it would be worth establishing and making it clear on a guideline if a feature named on a map is or is not reason enough to warrant an article entry on WP. There are plenty of hills, streams, woods, footpaths, quarries etc on the very reliable Ordnance Survey maps of the UK which would ensure that hundreds of thousands of articles can be added just for Britain. I don't think that would be wise, and my contribution to the discussion would be that we make it clear on WP:Not that Wikipedia is NOT a map, and should not simply list geographical features which are found on other maps.SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this pass any less notable than anything else in Category:Mountain passes of Montana? If it's a reasonably prominent geographic feature, we should have an article on it. Keep. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we don't know if it is a reasonably prominent geographic feature because nobody has said it is, and it would mean that "original research is needed to extract the content" from the maps and directory information to work that out. For this pass to be included all we need is a reliable source saying there is something prominent or significant about the place - but we don't have that source, currently all we have is sources saying that the place exists. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical features like this are considered by consensus of encyclopedic value. They might not be to you (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but they are to scientists, geographers, geologists, scholars or any other person interested in this topic. These articles make this online encyclopedia stronger, not weaker. That is what is so good about Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. As it's billed as "The sum of all knowledge," there is unlimited bandwidth for encyclopedic information.--Oakshade (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is that we do not include "information" - we focus on the "knowledge". Because consensus on Wikipedia is that we are an encyclopedia which reflects the sum of human knowledge, and the judgement of what is worthwhile knowledge are independent sources. If there is a scientist, geographer, geologist, or scholar that you can find who thinks this pass is worthwhile to comment on, then direct us to that comment. We use the consensual Wiki guidelines to judge whether to include an article on Wiki. It is not up me - it is up to our consensual guidelines. We have these discussions on AfD to see if an article is meeting guidelines. An AfD is not a popularity poll in which people start voting for which flavour ice cream they want or don't want on Wiki. It's worth looking at WP:AfD - these lines are helpful: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out references, and diffuse the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles." It's also worth looking at Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#Reasons_for_deletion, especially the lines "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (as in Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory) and "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". So we have a deep and wide and long-standing consensus that for an item to have an article on Wikpedia there must be a bit more than a mention on a map and a desire by a handful of people in an AfD that Wikipedia should also become an atlas.
What might be worthwhile is that however the closing admin closes this as a keep or delete, there should be a Wikipedia:Deletion review to reinforce the decision - and if the review supports the keep or delete that we make explicit in guidelines that geological features mentioned on maps or directories with no other supporting sources or materials are or are not notable. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about geographical features such as this are knowledge. You disagree, granted. To simply use the iron clad "must be the primary in depth subject of secondary sources" on all topics is actually againstWP:CONSENSUS. Even the core stipulation of Wikipedia:NOTABILITY provides that it "be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Consensus has in fact found time and time again that geographical features like this, provided they are verifiable as this topic clearly is, are some of those common sense exceptions and there is no evidence, either in this AfD nor anywhere else, that consensus has changed. --Oakshade (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, and appears notable like every other real place in the world should be.--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
.png)
