The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 editor, User:Natty4bumpo, has expressed the concern that the article is on a non-existent individual, but has not been able to list an AFD. I've now done so for him. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a "Moytoy I" is part of the broader myth of the "House of Moytoy", a fantasy dreamed up by genealogist with an active imagination, one that has its basis in an affair between a representative of the Province of Carolina named Alexander Cumming who attempted to gain control over the Cherokee by proclaiming the headman of one of the Overhill Cherokee towns, Great Tellico, as "Emperor of the Cherokee". As part of this effort, he sent seven delegates from the Cherokee, who at that time were organized by towns rather than as a "nation", to England to meet the King of Great Britain, George II. Once there, they complained of their treatment by Cumming, which resulted in his dismissal.
That Moytoy, Moytoy of Tellico, is the first recorded person to be known by that corruption of that name ("Amatoya" in Cherokee), and neither he, nor his father (whose name is, in fact, unknown) used designating numbers such as were used by the dynasties of Europe. "Moytoy I" is, in fact, an invention by imaginative geneaolgists to provide a lineage for the fictitious "House of Moytoy", a concept based on European ideas of patrilineal family structure, patriarchal society, and hereditary rulers imposed on the fabric of the matrilineal, quasi-matriarchal Cherokee who have never at any time in their history had hereditary rulers. No source from the time, nor any credible recent history, of the Cherokee ever mentions a "Moytoy I". Moytoy of Tellico, designated "Moytoy II" in the "House of Moytoy" myth, would not have been considered related to his own father since at the time Cherokee belonged to the clan of their mother.
A further part of this myth, echoed in the referenced Shawnee Heritage I, is that the members of the "House of Moytoy" used that appellation as a family surname. Surnames were not used among the Cherokee until the late 18th century after the end of the wars of that period when Cherokee society began to change and become more accultured, which weakens the credibility of the afore-mentioned "source".
The further fiction of the "House of Moytoy" being descended from "Thomas Carpenter" of the Anglo-Irish baronial family of Carpenter is based on the fact that a later leader of the Cherokee from Chota named Attakullakulla, whom the English and the colonists called "Little Carpenter". According to this aspect of the myth, he was so-called because of his descent from the afore-mentioned Anglo-Irish family. In fact, Attakullakulla was so-called because his Cherokee name translates as "Leaning wood", for the "Carpenter", while the "Little" was a reference to his diminuitive physical stature, much the same way as the whites called Ca-Nun-Tah-Cla-Kee ("He who walks on the ridge") by the name "The Ridge" and Tsiyugunsini ("He is dragging his canoe") by the name "Dragging Canoe".
That part of the myth has Thomas Carpenter leading his family from danger of attacks by the Iroquois to the area of the Five Lower Towns (Running Water, Lookout Mountain, Nickajack, Crow, and Long Island, the latter of which the myth's proponents for some reason replace with Chota, which was over a hundred miles to the northeast) in 1675, a time when that area, even by Cherokee legend, was well within the territory of the Muskogee. In fact, the so-called Five Lower Towns were established by Dragging Canoe in 1782 when he led his followers further west from their then current home in the Chickamauga (now Chattanooga, Tennessee) region to give them greater distance from the Anglo-American colonists and the protection provided by the mountains and the various navigation hazards of the Tennessee River Gorge.
Given these facts, the reference from Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant provides no support for the article's contentions.
Regarding the "information" from the "Cherokee Documentation Center", it is based on the same pop history as the "House of Moytoy" myth and its Carpenter corollary, not on actual research. The purpose of the Cherokee Documentation Center, as stated on their website, is to assist persons wishing to document their right to join a "Cherokee tribe" of their choice, even if they do not have the credentials to join the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, or the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. These three are the only federally-recognized and only legitimate tribes of Cherokee. The Center, on the other hand, considers such state-recognized groups of highly questionable validity as the "Georgia Band of Eastern Cherokee", which its website specifically names, as legitimate "tribes" of Cherokee. The three actually legitimate tribes, meanwhile, have never recognized such groups, and two of them, the CNO and the Eastern Band, have joined together in pursuit of legal action against the "Cherokee Documentation Center", the "Georgia Band of Eastern Cherokee", and other such groups. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR: This person, supposedly so central to Cherokee history, appears only in online amateur genealogy sources. His existence is not mentioned in any reliable source we've been able to find, including those specifically dealing with Cherokee leadership and political structure at the time. WillOakland (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about WP:TLDR, the above rationale is about three times longer than the article itself. MuZemike 06:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable source for this person's existence and plenty of reason to doubt it. The only published work, Shawnee Heritage I, is self-published through lulu.com. WillOakland (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnotable EP with no media coverage. Fails WP:MUS. SebastianAreI (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. The single off it, "Right On, Right Now" doesn't meet WP:MUSIC either. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no 3rd party verifiability. JamesBurns (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
see this, there are so many mistakes in this article! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Karachi .. why dont you delete this. obviously you will edit the page, why dont you edit my page if you find any mistake in it? (ghori)
Speedy Delete and indef block the creator of this "article", Ghorithegreat. We do not need editors here that introduce wrong and misleading information. Afroghost (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very poor quality; unable to locate analogous articles for other countries --Cybercobra (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Surprising, since this is from a longtime editor. No block, but I'm not sure what the author was thinking with this one. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Bobak (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete messy, confusing, incorrect, unsalvagable or nearly so, and as per Cybercobra. Please do not block, Wikipedia editors should be allowed to make mistakes, and this doesn't appear to be deliberatly incorrect, just a (pretty significant) oversight. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite? - it could be useful to those who wish to boycott Israeli connected products in the light of the recent attacks on Gaza (not wishing to get into a political flame war here - but even those who disagree with such a boycott can surely appreciate the fact that millions of people do indeed boycott anything Israeli at the moment, as happened during the South Africa boycott, so such a list would be useful to them). So I would suggest rewriting it. Tris2000 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be just me, but I'm not sure that's actually a valid reason for keeping it. -Zeus-uc 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is being-useful-to-political-extremists a criterion for keeping an article? Isn't that rather a reason for deleting. Just wondering, because I thought that this is an encyclopaedia, and not a portal for political activism. Afroghost (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
So far as I can discover, this is simply WP:OR and there is no recognised 'Western Semitic Calendar'. Ghits seem to come from this article (including its old spelling of 'calender'). dougweller (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What is this "European Common Law" that doesn't have an article of its own or anything much in Google yet which changed in 1996 in some undefined way? Why does the concept of a year and a day require a special lunar calendar at all? Could this all be complete bollocks? Absent even the slightest indication to suggest otherwise, I think we can safely dispose of this as a hoax or a complete misunderstanding. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Romans the English once used a lunarsolar calender. Many of the sentences in English law still refer to the term of a year and a day. There is a provision that if you injure a man and he lives for a year and a day then you aren't guilty of murder. Just such a case occured recently when one man struck another with his car and the victim lived for another 18 months. Because the English are influential their precedants and case law have become a part of the "European Common Law"
Delete I suspect a misunderstanding is more likely than a hoax, judging from the creator's comments at Talk:Babylonian calendar, but there does not appear to be any independent evidence that the term "Western Semitic Calendar" has been used for anything outside of this one article. Anaxial (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of a category of calenders with 13 months and a year and a day.
The Positivist calendar was a calendar reform proposal by Auguste Comte in 1849. After revising the earlier work of Marco Mastrofini, Comte's proposed calendar was a solar calendar which had 13 months of 28 days, and an additional festival day commemorating the dead, totalling 365 days.
The International Fixed Calendar (also known as the International Perpetual calendar, the Cotsworth plan, the Eastman plan, the 13 Month calendar or the Equal Month calendar) is a proposal for calendar reform providing for a year of 13 months of 28 days each, with one day at the end of each year belonging to no month or week. Though it was never officially adopted in any country, it was the official calendar of the Eastman Kodak Company from 1928 to 1989.[1]...The calendar year has 13 months each with 28 days plus an extra day at the end of the year not belonging to any month. Each year coincides with the corresponding Gregorian year (and so is a solar calendar).
The Lunar_calendaris another Wikipedia site with essentially the same info. In England, a calendar of thirteen months of 28 days each, plus one extra day, known as "a year and a day" was still in use up to Tudor times. This would be a hybrid calendar that had substituted regular weeks of seven days for actual quarter-lunations, so that one month had exactly four weeks, regardless of the actual moon phase. The "lunar year" is here considered to have 364 days, resulting in a solar year of "a year and a day".
You need to be able to prove that this particular calendar exists and that it is known by this name. If you can do that then it can probably be kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its what is sometimes referred to as the Enoch calendar. Western Semitic refers to the area in which it was anciently used which includes, Egypt, Canaan, Ugarit and Crete. This disk from Ashurbanipals palace and the Phaistos Disk are what I originally had in mind. In the image below there are 14 castelated crenations around the edge, Months with four holes to peg weeks in a month. In the inner circle you have 52 holes to peg weeks in a year. A year and a day matches the solar cycle and a month and a day matches the lunar cycle.
Enoch's age of 365 years in Genesis relates to the Egyptian Sothic Cycle of 1,461 years. Other scriptures such as Hebrews 11:5 in the New Testament also mention Enoch. Extra reading in some very old Jewish writings, namely the three books of Enoch, specify that Enoch assigned 364 days to the calendar year. The Enochian Calendar had 52 even weeks of seven days each, with one day remaining. Traditional Jewish use of the seven-day week is upheld by 52 even weeks. Seven Sabbatic years may have been included to follow the Jubilee pattern. Seven days and the composite seven years maintain the Sabbath order. The last day of the solar calendar year was set apart and added up over several years. The Enochian Sect was the group of followers that recognized this idea of cascaded time measurement. Putting this whole picture together, the ancients were using numerical matching of days versus years to measure the same thing, time. The Enochian Calendar closely resembles the ancient Egyptian Calendar.
Essentially the lunarsolar calendars are the same as the one that was in use in the British Isles and still remains on the books. The article you were talking about deleting is used to illustrate the principle for a law review.
Comment: Nobody is disputing the existence of lunar calendars. The question is whether this is a separate calendar type to the Enoch calendar and whether it really is known as the "Western Semitic Calendar". This is what needs to be proved. Neither of the links above even mention the word "Semitic", so I am afraid that we are going to need something more substantial than this. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a separate calender type in that its ancient. The term western semitic is a modern term for an area defined by language, ie; the region inhabited by speakers of western semitic languages. The links above refer to the modern calenders which appear to be an independent invention although the pre-roman usage that made its way into "European Common Law" isn't. What I have read about it suggests that it was supressed by the church as pagan and is thus now embraced by people interested in druids, wicca, and other "unreliable" albeit very artistic sources. Tracking it back to its uncluttered roots it comes from the Book of Enoch as a reference to a calender of 364 days. Modern semitic calenders remain lunar but not lunarsolar, although some of the holidays might be questionable.
In using the title "Western Semitic" to refer to the use of lunarsolar calendars in an area of use rather than any one particular calendar I'm assuming familarity with the term West Semitic as in "West Semitic languages",
The West Semitic languages are a proposed major sub-grouping of Semitic languages. One widely accepted analysis, supported by semiticists like Robert Hetzron and John Huehnergard, divides the Semitic language family into two branches: Eastern and Western. The former consists of the extinct Eblaite and Akkadian languages, the latter of the majority of Semitic languages. It consists of the clearly defined sub-groups: Ethiopic, South Arabian, Arabic and Northwest Semitic (this including Hebrew, Aramaic and Ugaritic).
Would more references to that usage help?Rktect (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Western Semitic" is not problematic in itself. The question is whether it should be part of the name of this type of calendar. What we need to know is what other people call this calendar. If they call it the "Western Semitic Calendar" then that is fine. If they call it something else then the article has the wrong name. That would be easy enough to remedy. However, if it turns out that this is just the same calendar as the Enoch calendar then there is no reason to have two articles on the same subject. It seems that this is the case. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a grouping of ancient lunarsolar calenders which would include the Enoch calender, the Calandar of Ashurbanipal, the Phaistos Disk Calender and the concept of which traces are found in many other calendars I don't have enough references on to cite (the above referenced Egyptian usage is not mentioned in Gardiner for example) If I think of it the way I do categories of architecture, its like the difference between Greek revival and Italianate. Both are houses but there is a different approach to its plan, proportion, and style. Defining it as any bronze age lunarsolar calendar in the ANE that sets up a system of repeated periods that can be made to agree with the period of an astronomical object by adding a day would be the most general way I can think of to phrase it. That would include the Antikara mechanism and other methods of timekeeping I expect. Its best visual definition is probably the Ashurbanipal Calendar. The Phaistos Disk calender has 13 months on one side, broken up into all of the factors of 364, and one month on the other side broken up into weeks and epagonominal days. I think there is a section now unicoded to discuss it because its got so many additional periods. The essence of the system is 13 months of 28 days = 364 days to which you add a long day to equate it to a solar year. obviously that can be tweaked to make the day sidereal or solar. A month is 28 days or four weeks to which a day is added to match the moons cycle in the same fashion as a day is added to match the son's cycle. The Egyptians had something similar but different in that they had a calender of 360 days to which they added 5 epagonominal days.Rktect (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. In which book, journal, or other reliable source is the term "Western Semitic Calendar" used to refer to this type of calendar? Anaxial (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other calendars mentioned are sourced, this has none and appears full of original research about common law, the Phaistos disk, and playing cards. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that you are right but as the act is an amendment only to English Common Law it in no way supports the concept of a European Common Law. That said, I am amused by the idea that laws passed in the UK Parliament could bind the whole of Europe. If that were the case, I am sure that many of my countrymen would be far more enthusiastic about the EU. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unclear to me what this article is talking about. --Metropolitan90(talk) 08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to fix usage of term "in the wild" through Google. Only results are the article itself and from websites incorporating WP content. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Personal hypothetical speculation departing from the Enoch calendar and a Mesopotamian (i.e. Eastern Semitic) depiction of a city or fortress with thirteen towers on its walls to derive an unsupported conclusion. The most common calendar among speakers of western Semitic languages was actually lunisolar, and the expression "a year and a day" seems to come from European folklore. AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Rktect invented the term Western Semitic Calendar as it does not appear in the literature. A year and a day is a term from criminal and property law for a period of time longer than a Julian or Gregorian calendar year—it is unrelated to 13x28 calendars. All 13x28 calendars are modern inventions. Even the idea that ancient Celts, Druids, and medieval English used a 13x28 calendar was fabricated by Robert Graves in The White Goddess (1948)—see Celtic tree calendar in Jones' Celtic Encyclopedia. The calendars in the books of Enoch and Jubilees and used by the Essenes are not 13x28 calendars. They had eight 30-day months and four 31-day months totalling 364 days to which an extra day was NOT added. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep as it has had major clean-up since nomination and no one else wanted deletion. Tavix(talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neutral for now It's a real phenomenon, with an entire book [1] on the subject, but doesn't seem very well known outside of the persons who do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm gonna go with Keep. I've found lots of mentions in newspapers of workshops being held all over the place: [2][3][4][5] are just a few examples. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google books search reveals several books on the subject. The article needs a lot of work though.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That it does. I was surprised such a crummy article had such a long history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per book cited above. Hobit (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus - default to keep. There is no consensus to delete here, but there appears to be some dispute as to whether this is correctly titled (not referring to the mistake early on in the AfD, but in the merge/redirect discussion later on). This is an editorial matter, but should be confronted and resolved before this returns to AfD, if indeed it does. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable 2 volume manga series. Fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources, no reviews, unlicensed. Doesn't even have an ANN entry. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What sensation of Déjà-vu, Girl Friends (manga) ja:GIRL FRIENDS 2-ongoing vols series by Milk MORINAGA. Won't feet BP:BK. No licensor in France, Germany, Italy & Spain that from the refused request archive. Yes, i forgot to check its existence with another spelling in WP, my bad. But the reason of the refusal and this Afd are the same regardless the article name and spelling so it's a 'Delete'.KrebMarkt 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Edit awaiting more from Quasirandom.[reply]
Actually, for extra fun, there is another manga series called Girl Friend by another author, which is also unnotable, but made source searching extra fun. :P -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 06:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable then, as your links above. Dream Focus (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the entire message - those are links from a different series with a similar name. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 09:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how many of those are RS, but yes, it seems Girl Friend has at least some notability where GirlFriends does not. I've added it to the requested article page :P -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 09:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both are notable, so keep and create. Dream Focus (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I've seen this series reviewed as a yuri series in a shoujo style (running in a seinen magazine no less) by Erica Friedman. I'm having trouble at the moment untangling the several other nearly identical titles, plus chance uses of the phrase. Will provide links when I find them. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's Erica Friedman's (who for the purposes of reviewing lesbian-themed manga is an expert in the field, and her reviews have been vetted as reliable for these purposes, even as self-published) reviews of volume 1 and volume 2. Also per her, the author was interviewed about the series on a web-radio show in Japan. In short, there is SOME significant coverage. Will keep looking, as I'm pretty sure I've seen other notice. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Job. Withholding vote for now. If it ends with keep i strongly suggest a renaming to be more in line with the Japanese WP article name. KrebMarkt 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withhold my vote for now too. As per Kreb above. ~ItzjustdramaC? 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that in addition to the very common title, searches for reviews are also hampered by the mangaka's penname being the same as a large Japanese dairy company. That said, I'm not finding anything else I can point to for sure as reliable. At this point, without finding more tangible results, I cannot support keeping this article. That said, in addition to hits above, there's this the ANN review of another volume by the author, so between all of those, I think we've confirmed her notability. At this point, I think the best option is to merge to Milk Morinaga. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The manga has only been reviewed by one person, and only then on her personal blog. Therefore the reviews by this person doesn't amount to significant coverage. I'm also skeptical of the claim that she is an expert in the field without some evidence that she has previously been published by reliable third-party publications on the subject of manga and particularly yuri manga. --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That person is the main organizer of the Yuricon. We can at least admit that her opinion matter on yuri related manga & anime. --KrebMarkt 07:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any idiot can start an anime con and be con chair. There are plenty of them over here that starts up cons all of the time. Some succeed, most fail. And Yuricon can be counted among the failed conventions. However, being a con chair doesn't make a person an expert. --Farix (Talk) 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a con chair, but also a small press publisher. In addition, she has published a few scholarly articles/read papers at scholarly conferences (her CV is on her site). I forget where, exactly, her expert status was vetted, though the process probably started on Talk:YuriTalk:Yuri (genre). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Yuri (genre) proper inwiki. Her name appears from Archive 1 to current discussion. I reserve my opinion but to my mind whatever she is a RS should be discussed there as we need the opinion of the LGBT project members too. KrebMarkt 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussion, it was never clearly established that she is either an expert or that her blog is a reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 19:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as non-notable --Cybercobra (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was probably PROD-worthy. --Bobak (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did prod it, but the creator removed it -Zeus-uc 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator, and I DID NOT remove it (Stifle did). Stop accusing me of things I did not do, Zeus - from PM800 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by PM800 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, turns I didn't prod it, just CSD -Zeus-uc 15:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contributor has listed several non-notable game players, and gets miffed when challenged.--Dmol (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Original research? I can't see any results in a Google search other than the website referenced in article. Bladeofgrass (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pseudo-intellectual bollocks. Translated into plain English all it says is "Stuff happens for various reasons which are not obvious in advance". There is no encyclopaedic topic here. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable speedy as nonsense with no claim to notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially meaningless non-notable neologism. Anaxial (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, at best, or made up in a day, at worst. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:CRYSTAL, 2014 hockey tournament little to no information on it until at least 2012, so delete. Iamawesome800Talk to Me 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is slightly different, but the bidding process could itself be notable. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No more than any other tournament. Seriously though, five years into the future? Resolute 06:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too soon for these articles. Nothing can be said that is not already stated at List of IIHF World Championship medalists. Ample precedent for the deletion of tournaments this far into the future. Resolute 06:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: As said above, it is too early for these articles. There isn't enough information available at the time to create a decent stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:WP:CRYSTAL specifically holds that however much a future event is scheduled, if "nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research," it is not an appropriate article topic. Beyond that, "the bidding process could itself be notable?" That's sheer POV and speculation; either a subject already exists or it doesn't, either it is provably notable or it isn't. Finally, it isn't as if anyone gets a prize for being the first to create one of these articles. There'll be years in which to do so, when actual information comes to light. Ravenswing 18:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:CRYSTAL, this article only goes as far as to say that this hockey tournament will happen in 2013 in Sweden. Iamawesome800Talk to Me 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is notable and certain to take place. Information is limited now but will be added as it is annouced. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too soon for these articles. Nothing can be said that is not already stated at List of IIHF World Championship medalists. Ample precedent for the deletion of tournaments this far into the future. Resolute 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: As said above, it is too early for these articles. There isn't enough information available at the time to create a decent stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:WP:CRYSTAL specifically holds that however much a future event is scheduled, if "nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research," it is not an appropriate article topic. Ravenswing 11:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The event is notable and certain to take place. Information is limited now but will be added as it is annouced. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too soon for these articles. Nothing can be said that is not already stated at List of IIHF World Championship medalists. Ample precedent for the deletion of tournaments this far into the future. Resolute 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: As said above, it is too early for these articles. There isn't enough information available at the time to create a decent stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:WP:CRYSTAL specifically holds that however much a future event is scheduled, if "nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research," it is not an appropriate article topic. Ravenswing 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Several policies were indirectly or directly cited in this discussion. The POV and OR issues appear to have been dealt with in a series of edits during this AfD, but the issue of notability persists and is a dominant policy within the discussion. The consensus here appears to be that the concept of the "Cookie cutter paradigm" as an entity in itself is not sufficiently notable for an article. With no suggested merge or redirect targets, deletion would be the outcome of this debate. More so than normal, however, I will be open to suggestions of userfying the material to be worked on, which can be reviewed prior to a possible return to the mainspace Fritzpoll (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable axiom of non-notable questionably notable fringe theory. The relevant references are strictly single-author, un-peer-reviewed papers with no citations. Bm gub (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a "leftfield" theory to be sure, and its main protagonist is Ulrich Mohrhoff of Auroville. He's not a tenured professor at Caltech, nor has he ever played bongoes in a Brazilian samba. That said, this as deserving a theory as ever drew scorn on Wikipedia. We are not here to act as competent peer reviewers of such theories. The theory is genuine (as a theory) and is discussed seriously as such. Deleting anything that tries to mention quantum theory and the Vedas in the same breath solely because it does just that is sheer WP:IDONTLIKEITAndy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please note that I did not nominate Pondicherry interpretation for deletion; I nominated Cookie cutter paradigm, whose notability doesn't even extend to being mentioned on the Pondicherry page. One of Mohrhoff's references is a dead link, the other is his own zero-citations-in-five-years ArXiV upload. I understand and respect that fringe science gets a different WP:NN standard than mainstream science, but it does still get *some* standards. If you disagree please show where CCP is "discussed seriously" inside or outside academia. Bm gub (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have come across the phrase "cookie cutter" in this context once before, used by Stephen Pinker, The Harvard (and ex-MIT) Cognitive Scientist, in "How The Mind Works." He, of course, would not use advocate using pure intuition as the sole underpinning of a theory! In fact IIRC Pinker was talking about the limitations of the human brain.
The only reason I don't say "Delete" is because I don't know whether there is such a thing as the CCP in the "brain and mind" sciences, used in a negative sense (i.e Cookie Cutter Paradigm is erroneous, but we often subscribe to this predictable and explainable phenomenon) and if this article has just been hijacked by someone guilty of inside-out science/wishful thinking.
At the very least, the "Conflict with QT section" should be removed, and all the references to why CCP is right and mainstream theories wrong. That is, if CCP is a valid Psychology concept used in the negative sense.
@Andy Dingley - No, the problem is WP:Verifiability and WP:Original Research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cookie Cutter" is moderately well-known in Pinker's use. If we were to (and we MUST NOT, to remain NPOV) critique the theory here itself, it might be to describe it as a wooly-minded pastiche of a recognisable "brand" term from cog-sci (or genetics, or Marxism) mixed in with a misunderstood irrelevance from theoretical physics and a smattering of of Om. But we wouldn't do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:Notability, of course. On WP:Verifiability: if it is from one both non-academic and non-notable, not peer-reviewed source, then the citation is useless. Outre philosophy never overrides
mainstream science. Wikipedia should respect that. And there is nothing more mainstream than QT. Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did we stop worrying about sources and start worrying about how many times those sources are in turn cited? We shouldn't hold this article to a different and higher standard of proof than we demand of the others (and that includes the entire Pokemon namespace). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation-counting is totally standard in notability debates. Also, keep in mind that the ArXiV is not a journal; it's a repository to which you upload stuff. There's a minor threshold for getting generic upload permission, but once you have that, "publishing an article" on the ArXiV doesn't make it a WP:RS any more than "uploading it to your home page" does. Bm gub (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Andy made it clear to me why:
Andy, did I miss the news story where scientists admitted empirical science was wrong all along?
It's not so much a higher standard of proof, rather that the page makes anti-scientific claims as if they were fact, therefore it is obviously original research. Except, reliable sources would make it not original research, but then the sources would have to be peer-reviewed science (or philosophy, if I missed the news story about academic philosophy departments starting "the revolution to overturn science"). But the sources can't be peer reviewed science. So as long as this a NPOV article presented as fact, I can't see how there's an argument.
If you or anyone elses changes it to a NPOV article about a pseudoscience called the Cookie Cutter Paradigm, and reliable sources are added to show that it is indeed notable (the sources then become newspapers, news websites etc. I'm sure you understand), then the article would not be in violation of every policy in WP:CSP bar "Biographies of Living Persons". A reference to the wisdom of the gingerbread man, and the set would be complete.
My only reservation, and the only one I can see that is arguable, was if an originally NPOV article was vandalized. In which case it would need to be reverted to when it was about whatever Pinker et al mean by The Cookie Cutter Paradigm, if they indeed use the complete term notably. Or at all. Given you've confirmed that it is in fact a page about a genuine theory that someone believes in, Andy, then that possibility is ruled out. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pure "empirical science" has been taking a hammering since Newton replaced the "impetus" theories with a theory of acceleration, in a world where cannon balls still suffer air resistance. 8-)
This article isn't WP:OR (shouldn't be / doesn't need to be) because it instead describes a published theory from outside Wikipedia. The theory may be "original research", but that's not the same as WP:OR. The theory may be wrong, the theory may even be ridiculous, but if it has any traction in the world at all, then we should be prepared to talk about it. We have lots of content on Scientology, and long may it so continue. We should care here about notability according to WP:N and neutrality to WP:NPOV - no more than that.
I can see three reasons to delete this:
* Non-notability. Are there sufficient sources, filtering out self-publication, to demonstrate WP:N? This would be a good reason for deletion, if not met. As you rightly comment, there's not much that isn't self-published.
* Bad science. This is not a good reason to delete. It's just not our role to arbitrate on such things. Tag the article, add additional commentary (sourced, of course) and if necessary, make it clear that it's baloney -- but we still talk about it.
* Unfixable WP:POV issues. If it's beyond any possibility of getting a balanced article together rather than a re-hashed press release with no neutral comment, then we might be forced to delete it. I'd do this reluctantly, as an admission of failure, but I'd still do it. generally though, we ought to be able to fix that by editing, not by deletion.
As an aside, Pinker is no part of this other than an etymological footnote for other disciplines using the same term. For that matter I'd like to see a ref to the most salient comment of all, from the Alabama 3 and their song "Don't you go to Goa". 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point re Newton is handwaving. Science is still conducted upon the basis of agreement with empirical data.
The entire article is a notable case of WP:REDFLAG anyhow.
Yes, don't delete if an advocate of Keep is prepared to revise the article (and it is a notable theory)...
...But as it stands I'm not going to change my mind.
Quite happy to forget Pinker.
There are lots of salient points in the song "Ain't Goin' To Goa", but I'm afraid I fail to see how any of them are relevant to this discussion.
Think I've made my points comprehensively enough now, but I would like to know what that salient point is :) Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up the article to remove statements and sections that suggested paradigm was true. So OR not such a problem. What remain is the issue of notability. Google search establishes: completely non-notable.
There may be an article which can incorporate some of the material re experiments done, eg on human perception in Psychology. Can't be bothered looking myself. This page a clear delete anyhow. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural nom, as speedy and prod were declined. Aside from the fact that this article is currently written in a very promotional tone, the band itself does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The sources are minimal, and the band does not appear to have any major notability. Elonka 19:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined the prod because I felt it was a borderline case. However, it seems a little "south of the border" in that the only source is a write up in their hometown paper, which is a level of notability that pretty much any band can attain if they've been around for a year or two. The claims of endorsement contracts are unsubstantiated, and the other sources and links are not reliable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good band, but only locally known. No real coverage in RS (Dispatch article was marginal and in their special local flavor section). No prejudice against revisiting later, but not currently encyclopedic. Shellbabelfish 19:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - The page is just a compilation of all the links on the following page: List of file formats compiled into one table. Antivenin 18:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Until it can be properly merged with the other article into a sortable table with columns for the purpose & the extension name. Right now, each list serves a purpose. --Versageek 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After salvaging anything there might be missing from the List of file formats page that is on this one. We don't need two lists of the same information, and there isn't much point keeping it as a redirect. Although I do agree with Versageek that turning the other page into a sortable table would be a good plan. Anaxial (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - seems the right format for an encyclopedia. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Each page contains file formats not found in the other and serves different purposes. I agree that there should not be two independant lists as this is a pain to maintain. List of file formats should be a sortable table. Agree with Versageek, Anaxial and LinguistAtLarge. I'll even offer to do the merge Brianonn (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sortable lists and tables alphabetize automatically. Please search "WP:Sortable". --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the alphabetical format seems more useful. What I would recommend is merging the content of the two articles into one single alphabetical list named list of file formats. If a sortable list is used, just bear in mind that WP:Sortable uses client-side JavaScript (some users may have JS disabled for security reasons). (On the other hand, alphabetical sorting is desirable rather than a "must-have," as ctrl-f also does the job nicely.) Bwrs (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep untilList of file formats is converted to a sortable list, then merge this list into it. Then, and only then, redirect. Do not delete the redirect, as there is significant edit history which should be retained for GFDL attribution and to allow editors to ensure the lists were merged properly, and deleting such a redirect may be harmful. "Redirects are cheap," as they say. DHowell (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was not appropriate for Afd. I am closing this Afd so soon after it was relisted because it has become clear from the comments below that this is not actually appropriate for Afd, after all. The desired result of the original nominator will not be achieved in this forum. For one thing, there is a naming dispute that is intertwined with this discussion. Everybody agrees that the object of this discussion deserves an article. The main question seems to be: "What should we name it?" and then, "What titles should redirect to it?" The correct process to follow here is: 1) Decide where the article should be located. (This discussion is currently happening on the talk page at Talk:Nestorian_Stele#Requested_move.) 2) Once the naming dispute is resolved, if there are any redirects that editors feel violate policy, then they should be nominated for deletion at Redirects for discussion. Any arguments about original research, etc., can then be brought up there. Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no excuse for a second article. Whichever name is in use in English language academic circles is the one to use. If both names are genuinely in use then the one which is used less can be a redirect. If people disapprove of the name then they should go and argue with the academics. Names on Wikipedia have to reflect external usage. You can't change the name of something by changing its name in Wikipedia. I do not have any direct experience of this to say what the outcome should be. All I can say with certainty is that forking the article was a badly misguided approach to raising the issue and the fork has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly there should be only one article. A clue to the issue comes from the article on Assyrian Church of the East which says "In the West it is often known as the Nestorian Church although the church itself considers the term pejorative". I suspect this is like calling a Moslem a Mohammedan: offensive. I would prefer to go with the inoffensive name, and redirect Nestorian Stele here. I looked at the first AfD discussion, and the conclusion seemed to be that because most English speakers refer to the tablet as Nestorian, that is the correct name. But can it be the correct name if it is an inaccurate and offensive designation? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some people involved in the previous stages of discussions about this article did not seem to understand the reason for the AFD, so please read the following carefully.
First and foremost, the issue being raised with this AFD is the complete lack of any sources for the term "Assyrian Christian" being applied to a well-known historical object, this stele. It is, therefore, a case of original research. Again, this AFD is about WP:RS and WP:OR violations, and is not a naming conflict (as many people, including the commenters above, seem to think it is). Whether "Nestorian Stele" or a more neutral term such as "Xi'an Stele" is more appropriate is a discussion to be had on the article talk page, not here. This discussion is over whether this title, "Assyrian Christian Stele", should exist at all on Wikipedia, even as a redirect. As I will explain, based on clear WP:RS and WP:OR violations, it should not.
On January 5th, Gubernatoria created an article called "Assyrian Christian Stele". He then transferred all the material from the article Nestorian Stele and made Nestorian Stele a re-direct (a cut-and-paste move). This was undone six hours later, and Assyrian Christian Stele was made a re-direct. Gubernatoria reverted the re-direct on Assyrian Christian Stele but left Nestorian Stele as it was, and for a day or so there were two articles carrying the exact same content. A merge was then proposed by another user on January 8th.
I requested a copy of the one source Gubernatoria used for these changes, Light from the East: A Symposium on the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches by Henry Hill through Interlibrary loan at my university. On January 25th the book came in. Looking through it, I was surprised to find that, while Hill does say that the Assyrian Church was incorrectly called Nestorian, he refers to the stele as the "Nestorian Tablet" (on page 108). Seeing that the once source cited for this new naming convention (which had started the whole move/merge situation in the first place) in fact did not use the term presented by Gubernatoria, I quickly closed the merge and made Assyrian Christian Stele a re-direct, following AFG and assuming that Gubernatoria had other sources which did use the term. However, later that day I began to wonder if that was the case. I went back to my university library and spent several hours looking through books, journals, and online material, and could not find a single source using the term "Assyrian Christian" with this stele. It became clear this was a case of original research - Gubernatoria attempting to "correct" the name of this stele, even when no professional historian or writer had done so, including Mr. Hill.
Most of us are here, I believe, because we feel Wikipedia can be a source for people to find reliable information. We work hard to add material, to confirm and source it, and to remove material which is incorrect and/or not sourced, especially when it may be questionable or controversial. This term, "Assyrian Christian", is not simply a historical term, but has modern-day geographic, ethnic, and religious connotations. This is possibly one of the reasons why no work examined, even those agreeing with Gubernatoria that "Nestorian" is an incorrect term, have ever used the term "Assyrian Christian" directly for this stele. Wikipedia is a great place to present naming conventions currently under debate by published writers, but it is not the place to create a new naming convention that has never been used anywhere, no matter how logical it may seem to you or to me. All material, especially historical, needs to have reliable sources, and cannot be based on one's own logic or personal desire to "correct" something. Requiring reliable sources and not allowing original research are two of the most important standards upholding the credibility of information on Wikipedia. This title, at this time, fails to meet both of these criteria. As such, it does not belong on Wikipedia, even as a redirect. If you want to keep this title, even as a redirect, then you need to address the complete lack of a single reliable source for this title and the resulting violation of WP:OR. Otebig (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I strongly agree with your contention that the article name has to match what the subject is called in real life, whether we like the name or not. However I would like to point out that redirects are allowed from incorrect titles (common spelling mistakes, common misconceptions, etc.) if the incorrect title is one which it might reasonably be expected for somebody to search on. I am not saying that this is the case here, only that it would be permissible for such a redirect to exist if it was warranted.
I note that some people find the term Nestorian offensive. It seems to me that they have a problem with the naming used in the wider world, and Wikipedia is a not a valid forum for that debate. It seems to me that many Greek readers might be offended by the name of the article called Elgin Marbles given the context in which they got that name, none the less that is the name they are known by and it is to the credit of any offended readers that they have not resorted to the sort of behaviour that has brought us here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly Gubernatoria acted incorrectly. That is irrelevant. I always thought the early Christians who proselytized in the East and created the stele were Nestorian, but have learned from this discussion that they were not. The name is a papist slur perpetuated by the heretic Edward Gibbon. The simplest solution as Otebig has indicated is to delete this article, and then rename the one on Nestorian Stele to Xi'an Stele, a more neutral title. I will formally start the move process now. I find some references to "Assyrian Christian Stele" on Google, but not many. Perhaps it should also have a redirect. The essay at WP:BIAS is relevant to this discussion and worth reading carefully. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked Google before the first AFD - all hits of "Assyrian Christian Stele" are from sites that copy Wikipedia content - a good example of the dangers of OR on Wikipedia. Otebig (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
which appears to be a hoax as well. The online source used by both articles does not mention either the artist or the album. Delete both. --Megaboz (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Take your pick: hoax, misinformation, non-notable. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and per Linguist, with the additional "made up one day" criterion. Aw bless, but being a "famous underground Grime MC" in early 2002 when she was... ummmm... 8? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable nonsense, per everything above. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced at best. Edward321 (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nom. (Non-admin closure) --DFS454 (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no references and no real world information. It is about a character claimed to have appeared in the show during the last month. This is not enough to establish notability in a long running soap. Moreover, the name is too generic to keep this a a redirect. A google search gives a few results and for various people. Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided she really is going to be a regular character. Maybe it is too early to tell. Some coverage here: [6]. The Storyline section of the article is too detailed. The article should be an overview of the character, not a detailed recounting of the plot. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, usefy, or merge per Rodhullandemu. Ikip (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am explaining the reason why I believe we should not keep it as a redirect. Maybe a redirect with "(EastEnders)" attached? With this name it's very likely to have many wrong incoming links in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. If it needs to have "(EastEnders)" on the end in the future, someone will do it. It's fine as it is for now, and I redirected it to a relevant list, but you reverted. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for reverting but I think you have to wait for the AfD to finish. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and only then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. AfD is not proposed merges, nor a place to consider changing to redirects. . DGG (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Even the link provided by DanielRigal above contains only cursory reference to the character and does not provide real-world information about it. If information becomes available at a later date, the article could be recreated, but at this time independent reliable sources don't appear to exist at all. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had earlier voted delete, but the new sources suggest notability.Tractops (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. I am not opposed to merging the smaller characters into a larger article in the future. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been substantially revised since nomination to include sections on production (based on an interview with the actress playing this role) and reception using Google News hits (you have to play with the searches, i.e. don't just use "Marissa Moore" or Marissa and "Finn Atkins", etc. Moreover, I have rewritten the plot section so that it is based on what is covered in secondary source previews/reviews. Thus, the article contains considerably more out of universe context than plot now, and is entirely sourced by several British newspaper sources rather than any primary sources. From my searches it looks like even more is out there for future expansion as well. Thus, the article now has real-world information and several references from independent sources, because these are several references and range from an interview focusing specifically on the actress's for this role to previews and reviews that have at least enough to construct a reception section and secondary source cited plot section, the coverage is significant. Thus, I believe the article should be kept. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no longer is mainly plot summary and is adequately sourced.GunGagdinMoan 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to withdraw the nomination after the new additions. At least now a merge can be discussed. These elements can be used to improve the list of EastEnders characters article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping an open mind! By the way, the interview can perhaps also be used for an article on the actress? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it can be used. Interviews about significants roles of actors are very important. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep loads of sources can be found in any tabloid or UK newsagent. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of characters. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No consensus for deletion - the other matters of merging etc. are editorial and inappropriate to decide at AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the auto make and model may be notable, an indevidual example doesn't need it's own article. This article should as a minimum be MERGED with Bugatti Type 57, but certainly qualifies for deletion. -- Proxy User (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full support for merge to main article and delete this --Typ932T·C 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy closeKeep and mergeKeep - AfD is not the place for a merge discussion. Either be WP:BOLD and merge it, or propose and discuss merging with ((mergeto)) and ((mergefrom)). LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging is an option. I have nominated the article for DELETION. I'm not sure what your real gripe is, but kindly count the nominations presently active that also suggest a merg as an option. Do you plan to tag them as well? Proxy User (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an individually notable car, with a notable history even before the barn find & auction. Then when the barn find story broke, there was significant and widespread coverage of it in major news channels - this is a story that newsdesks, and the general public find notable. I fail to understand why a handful of editors are so against other people adding to the encyclopedia. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is no reason to delete good articles on interesting topics. This individual car has generated substantial coverage by multiple WP:RS and thus is notable, even if WP:YOUDONTLIKEITAndy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the sale price to the article. It's not a record price for a car at Bonhams, by the way. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is easily established under the general guidelines, and there exist no agreed on guidelines about specific cars, so I am not sure on what basis the nominator is so sure the article qualifies for deletion. A previous merge discussion reached no consensus. On a simple article size basis, mergeing is a pointless outcome, which merely serves to unbalance the main type article. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It should also be noted that the nominator does indeed seem to have inteneded that merge be the required outcome, and not deletion. See his comment here, where he disagrees with my attempted closure of said old merge discussion a long time ago (on the talk page of the type article), which was re-opened on the basis of ongoing discussion (not a single other comment was made since re-opening, had I not simply forgotten about it I would have closed it again). Apparently his raising the issue to an Afd discussion is some type of retribution for that. I am speculating here as he never bothered to talk to me about my motives for doing anything that has apparently annoyed him, before letting me find out on my watchlist to see the deletion nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infact he rather poisoned the well of this discussion straight off the bat by selectively posting that message to two users in that merge discussion who wanted the article gone. I would request he now post a neutral notifications of this discussion to the talk pages of all the participants of that discussion, in the interests of consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Oh good grief! KEEP IT CIVIL!Retribution? What are you taking about? Can there be discussion here without DRAMA? Lordy lordy. I posted to two users who had an interest, as there would be a discussion. That's hardly as dark and ominous as you portray. Again, GOOD GRIEF! Kindly control your snit. -- Proxy User (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Snit" ? What do you expect? This whole malarkey is an extremely Bad Faith attempt to either delete an article, or to merge it away, simply because one editor took it on themselves to write it from scratch and they produced a better article than the self-appointed custodians of Bugatti had done with the type 57 article previously. Pleased don't accuse _other_ people of acting inappropriately until you're contributing articles of this quality, rather than attempting to delete them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I posted this to WP:CARS but there seems to be very little intrest to this article, and I think tere is nothing wrong with these post to my user talk page, he is quite right what happened last time... --Typ932T·C 07:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is fairly notable car. I remember seeing something about it on an Australian website a short time ago. So if it reached here, it must not be too obscure. Also the author(s) have produced a worthy and referenced article (references in abundance generally suggests notability). Imagine if you had gone to all that work to produce a B-Class quality article and then to have it be deleted? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to inform, there is option to merge it to main article, so it doesnt need to go, but this stand alone article is not needed --Typ932T·C 08:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - It for sure is a rather well-written, very well-referenced article whose existence can be well justified using general notability criteria. I guess the WikiProject needs to establish some rules for whether individual cars should, or should not get their individual articles, but I see no reason for deleting. As concerns merging, this article is of higher quality to me than the Bugatti Type 75s one, and a lot of detail would be lost if the merge was to occur (I can't imagine the main article providing that level of detail). It is more of a question if we consider this kind of article encyclopedic, and not whether it is a good article - because it is. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above rationales. The car is unique alone because of its lifetime history and well-referenced facts in the article. -Mardus (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as others have noted it is a well written and well referenced article about a unique car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.244.161 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources present in the article establish this car as individually notable. 76.93.100.51 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well-referenced article about a car which has received substantial media coverage. Rcawsey (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd usually say merge but this a well referenced, well written article about this individual automobile. My fear would be that if this article was merged, the content [over time] would be whittled down and there by lower the quality of the content. It is best to leave it by itself to retain its higher quality. Oilpanhands (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already suggested this during a previous merge discussion at Talk:Bugatti Type 57, but why not move to 2008 Bugatti barn find? That's what the article is really about: two of the three paragraphs in the lead, five of the six dedicated sections in the overall article, every one of the five general references, and 18 of the 24 inline citations are all concerned only with the car's discovery in a garage. We already have a WP:ONEEVENT guideline which says that articles about events should be named after the event itself and not the people involved. I'd say the same logic could be as easily applied to vehicles. --DeLarge (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Then we can speedy delete it as a "barn find" isn't notable. Sorted. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on renaming, it might even be more helpfull, but judging by this AFd, people would find the material notable whether it is at this title or 2008 Bugatti barn find, so I don't think that puts it under any more pressure to be deleted, so I would suggest that a discussion on the name is appropriately held off until this closes. The reason that ONEVENT is only about people is because there is no consensus to extend to to other things. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd like also expand this car's interesting early career (the Earl Howe period)> However I'm unlikely to spend the time and effort to do so when it's so likely to be AfD'ed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't think it's necessary. -Zeus- [t|c] 17:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Document the event not the person, according to WP:BLP, and WP:BLP1E.Fritzpoll (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's more than one event, which by itself is notable anyway. 1) The trip itself is notable. 2) The trip was the subject of a National Geographic Special. 3) The guy was kidnapped, a notable event by a notable terrorist group. 4) A former Hells Angel riding a Kawasaki? What? Notable. Proxy User (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One event, hardly any coverage besides his self-published information. And simply riding through Colombia is NOT notable. tedder (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat's misinformation, Tedder. Haggstad rode through a lot more than just Columbia, and there was even a Geogra[hic special about it. You're being misleading. Proxy User (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were saying it was notable because he rode through Colombia. Perhaps we should take this off the AfD, but what about the trip do you find notable? Riding from the US to Ushuaia? That's very common. tedder (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- OK, maybe "misinformation" is too strong, I respectfully retract it. I do think it's a notable thing, and there are some interesting side events as well as some kind of media note. To me, that's "notable", maybe not hugely so but none the less. I think there is enough room at Wikipedia for it, and someone might find it interesting. I respect your opinion, you know more about this sort of thing than I. But it's not important enough to me to think it through more than this. Anyway, it seems the "Delete" opinions will win by a slight margin, so it's almost a moot point. Proxy User (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to be a notable pageant; coverage in reliable sources is pretty poor. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award is non-notable web content based on WP:WEB and has few Google News hits. It only exists in one website, aside from the fact that it's another version of the annual Esquire Magazine award e.g. [here] and [here]. Global Beauties selection is based on a poll, participated by the visitors of the website, chosen from beauty pageant contestants while the Esquire selection is chosen by the editors from among Hollywood actresses.--Ped Admi (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect Delete: agreed I failed to notice that this has nothing to do with the Esquire award. -Zeus- [t|c] 19:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Note that this has nothing to do with the Esquire award of the same name.) --Metropolitan90(talk) 08:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Esquire (magazine)#Sexiest Woman Alive since this is clearly the thing people think of when searching this term. If this becomes notable in the future, perhaps a disambig would be in order, but not quite yet. SMSpivey (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is no relation. -Zeus-uc 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article certainly has no relation, but I think it is a reasonable search term for the Esquire magazine contest and should redirect there. SMSpivey (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, although the fact that the sources are all in Persian/Arabic means that I can't examine them for reliability. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AGF, unless someone who can read them checks out the sources and finds them not to be sufficient for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would appear that both of the subject's names can be transliterated differently: this web site refers to him as "Zia' Movahhed". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His university bio spells his name "Zia Movahed" and refers to several awards. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to this he's a "well known name in Iran's literary world" and "one of Iran's prominent art and literary figures", and this newspaper saw fit to report on his being the first Iranian to be invited to the Rotterdam International Poetry Festival. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Phil Bridger. --Crusio (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Some sort of essay about some sort of non existent alleged disease. WP:NFT applies as does WP:BOLLOCKS. Not notable, not verifiable except by stuttering fools trying to chat girls up(been there, done that!). Contested speedy deletion candidate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Speedy Delete, or Instantaneous Delete - No reliable sources for verification. Appears to be a hoax. --Megaboz (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (A7/G1) by Dlohcierekim. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 16:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was deleted by Jimfbleak. I had deleted once before. It was recreated and tagged again. It then became apparent that it was a place of some sort, not a person, and was deleted as WP:CSD#A1. Dlohcierekim 16:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's not valid for csd, because it was deleted by csd last time he posted it. -Zeus- [t|c] 15:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid for CSD. Just not tagging as WP:CSD G4. Still no assertion of significance, a lower requirement than notability. Dlohcierekim 15:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What can I list it under, then? -Zeus- [t|c] 15:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you did it. Thanks -Zeus- [t|c] 15:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Despite over six months passing since last AfD, no apparent progress has been made on this, nor has any evidence emerged to suggest that it passes the future film notability guidelines. Article presently seems to be promotional in tone and intention. If notability is solely contingent on fundraising, then this is not a notable film, it's a notable marketing method, no? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. The film does not exist. Proxy User (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for further expansion. Article is well sourced and passed the WP:GNG with flying colors. Pity that it had not been expanded since the last AfD, but thank goodness wiki has no WP:DEADLINE. Heck... maybe I'll even do some expansion myself, as the refs offer plenty from which to work. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I'd say delete, as we're not a crystal ball in to the future of film or any other discipline. But the letter and spirit of verifiability definitely overrules that inclination this time around. The sourcing is pretty darn concrete. Steven Walling(talk) 06:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AfD mentions WP:NFF which says the film should either have begun principal photography or its production itself meets WP:N. This appears to satisfy the second option quite well. -SColombo (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect - even where N is met, the articles are merged to source material or the bios of principal players. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF doesn't say that, and the idea is silly anyway: that way, we'd have to have multiple copies of the information about the film, whereas with an article for the film we can avoid that duplication. JulesH (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF says Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. and Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. which has generally been interpreted to mean that films must both pass the GNC and have begun shooting to havea stand alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to satisfy WP:N. Whether or not the film ever gets made, its funding method ensures that it is notable. JulesH (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I tried to prod it, but he removed it. I don't think it's worth it's own page -Zeus- [t|c] 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see why this episode merits a page - and hope that the 102 episodes before it don't get them either. If that's what the show was like, I also fail to see how it got that many episodes. Peridon (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Err - Original air date March 8, 2009???? Crystal ball, insider information, or a typo? Peridon (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Closed per WP:SNOW: There is no indication at all that this discussion might have "delete" as its outcome. SoWhy 20:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks reliable sources (all sources used are fansites), and so fails WP:N. Would fail WP:FICT as well - no meaningful real world perspective (there's a stab at it, but if you look it's not actually about this episode), and it is just another Doctor Who episode, wholly unimportant to understanding the larger series. Dearth of Rats (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not an episode, it's a story that ran six episodes. Even individual episodes of TV series can be notable there are numerous examples on this site and this story set the standard for many things in the Dr Who series. Edward321 (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a hair-splitting - whether it is an episode, a multi-episode serial, or a doughnut, it still does not have reliable sources, real-world perspective, or any evidence of its importance in understanding Doctor Who, which means that it fails both the relevant notability guideline and the proposal for a looser one. Dearth of Rats (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grouping episodes together is a good way of handling them, (though this wasn't really clear in the introduction, if one did not read the entire article). I see reasonable amount of real world information--about the production the actors, and the reuse of the material in other formats--in fact, judging by screen space, its about 50% of the article; it's not a "stab at it', it's a good job of it. The plot however is as rmbling as plot sections ausually are, and could use some copyediting for conciseness, and to show where the different episodes end. I also see references to outside reviews of the series, though not in the conventional WP RSs. . I think more could be found--google News is getting progressively better for this. It meets all present and proposed requirements. Needsfurther editing, like 99% of Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per both of the above "Keep" votes. Proxy User (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Ditto. I don't see that Dearth of Rats' reasoning wouldn't knock most if not all articles on Who stories not set on "contemporary" or historical Earth out of the encyclopedia. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article definitely needs more sources, but it appears to be notable. Added ((refimprove)). LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So the references used in this article are fansites... surely the nominator is not suggesting that it is impossible to find any published books which detail information about the episode. Every classic Doctor Who episode is covered in immense detail in a huge number of published works. That the editors of this article chose to use readily available online references (which should not necessarily be dismissed and derided as "fansites") does not mean that this article, and any article about Doctor Who stories, cannot be referenced to an acceptable standard of notability. --Canley (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination fails WP:BEFORE as there are numerous reliable sources for this episode and, in any case, there are good aternatives to deletion which have not been discussed on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hard to see where user is coming from. Sources are only fans sites? The official BBC website isn't a fansite. you've also got imdb's page as well. So there's pleanty of references for this and other doctor Who stories. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unreferenced for over a year, no assertion that it passes WP:N. Even if we were to use the proposed WP:FICT, this has no real world content, and it does not seem to be a very important episode of Seinfeld, as such things go. Dearth of Rats (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons given by the nominator are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be a bit confused. I thought failing a notability guideline was a reason for deletion. Dearth of Rats (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable combined article . Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. There is no really accepted guideline for episodes of fiction, just for fictional works as a whole: beyond there, everything is disputed. Whether or not to combine the articlesis for the talk page, but at t he very least they should be trimmed a little and combined, not deleted. DGG (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we're going to delete all the television series episode summaries, we have a lot of work ahead! The article could use some references, but otherwise meets Wiki guidelines for inclusion. Me thinks the nominator doesn't like Seinfeld. Proxy User (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not notable. Were the plot summary be reduced to the acceptable limit, 300 words, it would not be a viable spinout article either. Sceptre(talk) 13:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only Paul75 (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No chartage, no awards no covers, no reliable, third-party, sources. The Australian Charts ref are user reviews, The Rolling Stone one is a trivial mention, and the Spanish Madonna one isn't third party. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Article has contradictory evidence, stating the song is just a promo release, but is also a single. Paul75 (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable page, already covered in the "The Power of Good-Bye" single page as it was a AA side in the U.K. JWADtalk 13:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Rejected A7 speedy deletion, albums don't come under that criteria, apparently non notable album by non notable band Pattont/c 13:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not for reason above. The Offspring easily passes notability. However, there is nothing to verify that they are going to release a ninth album, or that it will be called Death of an Angel. Nothing on band's official website to support this, nor does anything on Google apart from Wikipedia entry. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too short, no sources, and the band doesn't have a ninth album. 78.146.29.91 (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced stub article on a local councillor in Ireland and unsuccessful candidate in a by-election and later general election. Fails both WP:BIO#Basic_criteria and WP:BIO#Politicians. Possibly an autobiography: this article is the only contribution by its creator, Dpscully (talk·contribs). BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News coverage of Darren Scully is incidental and trivial. Of course, should more stories like this be uncovered, the article might pass notability, but only if this gets a large mention in the article, which I suspect dpscully didn't intend. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not notable, the news coverage is just incidental.--Ped Admi (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Total non-entity. Snappy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There seems a rough consensus for a merge and redirect, but AfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on reverted redirect. This subject is a video game character with no claim to fame other than having been listed in a magazine article as one of the "top video game characters" (in an entry one paragraph long). In general, this would require multiple reliable secondary sources and not just one. Article consists solely of in-universe and game guide content, because that's all that exists. Redirect for search purposes is fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Cannot find any sources, but I'm conscious that my searches are unlikely to have had hits on Japanese language sites, which are the most likely to be discussing this character from a game that is much better known in Japan than in US/Europe. JulesH (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of characters in the Xenosaga series. Major character in that series of video games and animation series and a legitimate breakout article to keep the main one from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. As even the nominator thinks a redirect is fine, he should not have brought this here, but discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion page is primarily used by the current contributors of the page, who are unlikely to provide a neutral assessment. This is a wider forum. A posthumous redirect is just a courtesy suggestion; I don't think any of this material is salvageable as part of those crufty "list of articles we couldn't quite save" articles that those opposed to our guidelines on fictional content are so fond of. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Xenosaga series. I do agree that this really didn't need to be taken to AFD when a proposal for redirection could have been brought up using the WP:MERGE guidelines. But now that we're here... MuZemike 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of characters in the Xenosaga series, but only if relevent information IS merged. Far too often a merge turns into a mere delete and redirect instead. Merely redirecting wipes out anything that might be salvagable, which is why the initial delete and redirect was reverted in the first place. Nezu Chiza (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Major character in a major game series" still doesn't indiciate in and of itself that a character has received significant coverage from independent sources. Your two new "references" are good examples of this - Two reviews of games, where KOS-MOS is only mentioned in passing as a plot element (and given the throwaway "who looks like a supermodel" in the second). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the moment - There are reliable sources out there that talk specifically about KOS-MOS as well as devleopment sketchs and commenrary from the artbooks. However, right now I'm too busy to re-look those sources up. KOS-MOS can be unmerged if/when there are enough reliable sources found specifically on her.じんない 03:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, a major character in a major game series, with independent, verifiable sources written about the subject.193.62.153.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, didn't realise I wasn't logged in. Orbital Delegate (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean the hell out of it If it helps I just added a bit from AOL's GameDaily to her reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though I will readily add that there does seem to be a lack of sources in material I'm looking through...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This needs major cleanup to remove plot duplication from the article from the Xenosaga games. Once done, I see this being 3, maybe 4 paragraphs long, not enough to warrant a full article given the weak demonstration of notability, but can be fully covered in a Xenosaga character list. --MASEM 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be being used for self promotion. No sources indicating that he is "greatest classical guitarist in Iran." DFS454 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to notability is page about him on Jahad-Daneshgahi-Mashhad website. That is way below the standards of notability. Didn't find anything on Google to support notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article seems to be a self promotion, not notable.--Ped Admi (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very few sources that are third-party. I did find a questionable one that states the magazine may be defunct. Though it's not certain whether this source is reliable. DFS454 (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The official site fot the Australian magazine of Play tech is: [[9]] The page is still under construction due to technical difficulties —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdalavisa (talk • contribs)
Delete for now. Extremely rare for newly-launched magazines to have any claim to notability and this shows no signs of being one of them. Suspect purpose of article is to try to promote the magazine. If the magazine establishes itself, it might qualify for an article then, but not before. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant notability. JamesBurns (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Will userfy on request at my talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR essay - non-encylopedic. Information is non-referenced and dated (i.e. next year the figures will have changed). Triwbe (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-intentioned, but obvious soapbox article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete - I do see a future for the topic/Article. Supportuserfication if its requested. Wish I knew the topic to help. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources now. Hope its ok-Frozenguild (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment An article on how the health system handle people with mental illness would be encyclopedic, but this article currently isn't. Andjam (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is pretty poor at the moment, but unless this is a duplicate of another article it should be kept. The Australian Bureau of Statistics conducts regular surveys of mental health issues (for instance, [10]) and the results of these and the ABS' commentary could be copied and pasted into the article (with proper attribution) now that the ABS has placed everything on its website on a Wikipedia-friendly creative commons license. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice that you are part of a group that actively seeks to keep articles and I would ask whether such a group is acting in the best interests of the site, because one of the main problems for readers using the site is the volume of rubbish that has been dumped. As for this article, I had a look at the cricket project's home page and under WP:CRIN they deal with the question of notability for cricket articles. Regarding clubs that have not played first-class cricket, their guideline for British clubs is as follows:
those clubs which have competed in the Minor Counties Championship or are included in the List of English cricket clubs do meet the notability requirements. The essence of the latter group is that the clubs belong to one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues.
Glenrothes is a minor club in a minor league and does not meet the cricket project's criteria for notability. If you wish, ask the project for their views at WT:CRIC. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above unless the project corrects it. SGGHping! 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local club, playing in a non-notable league. Maybe worth a single sentence in the Glenrothes article, but no more than that. wjematherbigissue 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This club is not notable under WP:CRIN. However, the notability criteria for Great Britain does not mention Scotland, meaning all Scottish cricket clubs would not be notable, a subject that should be raised at the WikiProject. DeMoN2009 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I have now checked out the Scottish cricket leagues and realise what you mean, so never mind :D SGGHping! 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable middle school in Detroit area. It is one of four middle schools in the Troy School District and is the only one with a Wikipedia page. It has been used mainly as a puff-page; when I first came across it, it had a detailed list of the curriculum for each year with descriptions of every course offered in the school. The only alumni it links to are non-notable football players. It has very little substantial information that would give it reason to have a Wikipedia page. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a Boulan Park Middle School redirect that goes here. Should we really redirect to a redirect? No; it would make more sense to change that one to re-direct to the Troy School District page and delete this one. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say redirect I said merge and redirect since there is mergeable, sourced content. After a merge then the page must be kept for GFDL compliance. TerriersFan (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or, if this is being looked at by an inclusionist-administrator has a merge=keep attitude, then delete-delete-delete. Mandsford (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nomination clearly fails WP:BEFORE in that no reference is made to the numerous sources which exist for this topic and obvious alternatives to deletion have not been considered. The school is evidently notable and the article should be kept. Issues such as puff piece are quite irrelevant as AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep " Nominator fails to provide any legitimate rationale for deletion. AfD hero (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. It's a biography of a living person. We err on the side of deletion in cases like this; I don't consider this negotiable. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I performed a thorough literature search and found that he has contributed to only 10 referred journal articles, with 4 as first author. I added these under the bibliography section in the article. His contributions did not significantly impact his scientific discipline, as most of them received less than 10 citations. He has contributed to a few books and NASA reports. Nor has he received academic honors, or been elected to any prestigious academic society. [|Talk page] discussion showed no one arguing that he was notable, or providing reliable sources that established his notability. Thus he fails WP:ACADEMIC.
It was mentioned that perhaps his tenure at NASA as "head of an important research project" should count for something. The organizational structure] of the NASA Earth Science Division shows that the head of the radiation and climate branch is quite low, and nobody else, save James Hansen, has a WP article. The person currently holding the post, Robert Cahalan, has had a much more distinguished career as a scientist. (See View all my Publications link on biography.)
Keep - his notability is quite clear. He has been quoted, featured, or mentioned in the sources below. I believe that these sources speak for themselves and that he objectively meets WP:N. Many of these refs were in the article but they were removed because they "obfuscated" the original source. I can list several more sources if people think these aren't enough. How the Senate committee minority, much less any of the sources below, can be considered not "independent of the subject" is beyond me. Many news organizations reporting on something confer notability to it. Oren0 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National Ledger: [22] (note that these last two are the same column published in two places).
It's also worth noting that James Hansen has responded to Theon, and an email exchange between the two and the writers of various blogs has occurred: [23]. This argues against the BLP1E argument as a dialogue is apparently ongoing on this issue.
Please read WP:BLP1E. As far as I can see, none of these articles does more but repeat the quotes from the Senate committee minority blog. Indeed, many mention the subject only in passing, in a single sentence. And among your list are several editorials and even a letter to the editor, i.e. not exactly sterling material. The only source about Theon himself is the short bio in his email to Morano, a WP:SPS republished in a politically partisan blog that is not exactly known for "fact-checking and accuracy". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E can't apply here, because it says to "cover the event, not the person". Due to the restriction on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming to only include individuals with articles, and due to WP:WEIGHT at Global warming controversy, it is impossible for us to cover the event on WP without this individual having an article. Oren0 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. So if the event is not notable enough to go into Global warming controversy, and all coverage about Theon is in fact about the event, that's even stronger evidence that Theon is not notable - and that the event is, indeed, a non-event. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)ve to be dropped from Gore’s presentations.[reply]
Hansen’s former NASA supervisor -- atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, who recently announced that he is skeptical of global warming alarmism -- recently wrote to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staffer Marc Morano that, “Hansen…violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it) … [and] thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”
Commenting on another key deficiency in the manmade catastrophic global warming hypothesis, Theon also observed that “[climate] models do not realisti
Quite the contrary. His notability largely stems from his recent quotes regarding his opinion on global warming (while I'm not sure that those are the only notable thing he's done, without them he wouldn't have an article). I am of the belief that his quotes are notable based on the sources I've linked above. BLP1E would suggest that we cover "the event, not the person," however there is no article in which we could cover the event due to the "rules" placed upon the scientist list. Therefore, the only way Wikipedia can cover this notable subject is for the individual to have an article. Additionally, I disagree with your assertion that "the only source about Theon himself is the short bio in his email to Morano," as the Register article is entirely about him and presents his background. Oren0 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Register is, of course, a lousy source. And in this case, it is obvious that the only source of their article is again Morano's blog. If the event is notable (and your list of editorials, blogs, letters to the editor, and fairly fringe news sites does not really support that), the correct way to cover the event is to have an article on it. See e.g. Star Wars Kid. Now I agree that "John Theon criticizes Hansen and Global Warming" would be an absurd article. What immediately comes to mind is the question "Who is Theon and why would anyone care?". But that tells us that indeed this event is irrelevant and non-notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is only a week old and should be given time to be developed. Q Science (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable for only one thing is not notable, if all it is is offering an opinion. The article is not likely to be developed in any real sense, unless newspapers decide to do some actual reporting, which is not in our hands: more letters to local newspapers are not really going to help. The Guardian article cited above, incidentally, only mentions Theon in passing as one of a number of points in which the Telegraph (or The London Telegraph, if you must) misrepresents the facts. Those keen to attack Hansen et al. would do better to simply add Theon to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (but I see he's already there). N p holmes (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criteria for being on that list is notability, by default established via the existence of a Wikipedia article. If the article is deleted, so probably will be the entry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been deleted again. (not by me) Q Science (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is being used as a political football, and I dislike that in BLPs. I've looked in Lexisnexis for more sources, and this is it. His work for NASA fails WP:ACADEMIC, and his opinion on global warming is barely an "event" for the purposes of WP:BLP1E. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog aggregator. Cool HandLuke 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trying to use "one thing" on this is an absurdity: "headed NASA's atmospheric dynamics and radiation branch from 1982–1994" is notable as an administrator, and seems to be well demonstrated. What someone in that position says about global warming is furthermore notable, and appropriate for inclusion here. Whether he is right or wrong is another matter. DGG (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what I think the delete arguments amount to, is that other people are more notable. The interest here is that it is always noteworthy that a trained scientist with relevant degrees, who has held a responsible position in a relevant agency, disputes the standard global warming hypothesis. Obviously the right wing climate people will make a big deal of that, for so few knowledgeable people actually do support their position. To me, strongly opposed to them, it would seem there should consequently be full information about the people on the other side. If I wanted most effective show his limitations I would list all his papers and the citation count. I would not attempt to suppress the article here about him. Anything like a removal of a possibly borderline article on someone involved in political controversy, is a tactic, which our enemies can make use of to try to show a bias at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it is always noteworthy that a trained scientist with relevant degrees, who has held a responsible position in a relevant agency, disputes the standard global warming hypothesis. I disagree with excusing a non-notable BLP simply as a way of showing controversy. These are real people, and having a poorly-supervised article on them in one of the internet's top 10 sites could do them real damage. (And it's nothing to do with Theon's views -- I'd say the same thing about Bob Cahalan, who presently holds the position corresponding to Theon's and whose views on GW are within the mainstream.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful to say "noteworthy" not "notable". It's noteworthy in the sense of explaining why people are paying attention to his views. DGG (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly-supervised? On what basis do you make that call? This article is watchlisted by at least four administrators and has been edited by several experienced users. Oren0 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making a general point. I can't see the contents of other people's watchlists. And I strongly suspect that you cannot, either. Actually I'd love to see a software feature such that everyone who votes "keep" on a BLP automatically has the article added to their watchlist and is unable to remove it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nitpick. Let me rephrase: several administrators and experienced editors are likely watching this page based on the editing that has occurred on it so far. Oren0 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless stronger grounds for notability can be found. He might well (in fact, probably does) deserve a mention in articles on global warming controversies, but he does not seem to me to deserve an article of his own, per WP:ACADEMIC.Anaxial (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per Cool Hand Luke above. There is an argument in some quarters that any retired government manager who gets a passing mention in the popular press should have an article. I don't buy it. To repeat my usual refrain, these thousands of poorly-watched BLPs are legal and ethical time bombs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "legal and ethical timebomb" argument defused at all by the fact that Theon has explicitly and intentionally injected himself into the public debate on global warming? In the letter, he explicitly asks to be publicly recognized as a skeptic. This is not a case where someone accidentally became famous and privacy concerns are high. When one asks to be considered in a public debate, I believe there is an expectation of coverage (which has occurred, per the links above).
I don't think the concerns I expressed are defused by the fact that the person has made a public statement. Your argument seems to boil down to "if someone makes a public statement then they deserve whatever happens to them." Even when someone has made a public statement I think we still have an obligation not to create an attractive nuisance by keeping an article on them that is apt to be poorly supervised. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is very well said. BLPs should be firmly notable because each has the potential to do harm. Cool HandLuke 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)What I also say in that diff is that what due diligence I believe reporters to have done is irrelevant to whether a source can be considered reliable.[reply]
delete per Nom, Boris and Luke. Notable only for a brief controversy best left to low-grade blogs [24]William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject clearly meets the GNG with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. RMHED. 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to some? I've not seen any coverage of the person (as opposed to the single event of him being cited on Inhofe's blog). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Had a notable job, got very visibly involved in a notable controversy. Not one event. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked over the sources offered, and with the exception of the 1992 Washington Times article that apparently no-one has seen, they all refer to one single event. There is no evidence whatsoever of any independent reporting or research. That leaves us essentially no reliable sources about the man - all we can say is that his name and a short self-written bio have been printed in a partisan political blog. That's not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The quality of the sources also is, in general, lousy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. His sole claim to fame is that some people have done their best at circulating an email he wrote to create a controversy that's not really there. The sources provided are not the best, and, on top of that, most of these dont really cover him. Brusegadi (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am convinced that this controversy is notable enough. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oren0, DGG. Numerous sources, notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources (half of which are op-eds) each just recount the email he wrote to a politician. There's no non-trivial coverage at all—there is no substantial source for ensuring that we assign appropriate WEIGHT in this BLP. Cool HandLuke 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF. Citation impact seems to be low. As for the point made by DGG, WP:PROF criterion #6 refers to highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society, which is not the case here. Otherwise any other unit head at NASA or a comparably prestigious organization would qualify automatically. Regarding possible notability under WP:BIO, this looks like a classic WP:1E; among other things, the subject does not seem to have enough of a research record to be considered an authority in the field.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
every unit head in NASA should indeed have an article. WP:1E refers to events not that someone is recorded as taking a particular position. If it's going to be used for things like this, let's get rid of it, or at least reword it. DGG (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he can be called a "unit head." Seriously, look at this! It doesn't even have a fancy colored box for his position, "Climate and Radiation Branch." According to their top-level organization chart, you are advocating biographies for about 250 current employees of NASA regardless of their coverage in secondary sources—easily thousands of living people total counting the former "heads" like this one. Cool HandLuke 03:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's 250 "heads" for the Goddard Center, and there are 9 Other Centers and a handful of facilities, each with their own organization charts (See, e.g. the Ames Center and Kennedy Space Center, the JPL structure seems even larger than GSFC, but I can't find a single chart for it). I'm not sure how many biographies you're advocating, but it's a lot. Cool HandLuke 04:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) every unit head in NASA should indeed have an article That position is contrary to our current BLP policies. The closest parallel is in WP:PROF, at the discussion of "director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center." Here that would have been director of GSFC, or at a stretch, the earth science division. Theon was a manager several levels below that. More broadly, Theon fails all of the criteria in WP:PROF. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steve Schultz, CHL, Anaxial and nom. Incidentally, for those saying it's too soon, 1 week seems more then enough time for an article to develop particularly when major contributors have been busy trying to find a source for a minor issue you would expect they would have turned up these other RS about him if they existed Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well it seems all to have been said here. Theon doesn't seem to be notable as a scientist, nor as an administrative figure. The only notable item shown so far, is the use of his emails by the EPW minority blog, which apparently hasn't reached beyond the blogosphere and the opinion columns. And thats (to say the least) an extremely thin basis for an article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some other sources: gnews search. In addition to his views on the climate, dating to 20 years ago, not just recently, one can learn he was a Mad as Hell New Anti-Tax Crusader[25], along with his objections to discourtesy to performing artists[26]. Clearly seems notable enough for inclusion on the list mentioned above, notwithstanding current criteria.John Z (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "Mad as hell" article is interesting because he's described this way:
"If you project a few years ahead, I'll be handing over my whole paycheck to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors," said John Theon, a NASA scientist from McLean who said his taxes have increased by $ 1,900 in two years. "Something has to be done, because they just think we're a bottomless pit, or a sheep to be shorn."
That's the extent of coverage in the article. He is never even mentioned a second time. Note that it does not describe him as a NASA "unit head." I've seen these sources, they're even more trivial than what's in the article (blogs and editorials).
The other source is a letter to the editor he wrote as a grad student. Are you serious?Cool HandLuke 03:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it clear I wasn't being too serious with those two; his notability comes from his work and positions, could be usable to write a less boring article if kept, though. Note "Comment" rather than "Keep." But if there are claims of exhaustiveness, then I think it is worthwhile pointing out additional sources to everyone.John Z (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since as I can only see snippets of these articles, it's hard to say the extent of the coverage in them. But in terms of his title, the snippets in John Z's link refer to him as the "chairman" of the Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel (in a Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications paper), the "head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's weather research office" (in the Philadelphia Enquirer and the Wichita Eagle), and refer to his "management" (in a NASA wind-shear report). The fact that he held some sort of supervisory position is made quite clear by these sources (in addition to the others) and I'm not sure why you think that fact is questionable. Oren0 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question he's a manager. See above. He's one of thousands though—not a "head." in any meaningful sense. Cool HandLuke 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basically echoing most of the "keep" arguments listed above. --GoRight (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Arguments that there are many other people of his level are irrelevant--I would be surprised if an agency like NASA did not have hundreds of notable people. agreed that he's not top administration. But the analogy with WP:PROF is wrong--though a chairman only might be automatically notable, so will many other people in any first rate department, and NASA is corresponds much more to a large first rate technological university than a mere department. I would expect hundreds of notable faculty at MIT also. DGG (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on DGG, TG's latest comment and earlier sources provided, such as they are. There aren't many such quasi-"large first rate technological university" organizations, and hundreds of notable people, including those holding his positions, the equivalent of something like the "distinguished prof" criterion, doesn't seem out of order. And finally, I think David's earlier point about erring on the side of keeping "mainstream" critics of the mainstream is valid, that such articles are a real, positive addition to the encyclopedia.John Z (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly disgusted that politics trumps WP:BLP. People on both sides of this know that I'm no GW partisan; I would want this sort of biography on either side deleted. This simply fails WP:N, especially for a BLP. Cool HandLuke 15:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A mid-level NASA administrator does not have the same level of notability as a distinguished professor. He has about the same level of notability as a mid-level administrator at a major research university. But what I'm really concerned about is the quality and quantity of the sources. What can you write about this person that does not originally come from the Inhofe blog? That he dislikes paying taxes? That he dislikes (some) clapping in concerts? And even that is from a primary source that seems to be linked to this person only by name... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What can be said about him is based on an email he wrote. This email is verifiable because it has been reported by muliple sources. The distinction between "Theon said" and "Inhofe's blog reports Theon said", the former being how it is reported in most of these sources, is an important one. We allow an individual's quotes to be in an article if they're verifiable, which this quote is. Oren0 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P is for Publish. I was unaware that Theon is the publisher of Fox News, NewsMax, The Telegraph, etc. Oren0 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...only that they did not publish the email, they only reported on it (or, more often, on it appearing on Inhofe's blog). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any quote anyone makes is going to start out of their lips or hands. There's no way around that. But when reliable sources quote it, it becomes attributable and therefore appropriate for inclusion on WP. The fact that it originally was written in an unverifiable email is irrelevant as being reported on by multiple sources contributes both to its verifiability and its notability. For example, private conversations of the President are not verifiable. But once those conversations are taped and reported in reliable sources, that makes them suitable for inclusion in WP. Oren0 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. We seem to very much disagree about why SPSes are problematic. Your argument seems to be that we can now check and recheck the email, and be reasonably sure that it's from Theon. But that is true of a blog post or a web site, too. The problem is that Theon has has no reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and that he writes without editorial control. Note that we do not use the Watergate tapes as secondary sources (we do not necessarily believe everything said in them), but as primary sources for Nixon's actions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say that Oren0's interpretation seems much more standard. Theon wrote an email - clearly an SPS. It was reported in a .gov blog - much less of an SPS, and more reliable. The blog was quoted in mainstream news outlet editorial material - not in any way an SPS, and IMHO reliable enough. Theon's fact checking etc is completely irrelevant at this stage, and of course him as an SPS for his own words is perfectly OK in an article on him, as long as stuff solely from him does not dominate the article. The Watergate parallel to the last stage is mainstream editorial comment about the tapes, clearly a secondary source.John Z (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think that this source is clearly valid as a source in a BLP. However, it doesn't establish notability, and that's what this page is about. There is no non-trivial source about him. He dislikes taxes, he worked at NASA, and he disagrees with global warming. What's missing is a secondary profile on him, not some email he wrote. Without this secondary source, it's hard to write any biography that obeys WEIGHT—especially when we're twiddling with these passing mentions. I implore Oren0 to reconsider. I don't take sides in these debates—indeed, we're usually on the same "side" because I'm on the side of BLP, and editors repeatedly try to insert blog sources on people like Mr. Theon. I think both he and Wikipedia would be better off without maintaining his article as a political football. Cool HandLuke 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with using the email as a source. If you follow the discussion thread, you will see that I have trouble with the article being based primarily on it, as per our WP:SPS policy. The email does not become more reliable by other sources repeating it. And John, a ".gov blog", especially an extremely partisan one like Inhofe's minority blog, is not a good source at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "based primarily on it" does not enter into it, once there are outside sources, because the email does become more reliable, definitely not self-published, and usable by other sources repeating it. They are providing the fact- checking etc. That's what more reliable sources do - add reliability. Anything whatsoever could be criticized that way: everything is said by - originally published by some "self" - and then repeated elsewhere.John Z (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another defender of the article and use of the sources has made it quite clear that they are only there as a kind of source laundering. "You're asking the wrong questions. Do I believe that these sources derive only from the Morano blog and did no independent fact-checking? You bet." (Full context here.) No-one reading them could think otherwise. There should be no assumption that an opinion piece is reliable, even if it appears in a newspaper. N p holmes (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An opinion piece is considered reliable for a BLP if its author is under the editorial control of the newspaper. Do you have any reason to doubt this is so? Oren0 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not so. An editorial or opinion piece is explicitly only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, according to WP:RS and long-standing usage. It's the very purpose of an opinion piece to transport the opinion of the writer, not to report on facts. It's also a red herring. In the diff referred to by Holmes you state that you do not believe that any of the reports did do anything but blindly reiterate the Morano blog. So, according to your opinion, none of them can be more reliable than the Morano blog. Do you think that blog is an acceptable BLP source, or do you wikilawyer despite your own better knowledge? To me, it looks as if you are arguing form more than substance at the moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I also say in that diff is that what due diligence I believe reporters to have done is irrelevant to whether a source can be considered reliable. The fact that a dozen respectable publications seem to believe that the quote is accurate, regardless of the work they've done to come to that conclusion (it's probably because they give more credence to the Morano blog than we do), is good enough to satisfy WP:V. In my opinion, the fact that a dozen respectable publications decided to report on this man makes him meet WP:N. I'm really not sure it makes sense to continue arguing here as we're not likely to convince each other and I believe all there is to say has been said. Oren0 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oren0: "What I also say in that diff is that what due diligence I believe reporters to have done is irrelevant to whether a source can be considered reliable." - I'm a bit baffled, but willing to let that stand for itself (as long as its properly attributed). Would you mind to address the problem that the sources (I don't think we will agree on which are respectable ;-) only report on a single event, and contain next to no biographical information? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The email does not become more reliable by other sources repeating it." - I think John as accurately commented on this from the reliability aspect of having secondary sources reference it. But more importantly from the perspective of this AfD, having multiple secondary sources take note of it and publish about it independently DOES increase it's notability. That, in part at least, is exactly what notability is about. --GoRight (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to burst anybody's bubble, but have you actually looked at the list of sources given by Oren above? I just went over it again. While several repeat parts of Theon's statement on global warming, none seems to repeat his bio, or even significant parts of it. What we get is "a former NASA chief" (sic), "Hansen's collegue", "a retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs", but that's about it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been saying all along. This sourcing issue is less relevant to AFD because there are no non-trivial secondary sources about this individual. There's no profile, no background of his career, no interview, or anything. Just a small scattering of bare mentions over a long period of time. Articles should not be based on such passing references, especially not BLP. Cool HandLuke 23:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
good video game players don't make them notable. there are a lot of good game players out there, but not all of them have an article. Vsa222 (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) — Vsa222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]
Confirmed Sockpuppet 24.185.45.183 has done the same edits as Vsa222.
Keep Several sources and the article asserts a good deal more than him being good at video games. Edward321 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I re-added the above vote after it was deleted by 24.185.45.183 in this edit! There has been quite a bit of vote manipulation and sockpuppetry going on. Plastikspork (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It has references and I'd say between his gaming accomplishments and his status as a Survivor contestant, he's sufficiently notable. It's borderline for me, though. JuJube (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable for more than one thing. Plastikspork (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being good at video games (particularly Smash Bros.) doesn't assert notability. JungleFuryPizza (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delEte per above.96.56.70.250 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)— 96.56.70.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep As lame as this guy is, he passes WP:BIO and WP:N as far as I can see. The article has plenty of citations and notable third party sources. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just as we have WP:ATHLETE for folks who play sports professionally, are there any similar criteria for professional gamers? eSports is a significant part of the video game landscape at the moment and seems to be only getting more prolific; some of the above arguments for deletion have tinges of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Poechalkdust (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up, I'm satisfied that this is a Keeper. Poechalkdust (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I found about three or four actually reliable sources amongst the pile of unreliable sources listed. (Yes, I am contending that mlgpro.com is not reliable.) It passes for notability. MuZemike 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the two sources of notability might not be enough individually, Survivor and gaming combined makes him notable. 98.169.44.145 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As above, either of the two reasons for notability here wouldn't be enough for a Wikiepdia article on their own, but together they just about put him over the boundary for notability, with sources that show this. Orbital Delegate (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obivous Keep This nomination is borderline vandalism. Clearly against wikipedia policy to delete to well established, well sourced, notable member of the sport community. On top of that he is a survivor contestant. Note: Other than JungleFuryPizza the rest of the people who requested this article be deleted have a history of vandalism and have used WP:IDONTLIKEIT as an argument. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Jeff Defender (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Keep, a number or sources were found for both topics. Kagetto (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change !vote to speedy keep as an obvious bad-faith nomination. I also strongly suspect meatpuppetry in the least, as I had to revert a speedy tag for G6 here as well as an inappropriate and bad-faith AFD closure here. MuZemike 00:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aren't you glad that we don't count IP !votes 'cos they don't count? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 01:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but oppose speedy. Notability is governed by nontrivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Several deletion votes seem to go "Being good at video games (particularly Smash Bros.) doesn't assert notability". Which is irrelevant, it's coverage in reliable sources that is important. The sources provided in the article are;
dpad.gotfrag, which looks like it is a blog entry.
MLG interview, which is not reliable since there is no way to get the name of AlphaZealot.
Other MLG pages needs log in, since I doubt this is something that one can expect from a well stocked library it fails as inaccessible.
thephoenix, seems reliable, gives nontrivial coverage. But, it makes explicit reference to us, which is a severe problem as for sourcing.
msnbc, referencing associated press. Both reliable, no mention of Hoang though.
cbs, description of him as a cast member for survivor. Probably not to be considered independent.
asianweek, trivial coverage.
meleefc, 404.
smashboards, forum thread, unreliable.
Electronic Gaming Monthly, is reliable. The link is bad so I can't comment on depth of coverage. However a well stocked library can be considered likely to carry this magazine so the bad link does not mean this can't be used as a source.
This list shows the immidiate problem with this article. It has a heavy reliability on unreliable sources. That needs to be fixed.
Giving the Electronic Gaming Monthly the benefit of the doubt as far as depth of coverage is concerned we have 1 reliable source. This fails on the requirement that multiple reliable sources is required. However I consider it likely that EGM is not the only gaming magazine to cover the Super Smash Bros. Melee finals, so other sources is likely to exist. Since deletion should deal with article potential I vote keep. It is possible that BLP1E is an argument for merging, but merging is incidental to AfD. Taemyr (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete under criteria G11. Use of first-person and peacock terms make this obvious promotional material. Marasmusine (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) — nothing indicating why this company might be remarkable in any way. MuZemike 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The title of this page gets 0 Google hits with quotation marks. This leads me to believe it is fiction. TML (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. I doubt Uwe Boll is making a movie from a videogame that doesn't even turn up a ghit. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur that the subject of the article receives no relevant ghits. Based on that, and the fact that the article's description of the game is such that were the description true something should have turned up on Google, I am convinced that this is a hoax article. Franklinville (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) as blatant misinformation (not to mention complete and utter horseshit), which construes pure vandalism. MuZemike 21:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't able to find anything either. SharkD (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not decided on this one yet. In general Local Government politicians (other than capital city mayors) are not notable but she is a member of the Brisbane City Council, the largest LGA in Australia by population, with a population larger than Tasmania. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Brisbane City LGA isn't your typical LGA, and I would assert that any councillor of the BCC is notable. To compare, Owen-Taylor represents about 23,000 voters, while your average member of the South Australian House of Assembly represents around 20,000 voters. This may also be moot, as there seems to be enoughsources that she meets the GNG anyway. Lankiveil(speak to me) 08:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - given the unusual nature of the Brisbane City Council, as well as her seeming prominence within the press (she is referenced pretty frequently by the looks of things). – Toon(talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brisbane City Councilor has got to be as notable as Chicago city councilor, New York city councilor, etc. In other words, perfectly notable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 10:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A song someone made about Christian Bale's outburst. Apparently got mentioned in a few articles (though nearly all of the references are on the outburst, not on the song.) Notable? Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Discussed in a good deal of secondary sources. Will do some more research and expand/add more sources over time as well. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My question is, is the song notable, or is it only notable because it gets mentioned in articles about Christian Bale? If the latter, it would seem to fall under "inherited notability." I'm not sure if there is an article about Bale's outburst, but maybe a section about this piece would be better served there instead? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Law (talk·contribs), below. It has had enough discussion on its own merit that it has its own independent notability. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The MTV article has one sentence about this song; most of the article is dedicated to another song. The Dose.ca article is about a variety of items, and also dedicates but a sentence or two to the song. Digital Spy, two sentences, among a variety of pop culture references to the tantrum. Are we going to have an article about the Despair.com t-shirt? The AV club gives it a sentence. I can go on, but please check the references yourself. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so we can respectfully agree to politely disagree. I happen to agree with Law (talk·contribs) that all together there is a good deal of secondary sources utilized to demonstrate notability. It would seem a back and forth and back and forth on this particular point may not be productive, perhaps we could wait and hear what others in the community think? Cirt (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I wanted to point out that the articles weren't just about this one song. I'll be more than happy to go along with the decision. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the sources in the 'Reception' section demonstrate notability. Lawshoot! 06:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. IT seems to have enough sources to write an article. Whether it violates WP:NOTNEWS i think can only be detirmined with more time.Yobmod (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough context is given to understand, let alone wikify the topic
No sources are used
Although some sources are available, it is still rather difficult to come by usable ones for this case, due to the context issue.
Vague language (i.e. "During the early ages")
Poor grammar/spelling (i.e. "The instruments used in measuremens are known as measurement system.")
In short, I regret having to delete pages such as this, but when this little context is given it is tough to do anything of use with the page, save the possibility that someone here can establish the context adequately. ←Spidern→ 05:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears to be substantially derived from this. The context is industrial measurement and control. WillOakland (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Oakland Avalon (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 04:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable group of houses. CSD A7 is tempting, but doesn't apply to buildings or places. Google searches on both the English and Hindi names of the development in Google reveals very little, and there's little to indicate that this is more than a garden variety residential development. Prod has been vigourously contested by the original author of the page. Lankiveil(speak to me) 04:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable enclave. No reliable sources could be found. Salih(talk) 07:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant group of houses, no sources, reads like spam. Hut 8.5 13:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not notable, no substantial news coverage.--Ped Admi (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Yep, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary either. Seems to be a self-coined neologism for what everyone else calls egocentrism, and the article is itself living proof of it (cf "a blight of society"). The contrived "etymology" could well qualify it as vandalism. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Self-coined neologism. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another attempt to foist a neologism's validity via Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arggh. Neologisms. Fribbler (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not notable, no significant news coverage upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided, either for Mr. Pit or for his record label, Well Mixed Records, is independent and/or reliable; seems like self-promotion. BiruitorulTalk 03:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, as far as I'm concerned. Vanity text with no valid references, and none to be found. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. -Zeus- [t|c] 03:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability -Zeus- (t|c) 03:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ruins of Undermountain, unless better sourcing is found. Also, per WP:BEFORE, did the nominator attempt to search for sources before nominating? -Drilnoth (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is the core location of a computer game, at least two books, and a series of online articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to them or add them to the article. Until then, the article does not even bother to assert real world notability. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being a location for fictional works is not enough. What evidence is there of discussion in the real world about the setting? -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the article has been tagged since September 2006. How long are we supposed to wait for these supposed sources to be added? -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But having the tag sit there for 2 1/2 years while editors obviously interested in the subject fail to fix it, it suddenly becomes my job to look for sources because I feel the article manifestly fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines? Waving essays around does not make the subject of this article any more notable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The D&D project had actually slowed down for awhile... for the past year and a half or so, they weren't able to really spend time on this type of article (look through the archives at WT:DND for more info on that). The project just recently got going again, and we have been working on this sort of article. The D&D project also consissts of about 1700 articles, and has only had three or four active members at any given time, so I don't think that any of us noticed the long-standing tag on this one. We have been getting all of these less-notable articles merged together (WP:PRESERVEing information while not giving everything its own article), but just hadn't gotten to this one.
And no, it doesn't become your job to look for sources because you feel that "the article manifestly fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines". Nominating it at AFD without looking for sources is the issue, per WP:BEFORE. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mattinbgn and -Zeus-. Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major location in the Forgotten Realms setting. Please tell me this is not being nominated for deletion just because of a Grawp attack? Failing a keep, then merge into List of regions in Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it was nominated for deletion because there was no evidence of notability required. The vandalism merely brought the article to my attention. Merely stating "major location in the Forgotten Realms setting" does not add up to a rationale to keep. Find multiple independent and reliable sources (i.e. not official D&D sources, or blogs, or forums etc.) asserting notability and the article probably will be kept. The suppoters of keeping this article would do a lot better to make less inferences about my motives for nominating and more time finding and adding sources. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment: WP:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons has been putting quite a bit of work lately into merging together less notable articles, like this one. In fact, I'd be happy to merge it to the logical List of regions in Faerûn right away. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet notability requirements --VStalk 06:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did you search for sources before !voting? Per WP:INTROTODELETE: "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." (emphasis mine) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The D&D project has about 1700 articles under its perview. We've been upgrading about five per month to GA, and merging about 30 per month to various articles. It may seem like deleting one is hepling us, but its really taking the time of about five merges. We've had several RfCs about this, and hopefully we don't go to arbcom. Whoever closes this, if you decide on a merge, notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and we'll take care of it for you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yah, I'd merge this right now if the AFD tag wasn't on it. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was mentioning it for future readers of the discussion, since it wasn't specifically mentioned above. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because wouldn't nominating articles for deletion immediately after a Grawp attack provoke further action from him/her/them, since their disruption lead to further discussion and controversy? -Drilnoth (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; just a thought. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional location which doesn't appear to have received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. "Sources" provided in the discussion above do not establish notability and appear to simply be listings of official products where this location appears. Article is one blurb about the date of creation and then a bunch of in-universe details and plot tidbits. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd gotten banned for socking. No? Shemeska (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request: If this is to be deleted, could it instead by userfied to User:Drilnoth/Sandbox/Undermountain so that I can take some more time to work on improving it? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Nobody (talk·contribs) has been putting some work into the article since the AFD started. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drilnoth noting it occurs across several media. Agree sources are needed though. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Drilnoth. Edward321 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient material, Major fictional locations in major fictions are notable, and there is no consensus they need 3rd party references. The discussion of who created it is sufficient real world context. DGG (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - DGG's argument that major fictional locations do not need 3rd party references is as stands, and thanks to A Nobody's oft underappreciated efforts [27] has been expanded and sourced nicely. McJeff (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, A Nobody, McJeff, Casliber. Ikip (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Ed:Drilnoths good faith request to continue improvement and Ed:A Nobody's efforts. Ed:Peregrine FIscher seems to be willing to facilitate a merge with existing articles which also works...--Buster7 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - used in many products over several years by dozens of different authors. Web Warlock (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe even per WP:SNOW at this point, as it concerns the titular location in multiple works and is at worst redirectable, but at best serves as a navigational means to other articles. It meets our verifiability guidelines by being covered in multiple reliable published sources and is notable by any reasonable standard as a titular location in part of a mainstream and popular franchise familiar to millions around the world. And in event, we don't delete based on WP:JNN or WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of regions in Faerûn--LexCorp (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep and Move to KAAI (correct call sign).- NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 05:36
Note: This was a Non-Admin Closure.
Keep. I added some relevant external links to show that it is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Licensed radio stations such as this one are normally considered notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to KAAI and delete KAAI's current status as a redirect to Air1 per naming guidelines. FCC licensed station, notability is assured. Nate•(chatter) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/Move - All radio station articles are inherently notable (which has been cited numerous times in other AFDs). Move the article to KAAI, its correct callsign, per Nate. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 7, 2009 @ 06:38
Note - I have updated the page further, linking it with the market template...updating the infobox and adding some history. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 7, 2009 @ 07:09
Strong Keep as an FCC-licensed full power broadcast radio station which guidelines and years of precedent show to be presumed notable. This article should be renamed after it's kept to the actual call letters. - Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move to KAAI. Definitely notable, I was searching for 98.5, not KAAI. Matt(Talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. All FCC-licensed radio stations are presumed notable. Mandsford (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as excessively narrow list. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 8TV (Malaysia), as there is no reason this information cannot be contained in the article on the station itself. This list is even more informative than the Indonesian TV program lists previously nominated for deletion, which were eventually redirected to the appropriate station article. DHowell (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DHowell. And when we say merge, we don't mean keep this as a separate article, we mean merge it into an existing article. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic seems to fit perfectly inline with the other Articles in Category:Lists of television series by network. Is the Nom implying ALL of these lists are Cruft? Sorry, but it looks like an Edit issue to me, not a deletion issue. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I am happy to see the consideration for userfying this article, and I agree it's appropriate, but I will only userify to an editor who has expressed an interest in having the article. If anyone's interested, feel free to ask. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
USERFY back to author as even his provided sources indicate filmimg won't begin until March. No doubt we'll hear more soon due to the production team behind the project, but currently the article is a just a tad premature. No prejudice about it returning once filming has begun and it gets better covergae. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and userfy if requested by author. Article does not meet WP:NFF guideline at this time. PC78 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Administrative clarification: Merger is not deletion, so Rowdy the Ant's close to merge is a speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into a "List of VeggieTales CDs". There's no use in the article. So it should be Deleted of Merged to a "List of VeggieTales CDs". Rowdy the Ant (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, no reliable sources/reviews found. Delete and merge is not acceptable per GFDL, and if it's not individually notable, I don't really see a point in merging it and others to a list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The albums are marginally notable in that at least one reliable source has paid attention to them per below. Given that these are on the edge of notability, I would accept a List of VeggieTales albums or somesuch. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep[28], [29] (translation from the German). Not a lot, but do notice that this compilation album has entirely blue-linked groups. For a main-stream album this would probably be enough to keep. Hobit (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no objection to a merge to a list article. Obviously merge and delete isn't acceptable per the Hammer. Hobit (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I am always willing to userfy, but I'm not going to force it on the author. Just drop a note on my talk page if interested. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per Michael. This way editors don't have to start over from scratch when filming begins. Ikip (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NF and WP:NFF. Minimal sources offer no indication that principal photography has commenced for this film, or that the production is otherwise notable. PC78 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to User:Sibry/ 7/7 (film) as notability may become easier to source nearer to release of film. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to creators page, so information is available later when filming begins. Ikip (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an assertion of notability, but it's thin. "Flight Level 324" gets a very small handful of Google hits. "FL324" gets a few more, but they include product codes, addresses, and even some actual information on the flight level a certain Boeing 737 once attained. There is nothing in the way of reliable sources about the movie, let alone the person. --N Shar (talk·contribs) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author. A current problem is with her name, as is is more commen than not and returms many incorrect hits[31]. The student film has won awatds... but we need a few sources that speak about the director.... and not the film. Perhaps the author can provide such? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 01:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's not yet notable, although obviously off to a good start. The page for American University film awards is here, where she won the editing/production awards mentioned in the article. Nothing here that meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE that I can see. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After good faith searches have been unable to find any coverage whatsoever of him or his books in reliable sources. Even Amazon.com doesn't have a review under it's product descriptions for his books--a rarity. The significant coverage in non-reliable sources is limited as well. There is not a single hit for him in Google News. Bongomatic 03:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It seems like there ought to be more out there, but I can't find any news source on the individual. If it's out there it would be nice to see, but without it I don't think this is notable enough. Shadowjams (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I agree, the sources did not confirm the subject's notability, or in the case of the NYT reference, its existence. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a handful of citations, but the ones referring to the organization are not reliable. The other three are about the founder of the organization. There are about 250 Google hits and all seem to be to content created by the organization itself. Fails WP:N. --N Shar (talk·contribs) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 01:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All sources for the article are either not independent of the organization, are not reliable, or have only trivial mentions of the organization. Notability is not demonstrated. --Megaboz (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. – wodup – 11:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Rhode Island theater company. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 (non-notable organizations). Firestorm (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, so tagged. Cquan(after the beep...) 09:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was contested (actually, it was taken off the page with no explanations), so I'm taking this to AfD. Nothing really special here: Same old WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yep, same old story, same old song and dance. No sources, no release date, no charts, no awards, no covers by multiple artists, not enough information to grow beyond a stub.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Songs by notable people aren't usually notable, and this goes doubly so for songs that haven't been released yet. Firestorm (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloody heck, are we going to have to go through this every time Demi Lovato looks like releasing a song????? Per Vic, same old WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus (non-admin closure). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This is an article about a word; it should be at wiktionary. Let them straighten out whether the theory about its origin being pushed here is correct. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. This doesn't seem very controversial at all.Firestorm (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary already has an entry for this, though it can be expanded with stuff from this article. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prod contested a while ago. While looking for reliable sources to establish this publishing house's notability, I found nothing of substance, but I also came across this site, which states that the main contributor to this article is also the publishing house's marketing director. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a carefully built walled garden for self-promotion. Delete. ThuranX (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the people who used the type& what they used it for--see the end of that article-- he may have been a notable typographer. A typeface can be notable. DGG (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known Israeli publisher, type, etc... --Shuki (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable; very well know publisher. Jon513 (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep and cleanup. The concerns I expressed have been addressed. The one thing that is stopping me from withdrawing is the remaining Delete !vote. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this legitimate article about a legitimate and well-known Judaic publisher of important Bibles especially. The valid categories of Category:Bible versions and translations and Category:Jewish printing and publishing have now been added. The Koren Type is legitimate because they did introduce a very new type of Hebrew typeface that had not been used until then. Eliyahu Koren is thus notable too. Any and all self-promotion can be edited out and Wikified, but they are all objectively WP:N and there are WP:RS for all of them. Note also, this is a new entry [32], and it's a pretty good one, and the nominator is advised to follow Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. In addition, a simple queery at WP:TALKJUDAISM asking for some input with experienced Judaic editors there would have helped clarify this matter and not brought it to this vote. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, WP:OR, and there are already english grammar articles. Shadowjams (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, because the article is still under construction, although I don't believe it will be edited in a way that it becomes appropriate for Wikipedia. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Unless it overlaps with another article to the point where it is pointless to have both, it seems like this could potentially be a useful article. It is too early to say whether it will fulfil that potential. Lets give it a chance and see if it goes anywhere. If it doesn't it can always be deleted or merged later. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The under construction isn't a reason to keep, and as a practical matter in 5 days the article hasn't improved to something useful it should be removed anyway. This isn't a speedy, so the concern over deleting too early seems misplaced. Articles are evaluated as is, not on their future potential. Shadowjams (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but the article was created yesterday. I know it is a recreation, but even if we consider this fact, the ((underconstruction)) tag was added some hours ago only. In that case, the future potential of the article should be taken into account, because the overall quality of it may change quickly and considerably. Anyway, as you said, we don't need to be concerned about the aricle getting deleted too early, because AfD discussions can last for a few days. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that it could put the author off doing further work on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, the AfD tag in the article says "Feel free to edit the article", and the warning on his talk page says "you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns", so I guess there's nothing else we can do. Anyway, the author already said he's going to take a Wikibreak until February 16, because "everybody hates him for trying to be helpful". It probably means he will not edit the article, and now there's little (if any) chance of it to keep. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure how other editors feel, but I'm usually reluctant to edit an article that's subject of an AFD unless I'm very confident it will be kept. JulesH (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but the editor should be pointed to the SYNTAX project; he might be a good fit there and enjoy helping out. ThuranX (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I said this at my comment last comment above. Not a nice solution for this issue, but it seems the article will stay as it is. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists only of wlinks with (in some cases incorrect) explanatory definitions. This topic is already covered at English grammar, and the article is therefore redundant. Deor (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title doesn't fit content. English grammar covered (Duplicate). Nothing to merge that will help the other page. Ddawkins73 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if English grammar didn't exist, this was going nowhere. "The elements of grammar" is simply too vague a term (nevermind the unwarranted definite article given that no language is specified), and it's handled here in the most pedestrian manner, like the author had a fifth-grade grammar book as the only reference. But, since we're having to decide whether the topic is notable the style, content, and promise of the article as such are irrelevant. Fortunately, while the topic of grammar is notable in many ways, "The elements of grammar" is not a viable topic. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not yet finished, the article appears to be treating the subject in substantially greater depth than the section dedicated to similar purposes in English grammar, which lacks any treatment of the difference between dependent and independent clauses (discussing only independent ones in section on clausal syntax) and hence not even touching upon the subject of run-on sentences and comma splices. I would suggest retitling the article to Elements of English syntax, and once it is approaching completion listing it as a "main article" for the appropriate section. JulesH (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have trouble seeing how this treats "the subject" with any greater depth than is already handled in English grammar, not to mention, what could be very reasonably covered by that subject. At best this material (which has been transformed since the original Afd) would best be incorporated into that subject. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "transformation" you refer to consists merely of copy/pastes of the leads of the corresponding WP articles, again showing the redundancy of this one. Deor (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article is the article. There is no such thing as "THE" elements of grammar, really, because there are different kinds of grammar (and I don't mean just grammar of different languages). The elements of TG, if such there be, are not the elements of the grammar of Sentence diagramming. The very fact that the article has no lead, or even a description of what "elements of grammar" means, is indicative. You could add a million more of these "elements" and still not get an article. Moreover, "comma splice" is not an ELEMENT of grammar--at best it's a rule of grammar, but really, it's a rule of grammarians; nothing in the English grammar as a grammatical system prohibits it, and in Dutch and other languages it simply doesn't exist. When the author writes, "It is generally considered to be a grammatical error," they are absolutely correct (if only because it is copied from Run-on sentence)--and that very statement puts the lie to the whole idea of the article. Besides, there is nothing to incorporate: the stuff comes from other articles, it's already there. (Comma splice here perhaps warranted because the second independent clause is so short.) Again, the problem is conceptual: "the elements of grammar" is an empty phrase. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All those things I have listed are part of "The Elements of Grammar". I know for sure because I have an English class 3rd period at my high school. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the article, at best, "The elements of a high school English grammar class, 3rd period." Drmies (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English takes place in other periods and is not only in high school, smarty. I know what I'm talking about; don't push me. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your article offers no grammatical insight that goes past the high-school level. I'm sure you know what you're talking about, and so do I. Address the substantial issues before you start namecalling or threatening. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is currently in expansion, but it's not keep-worthy; and the name and concept just doesn't seem article worthy. I suggest we merge the article unto Euegene's userspace by turning it into a subpage. Elbutler (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing wrong with it per se, but is redundant to English grammar and the articles that it discusses. Black Kite 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "The Elements of Grammar" listed in that article... - Eugene Krabs (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there is no such thing. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is too! What are you, stupid? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Verb phrases, noun phrases etc are elements of grammar. If you want more than that - Phrase structure rules. Nothing personal, but almost all of it is already covered elsewhere: Dependent clause .
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Delete: redundant (in that there are many articles already on grammar), poorly written & containing significant amount of probable-OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete content fork that is worse than the existing material it's forking from.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is an unneccesary content fork from another article. This particular article presupposes to discuss all elements of grammar, starting with phrases and sentences. The presentation is so dull that it makes one want to say "ain't". Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant fork. The redirects to it also need to be deleted. Elements of grammar, for example. The other possibility would be redirects to English grammar. Enigmamsg 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete. My weak keep above was conditional on the article not being duplicative of existing articles. It is now clear that it is duplicative so I withdraw the weak keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant even if improved. Editors who wish to expand on the topic of English grammar should do so in the appropriate article. Bongomatic 18:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic how to article. Also, original research. Shadowjams (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold off for now. Yes, it looks like it will be WP:OR. But it's what, about half an hour old? And the editor has a construction tag on it. Let's just give him some breathing room, okay? Unschool 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm now satisfied that this isn't going anywhere. Unschool 06:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
suggest Shadowjams, withdraw the AfD, until the editor has had a chance. It can be resubmitted later if appropraite. Jeepday (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article based on pedagogical conventions inflicted on children (trust me, I'm employed in the industry), such as this, that have nothing to do with real composition of prose. Let's not pretend that there's anything amenable to encyclopedic treatment here. Deor (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete English Grammar already covered. How To's (shriek - apostrophe mistake!!!) are not for Wikipedia. Necessarily POV & OR / unreliable sources, since it's a style guide. Ddawkins73 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deor is correct. To put it another way, "The six traits of writing" can only exist as the name of a product, for instance, or a trademarked method, since there is no such thing as "THE six traits." There are lots of traits of writing (or few, or none, depending on how you look at things), and this here can only be an encyclopedic article if there is something called this. There isn't, unless it's something like what Deor submitted--and that can hardly be, or it would have been mentioned in this stub. Sorry to be so long-winded, but I'm in this business also. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the slow down sentiment, but frankly it's not a reason to withdraw an Afd (if that were even a recognized approach). There's a built in 5 day slow-down on Afds, and the afds as a general rule are interested in the topic and not the article itself. This topic is not inherently notable. It doesn't come from a book or other academic source, it isn't unique (we already have grammar and writing articles that are encyclopedic). More importantly, the basic topic at best would suggest a how-to article. Five days is a long time to improve an article, and if at the end it is, then the consensus will suggest it shouldn't be kept. However, right now, and I suspect in 5 days, it won't be. Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A respectable viewpoint, to be sure, Shadow, but unless something is clearly material for a CSD (which I recognize some have said of this article), I just think that it's bad sportsmanship to nominate an article for deletion a mere eight minutes after its creation. I can certainly understand concern, once the article comes across one's radar, that the article might "slip past" our eyes, but there are other solutions, such as watchlisting. Or how about simply keeping a list of articles to revisit, on one's own userpage, with a time stamp. You (or any other editor watching your list) could go back and check on the article after, say, six hours, and then propose an AfD if it was still trash. I know you did nothing wrong, and you have certainly been shown here to have been correct. I'm just suggesting an alternate way of handling such matters. In any event, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my (temporary) objection. Unschool 06:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no articulation of notability, appears to be an OR (or at least unsourced) essay-outline or perhaps a 'how to'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The issue really isn't that the article is a "how-to" ... this article could be transformed into a description of the teaching method described, as this appears to be an overview of the writing education used in the Madison, Wisconsin school system. The real question is whether we need an article on writing education as practiced in Madison, Wisconsin, and I don't think that qualifies under WP:N without some strong evidence that the Madison program is widely used as a basis for educational programs or widely discussed.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only in Wisconsion. What are you, crazy? It's used in all middle and high schools across the world. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do you have a WP:RS for this sweeping claim? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the fact that it's taught in the high school that I go to in my city, smarty-pants! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's two. Four million or so to go. I know they don't use it here ... our course in English writing is conducted in Papiamentu, and generally compares and contrasts it with Dutch.—Kww(talk) 16:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's zero, as a RS was cited for neither. :) But the egocentricity of "it's taught in the high school that I go to in my city" = "all middle and high schools across the world" is quite breathtaking. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A1 (no context). caknuck°is a silly pudding 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at presence this article loks like a glov of original research, buit i did osme quick gogoling and it turns out that this concept is used throughout the us as a Teahcing Tool for the education of writing. For example, it smentioned here at the Edina tteaching website, here at the Center for Teaching Advancement webpage, against a Teaching That Makes Sense training website, again here at the Reynolds Institute, a prestigious institutaiton, and it even has a book atout which is avialable on this lit website. I am reviewing WP:RS to determine whether or not htise constitute reliable sources; if anyone can help me decide or adjucdicate this matter it may help to inform this debate, thank you for your consideration. 04:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources can be a red herring on these sorts of articles. I've noticed that a lot in my short time here.
Language related articles belong to the category Linguistics, which tells you who the reliable sources are.
Teaching practices don't necessarily constitute human knowledge. What's taught and what's known are two different things. For practical reasons, as much as other reasons I won't go into. Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i see waat your saying, but a lot of these votes essem to be a critcism of the concept of the "six traits of writing". i agree that this is a kind of sily concept but the point of AFD is to delete articles that fail to be notable/have reliable sources or something like that, not to delete articles because we think that there subjects are silly. i am personally cinlined towards deletion at this point but if someone can find evidence that points out that this is some kind of big meme / concept in American writing education as has been stated before then an article can be reconstructed to ofocus on those points. Smith Jones (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps an article could be written about the concept of those "six traits", from a critical outside perspective, if it turned out that was a notable meme of American writing education, with academic literature covering its history, motivation and so on. But that's clearly not what was planned here. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless one can demonstrate skills as a writer, one should not attempt to instruct other people about writing. Mandsford (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add momentum to the gathering snowball, this topic is intrinsically unencyclopedic, and the current version is (by necessity) unsourced, and beyond redemption. Bongomatic 18:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear whether the subject is notable in her own right. Article is poorly referenced, relying on non-RS sources. Being engaged to a famous person does not automatically make somebody notable, nor does appearing in public with them. Singing with them may do, but I would prefer to see some evidence of a notable independent musical or business career. She gets about 164,000 hits in Google but when you subtract those that also contain "Bocelli" it falls to only 800! These hits show some sign of an independent musical career but it doesn't look like a notable one. DanielRigal (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted in the nom, she of course has many Google hits. Every single one of them that I see directly ties her to Bocelli. When I subtract out Bocelli, all I get are auto-generated pages like this[33], and this[34]. Even the article Amore (Andrea Bocelli album) only lists her as a vocalist on a single song. Not notable. Unschool 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article openly admits to using a fansite as a source. There are no instances of non-trivial coverage in WP:RS. Firestorm (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete low notability on her own; most is WP:INHERITED. JJL (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's creator was offered the chance to clarify whether this individual was a backup singer or a duettist and apparently declined (see the article's talk page). If she's more than a backup singer, that can be clarified in the future by recreating this article with appropriate references; none of her personal accomplishments other than that seems to contribute any notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite WP:BIO. Publisher is non-notable and published work has received very little attention. JaGatalk 02:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked Google and nothing reasonable that wasn't already mentioned showed. So really I am voting delete per the nominator; I don't see notability either. K50DudeROCKS! 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's potential to redirect the name to Sublight Records as a search term. HidingT 13:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has published works, meets WP:BIO, has clearly asserted notability.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepDelete. The subject seems notable, though in this case it's hard to separate reliable sources from the more "blog-like" ones. decltype 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that he might meet WP:GNG, but I no longer think this is the case. decltype 05:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article that suggests this meets the WP:CREATIVE portion of WP:BIO. "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors"? No, the article doesn't say this. " known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique"? No. "created ... significant or well-known work ... which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? No. work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"? No. --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his published works seem notable enough Dream Focus (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. "Seem notable enough" for what part of our notability guidelines? --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, role in Sublight Records plus further comics career allows us to inform readers looking for information, a purpose of an encyclopedia, surely. Article is verifiable and neutral. HidingT 11:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit to concerns over whether this pushes, um, I'm not sure what we call it now in all good faith. The use of Wikipedia as a marketing tool? HidingT 15:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having a myspace page does not make you notable. Jack Merridew 15:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No but founding a record company which has been named among the top 25 indie record labels of 2006 by XLR8R magazine just might. HidingT 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I'm not sure one mention by XLR8R magazine qualifies as "significant critical attention" per WP:CREATIVE, and (2) that's a better argument for the notability of Sublight Records than that of Aaron Rintoul. --JaGatalk 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, really. Certainly it pertains to Sublight Records, but then it also pertains to Rintoul, given Rintoul was interviewed on occasion due to founding Sublight. I certainly think it's a borderline case, I just wanted to make sure the debate was framed along the right level, and that this wasn't just viewed as an article about someone with a myspace page. HidingT 23:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with assessment of 'WP:CORP' as the problem here, no notability asserted. ThuranX (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the above, fails WP:CORP due to lack of notability (as per a Google search), and lack of asserted notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Found while cleaning broken links, and noticed very few to no external reliable sources to establish notability. There are a few links to local TV interviews about Wax, but no citations of patents, or other notable (cited and verifiable) accomplishments. Plastikspork (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Substantial and multiple local TV interviews should be enough to establish notability, I would think. But I don't know how easy they would be to verify.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I suppose in the field of wax hes' notable. Article has citations and proof of recognition in the world for his actions, i don't know that patents alone could be a mark of NOTE, he does have the RW sources though. Not terribly exciting to the casual reader though. ThuranX (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The invention itself, plus the media mentions, pushes this article to where I'm comfortable keeping it, but I can see valid arguments for deletion as well. That said, the sourcing is terrible, and most of the sources aren't really sources, but external links. There HAS to be something more out there for this individual, and I think we are probably having a dead-tree-format vs. digital divide issue in sourcing here. Can we get some help from somebody in environmental circles with university library access to check up and see if they can find anything more? It doesn't help that the law professor William E. Nelson is clogging the search results. Perhaps he needs an article himself. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It feels as if there should be something out there on him, but I couldn't locate any more that the other contributors here. Actually there were more hits for the film producer of this name. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 23:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's clearly recorded with some significant artists but at the same time doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC and has no significant coverage in external sources. A musician does not inherit notability by being a member of a notable musical group (per se) or working with notable musicians. --Michael WhiteT·C 02:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 02:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After good faith searches have been unable to find any coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. Even Amazon.com doesn't have a review under it's product description--a rarity. The significant coverage non-reliable sources is limited as well. There is not a single hit for this in Google News Bongomatic 03:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Reviews found [35][36]. I don't know how prominent the Ennie nomination makes it. Ray (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. An Ennie award would be somewhat notable, in RPG circles, but the nomination doesn't mean much. On the other hand, RPGNet reviews are sufficient for WP:N and WP:V. (RPGNet will review almost any RPG-related longer work, but they do give in-depth coverage and they are independent, so I think we have to agree the core policies are met if one extra source exists; which, in this case, it does.)--S MarshallTalk/Cont 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has now an independent source. He has also appeared in the TV-channel Suryoyo Sat several times.[37][38]The TriZ (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no major independent verifiable sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No reliable sources support the notability of this software. No improvements to the article in three years. Ghits on topic are ambiguous. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c) 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about [39][40] ? Compuserve Nagivator (the article states this as an alternate name for NavCIS) is certainly notable, if you remember paying $20/hr for CI$ access, back before people got into the internet, and instead had BitNet and MCImail accounts. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Keep BTW. There are something like 40 books written on this subject (atleast partially) 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Please. This program is clearly notable based on availible sources and historical significance. Wikipedia does not have deadlines, if it is unsourced but can be sourced, it doesn't merit deletion. Keep, there is no issue here that five seconds on Google can't solve. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Ghits are ambigious because the name changed. Try "Compuserve Navigator" instead. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, reason was Nonotable motivational speaker with unsourced bio. Procedural nomination. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 14:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the PROD reason is good: promotional article, no independent references, and on a quick search I don't find enough to make me think he meets Notability (people). JohnCD (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, no good sources. Graymornings(talk) 04:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Subject has several accomplishments that don't individually rise to the level of notability. Head of the local chapter of a marginally notable national speaking organization, columnist in a marginally notable magazine, author of a non-notable book; inadequate reliable sourcing seals the deal. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This autobiography does not provide citations to backup notability, and Google searches are difficult to parse due to the single name, but it appears there is no relevant information on this artist other than his own website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless the article is updated in the near future to establish notability. Otherwise it opens the way for every wannabe artist on the planet. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find independent sources for this artist. Doesn't appear that he's acheived notability, won any awards, etc. Graymornings(talk) 04:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tagged as needing improvement since May of last year, still fails WP:MUSIC and general bio guidelines too. JBsupreme (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I would consider the reference in the article reliable, all I could find were reprints or translations of the same interview. Not quite enough to meet WP:MUSIC#C1. He does get a mention at Allmusic, but there is no bio, nor are there any reviews. If it does get deleted, I'm not opposed to recreation if more sources come to light. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His company seems notable for its involvement with space tourism (although it seems to have dropped out of sight for now), but I don't see anything that establishes his personal notability per WP:BIO. JaGatalk 15:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable as an individual. JBsupreme (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability. There is nothing special about this particular Blu-Ray player KelleyCook (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Presuming notable technology is not taken to include "every single model of standard home equipment manufactured ever", delete can be the only option, on the evidence of the article. Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I wrote this article (around a year ago), I thought this player would be notable because it was the first player (that was not a computer drive) to fully implement Blu-ray's final standard profile (Profile 1.1). I am not sure of this, and if it is not sufficient to establish notability, I have no problem if the article is deleted. J.delanoygabsadds 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it had said "First HD Blue Ray player" or something, then I would have said "Keep". First "Profile 1.1" doesn't have general meaning. It's technical jargon. I even skipped over "Bonus View" I think when I read first time. Maybe that makes it notable. I don't know. What does Bonus View do? Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. It isn't notable for being the first player to spin its giblets at the appropriate half-turn clockwise. If it was the first Blue-ray player it would be, but minor spec compliance does not confer notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nomination and comments above indicate a complete lack of understanding of the notability guideline. The guideline is not whether the topic is important or special but whether there are good sources for the topic. Such sources are abundant for this topic and the article is extensively referenced. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree with your characterization both of the article, and of my analysis... I don't think the sources prove notability in this case. I'm analyzing the sources by number in the article below:
1: Trivial mention. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
2: Unable to retrieve.
3: Not independant, Panasonic's website. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
4: Looks like some sort of aggregator of reviews. Unreliable. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
5: Actual review from a source of questionable (bloglike) reliability. Judgment call, and I don't think it is reliable.
6: Actual review from a source of questionable (bloglike) reliability. Judgment call, and I don't think it is reliable.
7: Valid source for proving notability under WP:Notability, although it doesn't provide any indication of why the product is notable, just that it exists.
8: Valid source for proving notability under WP:Notability, although it doesn't provide any indication of why the product is notable, just that it exists.
9: Product link at Amazon. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
10: Amazon sales rank. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
While #7 & #8 may be used to prove notability, all they do is create a presumption of notability, a presumption which I believe is rebutted by the fact that there is nothing notable about the product that the sources are supporting. (See WP:GNG). The mere fact that the product exists does not merit encyclopedia inclusion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the points made by Jo7hs2, but also - I don't care what I don't understand. Just because the guidelines are way over my intelligence level and I could never hope to get my little head around them, the fact would remain that I would consider the article too trivial for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Even if what I said before the comma were true, it wouldn't necessarily prevent me from understanding what the guidelines are there for (WP:RIGHT_TO_USE_BRAIN_INSTEAD_OF_WPs) - "making Wikipedia a great encyclopedia." imo bloating Wikipedia doesn't help it. Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems that opinions such as yours are based upon the idea that the topic should be important in some way in order to be notable. This is not the case. WP:N says clearly, "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity...". And so we have numerous articles on minor topics such as Basidiobolus ranarum - an obscure fungus found in frogshit. You seem to think that we should be deleting articles such as this in order to reduce the size of Wikipedia. If so, we should start with the articles which have no sources, not the one we discuss here which has several. It is the existence of sources which establish this topic's right to be here and this is the essential point of WP:N. Dislike of DVD players per se is not adequate reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, rather than seem, let me clarify what notability means to me. A topic which might impart useful knowledge (as opposed to information) of potential general interest. Potential general interest would be:
# well known generally
# very important within a specialized scholarly field
# well known within a culturally important but not general field (e.g Music: operas we never watch and singers we've never heard of, Art: paintings we've never heard of, Sport: Romanian football captains most of the US and non-sports fans have never heard of, Computer games)
"Blue Ray players" is not a culturally important field. "Technology" is, but then common sense says minor specs of Blue Ray Players isn't noteworthy.
Quote all the WPs you like. That is not a stupid idea of what should be in an encyclopedia, nor is it ignorant. Whether you agree or not.
As a general point, I think it's best to only use guidelines to contend a point as a last resort, or when the person you are replying to is in a distinct minority in the discussion so far. That's not the case here. Guidelines are a reflection of consensus, not a substitute for them. That's not a Wikipedia point, but a general one.
As another, which could have avoided this distraction: It's best to try to avoid stating assumptions about how others are reasoning. Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no conensus (non-admin closure). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:DICDEF - read the reference, all it states is what the term means not that these were a group of identifiable people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:POLITICIAN is a SNG that expands the GNG; if it meets GNG, the rest of the guidelines be damned (well, not really, but you catch my drift.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It did make the papers, though. WP:GNG. DGG (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it only made the papers because he was a candidate: per WP:POLITICIAN that doesn't give him notability, and no other notability is suggested. JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as temporary news coverage for a specific election does not confer notability. Newspapers have a duty to report all the candidates, but putting oneself forward in an election does not therefore become automatic notability. Weak because i'm suprised someone would attempt a senate seat without doing anything notable before, but i don't know enough US politics to know if this is normal, or to find other sources. Yobmod (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Candidate ran for Ohio 13th district seat in the US House of Representatives, not the US Senate. It isn't unprecedented for a senate candidate to have little political experience or public recognition, especially when nominations occur, however it is substantially more common in the House, as it is the lower house. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Unremarkable candidate, but he was a major party nominee for national office, which is not nothing. I could see this one going either way, so WP:NOTPAPER. Ray (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am convinced by Yobmod's reasoning. ThuranX (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No"? No what? I don't think I've ever seen a simple "no" like that on an AfD before. Unschool 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No" to Unschool's proposed redirect target. --Metropolitan90(talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I suppose it might be too much to expect humor to convey easily on the talk page. But if that was viewed as a serious proposal for a redirect, then maybe I should just stay in the mainspace and away from the talk pages. Unschool 02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't acheived anything of note beyond failing to be elected. No lasting notability. Graymornings(talk) 04:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep despite being minor losing candidate because:
1) Received coverage in media due to candidacy, and was a major party nominee for the election. The Akron Beacon-Journal sources in the article provide significant coverage, and there is at least one seperate source that I was able to turn up in a 10-second GS that at least puts a mention in a national (USA Today) newspaper. It's just a weak bio, but it adds additional support: http://asp.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/Index.aspx?sp=OH&oi=H
2) WP:POLITICIAN may say that running for office does not confer notability in itself, but it has an exception that overrides that when the subject of an article meets the standard (WP:GNG/WP:Notability) notability test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." In this case, there is sufficient coverage in multiple, reliable, independant sources that rises above the level of triviality, and therefore the "mere running/mere officeholding" test fails.
2) "WP:NOTPAPER, and via that logic, cross-checked with my interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN's suggestion that meeting the standard notability test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" is sufficient alone to make a candidate worthy of inclusion even if their mere status as a candidate/official does not itself confer that notability. Losing does not automatically erase the fact that during the election, the candidate WAS notable. Therefore, the subject of the article meets the basic notability test, based on the fact that there IS such coverage.
3) Now, one could argue that WP:BLP1E applies in a case where a candidate is notable only for the election, but I would argue that WP:BLP1E does not apply because the sources cover the CANDIDATE, not merely the ELECTION in this case, and therefore the sources themselves establish that the candidate is worthy of a BLP. You can see a similar argument by Guy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_8#Alternate_wording_for_new_addition see specifically "If the external sources do not set out to be primarily about the person, then neither should our article." The obvious converse of that is that when the external sources do set out to be about the person, then the article should be about the person, not the event, negating WP:BLP1E. The argument that he was only covered because of the election should not automatically impose WP:BLP1E because the coverage did not merely mention his in discussing the election, but covered him directly. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4) Wikipedia shouldn't have a memory hole effect with regards to losing candidates. They were notable during the election, and notability is measured at the time it is aquired, and never diminishes for WP:Notability sake even after the politician has faded from the public scene. I'm a firm believer that losing candidates should not be deleted after the election so long as they were initially notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I'm suggesting a keep, the article could use some revision. I'd recommend moving the election result tables to either any Ohio 2008 congressional election article, or to the district article, and make the article more about the candidate, as the sources provide a decent bio. A simple mention of the election results would suffice, little tables are excessive. I'd be happy to fix the article if it is kept. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does WP:NOTPAPER have anything to do with this article? That just says that Wikipedia can do things that paper encyclopedias can't, and that isn't a free pass for inclusion. Tavix(talk) 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously WP:NOTPAPER isn't a free pass for inclusion, andt I can see how my inclusion of that in my argument muddies things. I've redacted that portion of my argument so that it doesn't distract from the point of that paragraph. However, it was on my mind because it was mentioned previously, and in this case I think it is important to consider, because of the conflict that WP:BLP1E creates. On one hand, the individual would be notable under WP:Notability minus WP:BLP1E, however if one argues that WP:BLP1E applies in this case (I've already argued it doesn't), then I think it is worthwhile to note that WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTPAPER appear opposed at least in the case of losing politicians. As it pertains to politicians, WP:BLP1E creates a scenario where individuals who lose an election may be deleted for "lost" notability, which reads an awful lot like a "paper" rule based on space requirements. However, that goes far beyond this AfD, and really belongs elsewhere. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per GNG and Ray's comments. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
To clarify, I believe that subject specific guidelines can not remove the notability of a topic, though it can clarify it. It this case the GNG are met by a country mile, so keep. Hobit (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I continue to think that major party candidate sin two party systems for national-level positions are notable. This normally presupposes a substantial political or business or professional career. There is always news coverage. There is also always a national political significance about which of them gets elected,so there's interest in knowing about both. This is more pronounced of course when the political balance is in question, but it's always there. We can deal with the numbers. DGG (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
