The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As much as this political ideology sounds very good, there's not much advocates of it or any systematic treatise written on it. The old content traces its historical roots and its proponents (Boortz, Elder, O'Rouke) but some committed people keep deleting it. If some contents are there, there's a reason for them to be there. If deleting those contents with a even a better reason would eviscerate the whole article, it is rather wise not to have the article at all (as the empty vane article would be a waste). For now, the non-notable status of this political doctrine indicates that it does not yet merit a Wikipedia article, and this AFD is in order. Wandering Courier (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like OR. Comprehensive academic database search turned up zero hits, and only two on "neolibertarian," neither of which addressed the term as such but only use it in an ad hoc, neologistic way. J L G 4 1 0 4 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because people keep putting back unsourced info, including regarding BLP, but refuse to source it, incuding to third parties. Plus WP:Neologism issues and Self-promotion issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced by the sources present that this is a notable philosophy - they do not strike me as reliable - and I can't find anything else substantial. As it is, a lot of the article appears to be original research. Guest9999 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. When I reverted the redirect, I noted that a poorly written article shouldn't mean that the subject is inherently non-notable or not suitable for Wikipedia inclusion. The album has already spun off two hit singles in South Korea, and charted pretty well there. SKS2K6 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously deleted as a non-notable tour. The article consists solely of a setlist and a list of dates, hardly encyclopedic. While the artist is notable herself, there is nothing here to suggest that the tour is notable as it's own entity. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4 - recreation of deleted material (don't really see why G4 doesn't apply, but delete anyway!. Non notable tour). Nouse4aname (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Hoax. Deor (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 07:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No appearance in professional competition so does not meet WP:ATHLETE, no evidence of substantial coverage to otherwise meet WP:BIO. Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He played in the 2009 adidas Major League Soccer player combine. This is a professional competition. [1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzil (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MLS Player combine is not a professional competition: it is a series of trial games for college players hoping to gain the attention of a professional club: none of the players in it have professional contracts at the time of playing. Kevin McE (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He has not played yet, but was recently drafted in the second round in the MLS draft. Since he was drafted so high, it is almost certain he will compete in the league, therefore meeting wp:athlete. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting that you link to WP:CRYSTAL when you say that it's "almost certain". There's nothing "certain" about it, it's absolutely crystalballing. As it stands right now, he has not played, and does not meet WP:ATHLETE. When he meets the criteria, then he can always be re-added, but for now he does not meet the requirements. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he plays in a fully professional league. There are so many youth and reserve-team players across the globe who you'd assume would play for their clubs at some point; take a look at some of Arsene Wenger's recruits, those playing for the AC Milan reserves and that's just two clubs playing at the highest level of world football. If and when he plays, then fine, but until then he meets none of our notabilityguidelines. – Toon(talk) 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played professionally for both the u19 and u21 Serbian national teams. [1]144.126.196.141 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the context of football/soccer/footy/association football, consensus is that only full internationals, not underage representative teams, confer notability. It is unclear what the anonymous editor means by sying he played "professionally" for these sides. Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You don't need to be professional to play at this level. There are so many players who are in u-17 and u-21 teams but do not go on to play in a fully professional leage for their clubs or at all for their countries and the youth tournaments get so little coverage, they can't be taken as an indicator of notability. – Toon(talk) 11:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He did play professionally before he played college ball. He played for the Serbian club FK Dubočica. He then went to St. John's university but was forced to red shirt his freshman year because of his involvement with FK Dubočica and in the end transfered to Loyola.Interzil (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[2][reply]
That club play in Serbian League East, which does not meet the stipulation of a fully professional division at national level. Maybe they were at a higher level when he played for them, but that would be for those claiming that playing for Dubočica confers notability to establish. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets WP:N because of news coverage, 1. No problem with notability when you are the Second Team All-American in 2008, All-MAAC First Team, and a school-record of 17 shutouts 2. He is very close to meeting WP:ATHLETE.--J.Mundo (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and records in a division that does not confer notability cannot confer notability. "Of all that group of players who have not played at a high enough level to be notable, he was regarded the best" Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument to keep is based on general notability guidelines WP:N, because of extensive news coverage from reliable sources. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we can prove that he did things that we do not regard as notable. Can we prove that he has done anything that we DO consider notable? There are plenty of references and google hits for people who are not considered notable. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that reliable sources are available to establish the notability of the subject. It's a matter of opinion if you consider his actions non-notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If your argument is based upon the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage from reliable sources, can you provide a link to actual articles that cover the subject in-depth? I found this award one, which on its own isn't sufficient for me; the only other one which covered him was a University newspaper. Any other mentions are just that; trivial mentions. If you can link me to some articles which cover the subject, I'll happily change to a keep per WP:N. Best, – Toon(talk) 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak keep - Article fails WP:ATHLETE, but the sources appear to satisfy WP:BIO. I don't think star college soccer players are notable, but the media in the United States gives them sufficient coverage to pass the WP guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After further consideration, I believe very few of the sources are secondary and those do not appear to provide non-trivial coverage. Accordingly, articles fails WP:N, in addition to failing WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Keeping this player will set a precedent for the unchecked creation of articles on hundreds and hundreds of amateur soccer players. Kocic fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE per the WP:FOOTY guidelines; recreate article if and when he makes his professional debut.--JonBroxton (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question There was a French wikipedia article written for Kocic two years ago. Any French speaking editors that can explain why this article has remained for two years without being deleted?Interzil (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction My mistake, that article was written four years ago. My question still remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzil (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same argument comes up every year. Save the trouble keep the article. He'll make an appearance in a couple months anyway. Minfo (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote By deleting this article, what are you guys trying to prove? If by some miracle Kocic quits football right this second, and hangs up his cleats for good, is he not still a part of history? Notability is indeed a very grey area, but there are many reasons for why someone is notable. You could look at this situation as such: the boy matched the school's unbeaten shutout record formerly held by Zach Thornton, a heavily decorated American goal tender at a very strong football instituion, or at least strong the United States. If he were to quit, wouldn't that make him an oddity or something worth citing in a historic piece of literature? If he were to continue playing football and fail to play for either his national team or any professional team then delete away. But with evidence comes responsibility, and all the delete happy people of wikipedia, know that you are a destroyer rather than a keeper. Instead of trying to make better of a situation or fact, you just purge the world of all its iniquities. You truly are a special bunch. Interzil (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I !voted keep, I don't think this is a fair analogy. Zach Thornton is well-known for his play on professional clubs and for the US national football team, not for his achievements in college soccer. I'm suspect that locals or alumni will remember his exploits in college, but we are looking for more than just regional coverage. The reason I !voted keep was because there appears to be a good enough number of national sources discussing Kocic's accomplishments. Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody's trying to prove anything, there's no need to insult anybody, it is only an encyclopaedia, this isn't an attack on anything. The problem is, when you allow articles on people who aren't notable, nobody maintains them, they become out of date because the information on them just isn't available. Surely you agree that there have to be limits on who is worthy of an article? Why are these players more notable than ones who play for the AC Milan or Real Madrid reserves? Clearly many of those players are better than those drafted in the US; that means that there needs to be a good amount of coverage if the guy hasn't even played in a league game in the country in which his sport takes 4th place in the pecking order. – Toon(talk) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NNfitz (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How clearly? Let's consider those sources. The refs on the page are to his college teams own site, a note that he has signed (signing does not confer notability in professional sports, playing does) on his new teams news page, and a list of draftees. The first two pages on the google news hits referred to by J Mundo were either in a foreign language or were match reports of games played at a non-notable level. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is on the roster of a professional football team, what more do you want? The reason his former college and current team are referenced is because they are the clearest showing of his statistics. Also, Kocic is not a reserve. The MLS did away with their reserve program this year. He is a professionally paid athlete, in a top tier American league. There are plenty of articles on minor league baseball players, I don't think keeping this article is harming Wikipedia. Also, he can't play in a professional competition now because the MLS is out of season.Interzil (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
....in which case the article should not have been created until the MLS is in season and he has played. Many many articles on players who are on the roster of pro teams but have not played (e.g. this one and this one) have been deleted at AfD, I see no reason why MLS players should be treated any differently to the rest of the world -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop looking at what is fair and what isn't fair, there is no law to Wikipedia that has gained credit without challenging it. Wikipedia is an encyclical device, used by many people for many different reasons. Putting players that have been signed to professional teams puts more available content on the site. His name is on the roster both on their website and on their Wikipedia entry D.C. United. By writing an article about someone mentioned in an article is expanding the reader's view and thus expanding the possibilities and content. All the sites references are legitimate. This article does not have an overwhelming amount of content. It shows his accolades in college, his stats, where he came from, and a bit about what he is doing now. This information can be useful in many ways. Let's say you are a die-hard United fan and you plan on attending their training camp in Florida this month. You see there is a 6'4" Serbian goaltender in the ranks and someone asks "hey who is this guy?" BAM! A glorious wikipedia moment will suddenly ensue, rendering any confusion. I'm also sure there are a ton of Loyola alum and students who will be interested in this article. This boy has done some great things, and they should be available for anyone who would like to see them. Interzil (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if Kocic never plays a game for DC? Look at the example of Charles Alamo - a goalkeeper who was a decent stopper in college, got drafted by Galaxy last year, and blew out his ACL in pre-season. I have heard that he will retire soon due to this injury. Would you consider Alamo worthy of an article? He's a college keeper who got drafted but never played a professional game - exactly the same as Kocic right now. You cannot say with 100% certainty that Kocic WILL play a game, because we just don't know - that would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Kocic could turn up to training today and break his leg in a freak training ground accident that ends his career. In which case he will be just a college keeper who never played professionally. Or he might not; he might go on to become a great keeper for DC and the the Serbian national team. But - AS OF RIGHT NOW - he is non-notable because HE HAS NOT PLAYED A PROFESSIONAL GAME. As soon as he pulls on his jersey and takes his place between the pipes in an MLS or USOC game (or in another professional league), that's when the notability requirements for the article kicks in. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather read an article about 'Charles Alamo' than just hear about him. That sounds pretty nuts, but I can't believe you because there is no article backing you up. Maybe if someone had taken the time to write an article about Alamo, your argument would be worthwhile. I guess we'll never know. Regarding Kocic, if he steps on the field right now as I type this and slips on a ball and breaks his neck, feel free to delete away. We can actually have a delete party and all hold hands as we press the magical delete key. Wouldn't that be so much fun? Wouldn't it prove the worthiness of all the great Wikipedians across the globe? These are his stats, where he came from, and what he does. He is a notable person for some and not for others. Interzil (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of this discussion is to "prove the worthiness of all the great Wikipedians across the globe" - it's about maintaining adherence to policy, keeping control of the footy articles, and having minimum standards for what kinds of players do or do not deserve articles. Whining and being melodramatic and sarcastic to make a point is hardly going to make your case stronger. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And using all caps to try and make your point more appealing does work? Look, it is not a matter of who "deserves" and article or not. It is a matter of what information can be proven, cited, and stated in an encyclical format. Maybe people look at Kocic more in a biographical sense than in a athletic sense? This article is very much "under control." Since Kocic is not a reserve player than what does it make him? He certainly is not a collegiate footballer, he has already committed to a professional level team and thus revoked his NCAA eligibility. Everyone who knows professional football well, knows it is a huge gamble. But the truth is, the boy worked his way up, and made a name for himself. National news is paying attention to him, and you can be sure if at any point in time his career ends, there will be an article to go along with it and in which case his retirement will not be a mystery, but recorded historically as it should be. Interzil (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You state that it'snot a case of who "deserves" an article, and then go on to argue that he should have one because of the huge gamble he has made, and that he's worked his way up to (merely) signing for a professional clud, finisheing about how his achievement should be recorded historically. That's pretty much arguing that he deserves an article. – Toon(talk) 22:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using caps is a way of adding discursive emphasis to a sentance, in the same way you used bold face. Stop changing the subject. The bottom line is this: it doesn't matter who he is, where he comes from, what sacrifices he has made, and what roster he is on. If he has PLAYED in a league or cup game for a professional club in any country in the world, or has played in a FIFA-sanctioned senior international (not U-19 or any other youth team), then he is eligible for an article. Until either of those things happen, he is not. They are the only requirements. Once he sets foot on the field for DC United in an MLS or USOC game, you can create away. Write about his long, hard struggle to the top, his college career, and whatever else is of note, because he will then be a PROFESSIONAL PLAYER who has met the criteria for inclusion. However, until he sets foot on the field, he does not meet the criteria. It's really that simple. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO 'nuff said. Interzil (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
....also, as there appear to be no reliable independent third-party sources which offer in-depth coverage of him, I'd dispute that he passes WP:BIO anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the links in the article are in any way independent. If he ever makes a professional appearance, then re-instate but for now he fails to meet notability guidelines. - fchd (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no play at a professional level, and no evidence that player has been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources, so fails all policies. See Steve Vale for proof that merely being a hot prospect and signed by a pro club does not guarantee that a pro career will automatically follow..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't quite understand what makes this article particularly notbale. The subject fails WP:ATHLETE as having not made an appearance in a fully pro league, and I don't think it passes WP:N with the current sources used. A Google search doesn't seem to find much either. Mattythewhite (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - feel free to recreate it in case he actually manages to play a game in a fully professional league. --Angelo (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is apparently notable for being a footballer, yet he has never actually played in a professional league. Restore if/when he does. пﮟოьεԻ57 11:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he's done something that makes him notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A draft pick third-choice goalkeeper who has yet to make an appearance at a fully professional level, therefore he has not acheived anything of note in football and fails WP:ATHLETE. Most of the Google News hits provided by J.Mundo are fleeting mentions in match reports, and while the second source would count as substantial coverage, this is only a start. Three out of the four references provided in the article itself are from primary sources (two from his college, one from his club) and the fourth ref is from the official MLS website, so I'm not sure whether that would count as a secondary source. All in all, he also fails WP:N and WP:BIO, so delete this article for now, then recreate it if and when he makes his pro-league debut. Bettia(rawr!) 14:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I notice that in what appears to be a "desperation edit", the article now states "He is officially on the 2009 pre-season roster, this verifies that he will participate in the game against the Columbus Crew on February 10". This isn't true at all, there is no guarantee he will play in that game. Compare and contrast Tayler Thomas, who was signed to a professional contract by Gillingham at the start of this season but has yet to see even one nano-second of game time (and as a result has never had a WP article). This is especially true in Kocic's case given that DC United have three other keepers in their squad. Why would they guarantee game time to a rookie in their important first match of the season over the experienced Zach Wells? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiably notable in the scheme of things as a footballer. Has not played notably (professional league, senior international or Olympics) and not won any notable awards. Ref 1 only gives minimal profile data (height, DOB, POB and position), Ref 2 only gives some college football bio - non notable amatuer stuff, Ref 3 only give fact that he was selected 21 in draft - not notable in itself, Ref4 only states he wil ltrain with tthe squad pre-season and whilst it claims to be from the Washington Post, is actually only from a blog on the Washington Post site (WP:RS issues), Ref 5 innocuously claiming to be from The Greyhound is merely his school's student newspaper. There were a couple of other refs, now removed as they either didn't back up any claim made in the article, or in one case completely failed to mention Kocic. Someone is trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. --ClubOranjeTalk 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSerbian League East is a professional league. He played for FK Dubocica Leskovac, which is why he redshirted his first season at St. John's. Though the Serbian league east isn't the top league in the country, its still professional. Interzil (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serbian League East is not fully professional (fully pro = all clubs are pro, none semi-pro or amateur). Only the Serbian Superliga is fully pro league in Serbia. – Toon(talk) 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a reliable citation that the third level of Serbian football is fully professional, then you're there, and the article will pass. I still don't think he would notable without the third-party coverage, but that's how things work. - fchd (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If you can provide evidence that Serbian League East is a fully pro league, and provide a link that confirms that Kocic played at least 1 game for FK Dubocica Leskovac, then he immediately passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N, and the article should be kept. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is just the general notability guideline. There are more specific guidelines for lots of things, and WP:BIO (which contains the WP:ATHLETE guideline) is that for footballers. It's all moot anyway, as the third tier of Serbian football is not fully pro. – Toon(talk) 17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say he played for FK Dubocica Leskovac? other than his (unverified) article? http://www.zerozero.pt doesn't have him.--ClubOranjeTalk 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean he actually PLAYED for them, or was just a part of their youth system? The guy was born in Leskovac. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this helps or not, but he also played for FK Radnicki Jugopetrol (changed name from FK Radnicki Belgrade) [2]Interzil (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
NN golf magazine. Fails to assert notability, and the only outside source on offer in the article is the magazine's own website. --Dynaflowbabble 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article was speedy deleted (A7) back in August 2008. JamesBurns (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is nothing more than self promotion of a business that is not notable. Several of the so called references are nothing more than results of press releases, so in effect, it is primarily self referenced. PROD removed by newly created account of Millikin07, whose only edits have been to this article as of this point in time. Prowler08 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the references include independent sources, including two national associations. LegitScript has been the target of some vandalism, and continuing efforts to remove its entry, likely because of the company's successful efforts to suspend fake Internet pharmacies, which has made its Wikipedia entry a continuing target by the owners of those suspended websites. Please see the entry's discussion, in which some of the vandalism efforts were noted. The entry is noteworthy because it is a website certification authority recognized as such by the national association of boards of pharmacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millikin07 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very weakly. This is apparently a very recent organization. Not sure that it qualifies as a business, or a foundation, or what: but apparently they are some kind of enforcement tool directed against Internet pharmacies. This sort of work ought to generate some kind of notice in reliable sources, and in the version I read the only references were to internal sites or press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Garth from Knujon here. This Wiki article has been targeted frequently and anonymously by people benefiting from the sale of illicit pharmaceuticals. Please keep this in mind when reading any smear attempts against LegitScript, ask the authors to step forward and identify themselves. LegitScript is a VERY current and critical topic. It has been discussed in many media outlets including the New York Times ("the paper of Record") Report Identifies Rogue Pharmacy Web Sites and features on CNN (Anderson Cooper - 360) AC360 Daily Podcast: 06/25/2008. If it's not notable as some are claiming then why the obsession with deleting it? Gobruen (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Gobruen (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some serious COI going on with this article. Millikin07 removed the COI tag, which I have reinserted. There is also a fair amount of paranoia, as evidenced in the comment above by Gobruen and Gobruen's comments at Talk:Legitscript. Also, look at the edit history of Jchkayaker and Millikin07. In addition, there is the issue of the funding of this business. All in all, this article is entirely self promotional and should be deleted. --Prowler08 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment is from LegitScript. We are requesting a neutral review by editors. That request, and this comment, are not meant to violate neutrality rules, but to ensure a result that adheres to Wikipedia policy. In the interests of neutrality, we monitor, but do not edit, the entry. It is important to understand that LegitScript is an enforcement tool and certification authority for Internet pharmacies; having shut down over 1,000 fake Internet pharmacy websites, this entry and our website are consistent targets of vandals and attempts to remove it from Wikipedia. Critics of LegitScript, including Prowler08 in the comment immediately above, have previously argued that the claimed lack of clarity about how Legitscript is funded should be grounds for deletion. However, that is not a ground for deletion under Wikipedia policy. Citing concerns about how the organization is funded as a grounds for concern suggests that the writer's complaint is about LegitScript itself, not the Wikipedia entry. Legitscript's only request is for a review by Wikipedia editors in a way that adheres to Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegitScript (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 January 2009
Comment My statement above concerning funding is about a complete lack of information on the article's entry as to their funding, so it is about the WP entry. And I personally don't believe that it is not Legitscript doing the editing, as the edit histories of the users mentioned in my previous entry indicate. Also, the editor Gobruen is supposedly Garth Bruen, KnujOn.com CEO, and works with Legitscript and has edited the article and left comments on Talk:Legitscript, where there also are statements from the supposed CEO of Legitscript. --Prowler08 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gobruen in response to Prowler08, we did edit the wiki page because previous comments complained of a lack of current notability. We added additional verifiable media sources. You can't ask us to produce something and then dismiss us when we produce it. Gobruen (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree there are WP:COI concerns here. Milikin07 seems to be a new single-purpose account. However, I think they've met WP:ORG requirements. You're unlikely to find peer reviewed journal articles about this sort of thing, but they have Reuters and NYT articles in there, a mention on CNN and so on. I think the authors need to get in the habit of signing everything they contribute, including to talk pages like this one, with ~~~~. Credibility is shaky when people have to go looking through history logs to identify you. I think they should also consider placing disclosures on user pages where an editor is directly connected with the company. I doubt this is official Wikipedia policy, I just think it might make good sense under the circumstances. Basie (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I'm sure that request is to sign everything they contribute except in articles, where no one signs anything. Remembering to sign discussion comments is a problem that most new users have, but it is helpful if you make an effort to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely! Sorry that wasn't clear. Basie (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's clear there a folks who want the LegitScript article deleted for reasons other than stated, this is also a WP:COI. This attempt to make the issue of pharmacy verification go away is interesting on its own and is part of the story. The folks behind the vandalism and continued delete requests should propose a counter article or fully disclose their intent. Gobruen (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The refs from CNN, Reuters, and the NY times all qualify as WP:RS to me and thus meet WP:N. Though COI issues on one or both sides disturb me. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there will be COI issues but that's hardly unusual. Based on the NABP's reference to Legitscript [3] plus media refs it is clearly notable enough for WP. Rd232talk 09:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The references establish some notability, but they tend to mention LegitScript in passing and are not directly about the company/organization. (EhJJ)TALK 13:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about an unpublished book, probable hoax, certainly unverifiable. It was input, more or less in its present form, on 3 Dec 2008 by Imcooler (talk·contribs) who has only 5 edits, consisting of this article and insertion of the book in The Hardy Boys and Franklin W. Dixon. Over the last three days an IP inserted "excerpts" from the book, and two other IPs tried to blank the article with comments "There is no such book, so stop it!" and "Removed the untrue stuff."
Article cites no source and I can find no confirmation. Searches are complicated by the number of other books called "Murder in Paradise", but the only confirming references I have found are Wikipedia mirrors like MedLibrary.org. If the book is real, and if it gets published, it may become notable, but per Notability (books) it isn't yet. PROD removed by IP. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Valley2city 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can it be notable or otherwise worthy of an article if you can't verify it? This series is significant enough that any one book is notable, but Wikipedia is not for things made up one day by Wikipedia editors. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has all the characteristics of a hoax, unfortunately. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked this up and could not find anything with this title. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1 - This looks like a blatant hoax to me Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 07:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this article is encyclopedic at all--in my opinion, it does not rise above the level of a dictionary definition. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep - it's just a phrase, not a term discussed in its own right or used as a name for a single, specific, notable phenomenon (e.g., Toys for tots) J L G 4 1 0 4 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I am changing my mind, having thought it over and looked into it. I added a "History" section with a quick reference to a 1933 NYT article. Consider this my Wikimitzvah of the day. Now let's have some more history and examples. I think the "not a name for something" argument, which I put forth earlier, may not have to be absolute. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Though it may have promise, the stub seems quite dormant. I think there should be an article "x for charity" but that gives specific examples, which this article does not. Therefore if someone can add concrete examples that establish notability, I'm for keeping it. Valley2city 00:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would specific examples help the notability? The term or concept itself ought to be notable. You'll find a concrete example in the article's history--I deleted it because it was basically spam. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete, basically per Jlg4104. Although the refs in the article establish that there are specific cases in which the sale of art has charitable goals, I can find no evidence that "art for charity" itself is a distinctive topic worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Anything that can be sold for profit can also be sold to raise money for charities, and I'm really hoping that, for example, Antiques for charity, Books for charity, and Prostitution for charity will turn out to be redlinks. Deor (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...so...you DON'T want me to put Deor for charity in the mainspace? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be bought, even for charity. Deor (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But are you a work of art? Ty 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been called a "real piece of work" on occasion. I'm not sure whether artwork was what the speakers had in mind, though. Deor (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly good little stub, with plenty of potential. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phenomenon is notable and has, certainly in the UK, encompassed many leading figures of art, e.g. Stella_vine#Charity_work. No doubt in a few years this will be a full article. Ty 01:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for keeping such phrases if they denote specific, identifiable movements, organizations, etc. But I'm still failing to see how it's not just a made-up phrase that covers a lot of stuff, and thus isn't therefore, in a kind of weird way, original research. How is this different from "eating for survival" or "shopping for fun"? J L G 4 1 0 4 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a distinct identifiable phenomenon and a term which is in widespread use.[4] It can be referenced to usage in secondary sources and is not therefore original research. The exact phrase is not the key point, but the activity which it refers to, i.e. it could be Art given to charity, though the current title is succinct. I'm not sure what your comparisons would cover if they were to be articles, but an article on what food is available in extreme conditions, deserts, jungles, etc., would be viable. As for "shopping for fun", you would have to find sources, which probably exist, to show the significance and effect of this aspect of shopping. However, that's rather off the subject. This would be valid as a List of art given to charity, and if it's valid as a list, there's no reason why it can't also be an article. Ty 12:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of see what you're saying-- the phrase does indeed come up in a lot of Google searches. Still, there it's not the name of anything in particular, nor does it work for me as an encyclopedia topic because it's just a "convergence" of two (otherwise valid) topics. Maybe my lame analogies weren't helpful (just having fun, no snarkiness meant). But maybe ultimately this a difference in interpretation of what WP is. The problem, to me, is the infinite array of "for charity" permutations you could have, and I'm not sure these are anything more than Charity_(practice) done in one way or another (and the other way around, too-- you could have infinite permutations of "art for..."-- art for peace, art for hunger, art for love, art for protest, etc.). J L G 4 1 0 4 19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it--"shopping for fun" passes the Google test with a grade three times as high as "art for charity." If Ty claims that it can be referenced in secondary sources, why don't they reference it in secondary sources and add it to the article? Mind you, these cannot be announcement of "art for charity" events--they have to discuss the concept of "art for charity" in some depth, in a non-trivial manner. JLG has graciously added some references--but these don't discuss, they only mention. (PS, JLG, I'm tracking Rosie's eard; it's driving her mom crazy. It's a nice piece of hair, and I might donate it for charity.) Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we're getting OT, but... tell your wife at least it's not full body eczema, which is what Lila has been contending with for three of her four months... J L G 4 1 0 4 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally, I don't like the title - it sounds a bit like a slogan, or the name of a movement (which it isn't). Charity art auction and Charity art exhibition are both notable subjects. Combining the two... how about Charity art event?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - Ethicoaestheticist makes a good point. I'd be willing to build an page called "Charity event (arts)" which could then have sections (e.g., concert, art auction, exhibition, other), pretty much just using what's already present in "Art for charity." There should probably be an article called simply "Charity event" or some such. I found Charity_(practice) to be a good start but more historical and philosophical. Charity events are a pretty specific yet common enough practice ("benefit" concerts, dinners, auctions, etc.) to merit perhaps a broader article, but I'm not really up to building a big piece from scratch just now. How does this sound? J L G 4 1 0 4 02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I see we already have benefit album and benefit concert, so there may need to be a bit more sorting out of things. Still, I think there must be a solution in here somewhere. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, try my talk page-- at the bottom is "Charity event (arts) TEST STUB". Still violates the principle that the term itself isn't notable, but... for some reason I'm finding myself wanting to preserve this in some way. One immediate problem is that it presumes a higher-level entry "Charity event", or else other (types) of events. Plus, works of art created for charity are not really "events" so much as the sale of such works might be, and then only in the sense that an "event" is anything that has transpired (as opposed to the sense of an "event" as a special, advertised, organized sort of thing). It's a rought draft! J L G 4 1 0 4 02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term doesn't have to be notable. It's not an article about a term: it's an article about an activity. It is the phenomenon which needs to be notable and recognisable, whatever exact form of words one uses to describe it. The article title is simply a convenience so people get an idea what the article is about. The phenomenon is that a lot of art by leading artists is donated to charity sales, either existing stock, or often created specially for the event. This is regularly featured in the media, hence notable and verifiable, criteria for validating an article. To keep the article focused, I think it should be restricted to "art", rather than expanded to "arts". Here are some angles.[5][6][7]Ty 05:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medley: Song For You/Blue Eyes/I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues[edit]
Medley (performed only twice, according to article) is unreferenced and unnotable. The individual songs are covered; the medley needn't be. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 07:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-nominating this for deletion. The entire fleet of this small, private, local transportation provider consists of two of these. For some reason, many voters in the previous AfD felt that the fact that some of their flights are scheduled automatically confers notability, I don't think it does. The sources are directory listings and passing mentions in articles on other topics. Juneau has a large modern airport, and Alaska Airlines flies large jets there, that is the main air transportation to Juneau, not this tiny air taxi service, of which there are hundreds in Alaska. This is like having an article on a taxi company with two cars or a pizza delivery service. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google and Google News search gives only trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources (commercial sites, directory info, etc.). This fails WP:CORP dramatically, scheduled carrier or no scheduled carrier. Graymornings(talk) 19:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree, mention is trivial. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Air transportation is absolutely essential in Alaska and are practically its lifeline. The size of the airplanes has nothing to do with notability. I suppose the "local" contention is referring to the service area which in fact it hundreds of thousands of square miles. This German article writes about it too. --Oakshade (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But their total capacity is 12 people. If you were to go to Juneau, or anywhere in Alaska, you will find that there are many, many, air taxis, along with water and land taxis. Most of them are like this one, a very small operation with no inherent notability. I would point out, again, that the Alaska Marine Highway also has it's main terminal in Juneau, and it is the "lifeline" for communities in Southeast Alaska and other isolated coastal communities, not this one air taxi. A lot of our tax dollars go towards insuring it's continued operation because it is so important on the coast.The German article mentions that they flew with these guys, but it is not an article about the organization itself. The concept of what constitutes "local" is in fact viewed somewhat differently in Alaska, since it is such a large place with such a small population. Many people in Alaska think nothing of driving or riding in a boat for hours to get groceries. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here is a photograph of the Juneau airport in which large passenger jets are clearly visible. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTABILITY, secondary coverage does not need to be specifically about the topic, just that the coverage is non-trivial. "Trivial" is defined by WP:N as "passing mention" or "directory listing". The coverage is beyond the scope of either of those. --Oakshade (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is an airline, as indicated by its IATA designator J5 and listing in Flight International's directory of World Airlines. Thus, it meets the notability requirements. Nobody said an airline needed to operate Airbus A380s in order to qualify for an article. Mjroots (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question Just to be clear, are you asserting that any airline that is listed at IATA is automatically notable, and if so, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mere existence of an IATA or ICAO code does not confer notability. For example, Chukotavia does not have an IATA or ICAO code, nor even a callsign, yet it is notable, because of the sources which discuss the topic in details...Russian sources, English sources. --RussaviaDialogue 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until WP:AVIATION set a notability threshhold, I'd say that an airline that operates scheduled flights is sufficiently notable for an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That's just an arbitrary threshold you made up, and is not supported by, well, anything. There is a service [8]on the Kenai Peninsula that runs vans to Anchorage a few times a week, on a regular schedule. Are they notable just because they have a schedule? Is anything that happens on a regularly scheduled basis automatically notable, or does it have to fly too? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not an "arbitrary threshold" I made up, it is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, Chukotavia is a good example. I checked all three sources there, one of them was dead link, another was not a WP:RS, and third was an air company directory. This service was mentioned in at least two newspaper publications, plus a directory.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Upon what basis are you saying to keep it? Because of the existence of Chukotavia, or for a "mention" in two newspaper articles. My use of Chukotavia, as you will notice the websearch results, was used as an example as to why the existence of codes do not give notability. If someone was to be tendentious enough to take Chukotavia to AfD to prove a point, I would save it in a flash. But perhaps to use another example. This article was much the same as the current article which IS being discussed at this AfD; it was completely reliant on either WP:SELFPUB or directory-type sources. But because there are multiple independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail, it was possible for me to turn that into this. It is not possible to do so for Alaska Seaplane Service as it lacks the sources which discuss it in great detail, which is what gives notability, not the existence of a code. --RussaviaDialogue 07:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is some revision... Drmies (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Vegaswikian. - BillCJ (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to hound you over this, but I don't see how getting some government grant money automatically makes you notable. As I mentioned in the last AfD, there are land taxis that get subsidies to transport the handicapped and low-income/underemployed persons in areas of Alaska without public transportation. These are outfits about the same size as this operation, with 3 or 4 cars, providing the same type of service, but they are not considered notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you hounding me?? I never said anything in particular! You do not need to keep answering every entry you disagree with, especially thoses who haven't said anything to argue with! Being so argumentative is not going to help your case. Trust me, I've done that myself, and it does no good. Right now, there is no clear consensus to Delete, so are you going to bring this back up again in 3-4 more months? And again 4 months after that? At some point you're going to have to let this go. It would be far better to spend your energy with the AIrline Project, and try to clarify the guidelines on what should or should not be considered notable, rather than trying to turn this into a test case. Then if you get some new guidelines approved for airlines, you can take this to AFD again if it does not apply meet the standards set by the new guidelines. - BillCJ (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My remarks were more directed toward Vegaswikian, who made the same flimsy argument in the last AfD, but I put them under your remarks since you were doing did a "per" vote right under it. I think you've got your facts backward. I'm not the one trying to make a "test case". I think this fails WP:N, other users are trying to apply other guidelines that don't actually exist to exempt this airline from the general notability guideline. I would rather not be so argumentative, but these are spurious arguments not based on Wikipedia policy, and I note that no one has yet specifically refuted any of my reasoning. This is where the AfD process fails us, these votes that are based on on made up guidelines not recorded anywhere are going to turn this into a "no consensus" AfD even though they are not making logical arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment to keep voters/ closing admin You guys are trying to make up a new guideline when we already have one. WP:N I know the hardcore inclusionist crowd doesn't care for it, but there it is. Whenever there is no specialized standard for a particular type of article, the general guideline is used by default. Making up qualifiers like grant money or id codes is an attempt to do an end-run around Wikipedia policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments about the secondary coverage is based directly on WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteWeak keep. I have to say delete because I can't find any substantial secondary source for this company. If there was one, then I'd say keep. I think it passes other tests for notability though in ways not mentioned in the article by being the only carrier to certain small airports and small towns. Nevertheless, there needs to be some proof of that. Find that secondary source(s) and I flip to "keep". Edit:The German article listed above seems to validate WP:N loosely, change to weak keep. --Triadian (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record I did in fact try to find a broader consensus on this issue after the last AfD. The discussion is here. I posted links at the Alaska and Aviation WikiProjects, but as you can see, it didn't go very far. I am more than willing to discuss the broader issue at that page or any other appropriate forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I undersntad. Have you tried WP:AIRLINES? THat is the project under WPAVIATION that deals most with airlines, and that would be the place to try again. - BillCJ (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that, I have notified them and the village pump, and WikiProject Alaska, and all of you are of course encouraged to participate as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See my comments in the first AFD, in which I checked up on the Bureau of Transportation Statistics report on Alaska Seaplane Service and other carriers. I suppose having some statistics in the T100 data indicates that they're notable and that there's a secondary source, but it's hard to get excited about an airline that only carried 667 passengers in the first quarter of 2008. Then again, we have an article on Minnesota State Highway 226, a 1.5 mile highway in north-central Minnesota whose role in Minnesota's transportation network is probably less than the role of Alaska Seaplane Service in Alaska's transportation network. (And there's Minnesota State Highway 298, which goes straight to prison.) --Elkman(Elkspeak) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, being a member of WP:USRD, all state routes are notable. One big reason for this is because there are tons of secondary sources... they're called maps and although it's not the best kind of source, it's something. You can't find this airline service on a map... maybe an airport, but not the airline. I've voted weak keep, so I'm not trying to counteract you, just bringing up a comment. --Triadian (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the people arguing to keep this seem to think that verifiability is the only criterion for inclusion that we have, but articles have to pass the notability guidelines as well. Notability is not inherited as being an verifiable airline, the topic still needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to be included. Just because others exist doesn't mean that we can't judge this article on its merits. I can find trivial mentions of this airline and that's it, there isn't the in-depth discussion of the topic that's required for inclusion. Themfromspace (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument to keep is based on secondary sources that are beyond the scope of WP:N's definition of "trivial", not simply verification. --Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficent secondary sources exist to write an article (and meet WP:N). It would be nice if the German article made it into this article, but that's not required for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all participants I just wanted to mention again that I am trying to gather consensus on the broader issues involved here, but I'm not getting much response thus-far. Click here to participate. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More should participate there, I agree. It will help determine the fate of this article and others like it. --Triadian (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose of this AfD was to "gather consensus on the broader issues," then I would have to say close this AfD and seek that broad consensus on the proposed notability of airlines talk pages. Starting a specific AfD is not the proper way of building broad consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood. The purpose of this AfD was to decide the fate of this one article. The purpose of the other discussion is to establish a firmer inclusion/exclusion threshold for small airlines in general, especially in Alaska, so that we don't have to go through this again and again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was listed for speedy deletion, but the article creator contested the tag, so I'm bringing it here for more input.--Aude (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, award winning business operating in more than 80 countries. I have added citations to demonstrate notability. This article was CSD'd a minute after its creation and was then taken to AfD just two hours later, despite additional edits by the page creator. Please give article creators time to establish notability before taking a new article to deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is difficult to imagine a more wiki-worthy organization than CPCS Transcom, please check the website of the company. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Comment At company site, looking at 'Projects' and selecting 'Africa', there are very many serious projects CPCS is involved with, I would have to put down what I am doing to start to list them properly in presentable article format; Africa, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia, there are over two dozen listings each of which is quite complicated in and of itself, article-wise. Privatization of the Port of Cotonou, for instance, would lead to an important section of article Cotonou. There's not much trivial, casual or simple material to develop with regard to this topic. As I am in the US, on inauguration eve, I don't have the wherewithal to start with this at the moment. Please just leave a tag on the article, as each of its many projects is notable, notability easily comes from project topics themselves, this company is like a think tank. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Comment Checking through pages 1 to 13 on a google search:cpsc transcom, I see 130/130 topic results, checking page 20, 22, 26, 10 topic results a page, each one seemingly a different government agency, university or company. 3 or 4 of these links have been added to the External links, so notability is not an issue. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Comment 130 usable references on 13 google search pages, aren't users supposed to try and fix the article before applying a deletion tag? --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, though it would help a lot if the article's description of what this business does — international infrastructure development firm specialising in private sector participation in transport, power, and urban sectors — could be translated into English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like how? Isn't that the raison d'etre of the Simple English Wikipedia? --Mr Accountable (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the current text problematically vague and at an inappropriate level of abstraction. "Infrastructure" potentially refers to too many things to be a helpful description. "Private sector participation" could be stated in more concrete terms. And what the devil are "urban sectors?" The broader the brush a business uses to describe its activities, the likelier you are to encounter peacock phrases, glittering generalities, buzzwords and pointy-haired boss talk. I want to know the specific kinds of projects these folks get involved in. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Urban sectors" had already been copyedited to "urban transit and property development". --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But here's a question: given the slowly shifting nature of the company's portfolio of projects, how does one create 3 effective lists of company activities, one for each geosector? Each project, albeit more or less wiki-notable on its own, will drift off of the company's site lists in a reckoned 24 - 36 month time frame. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I will go ahead and start to create lists of the projects these folks are involved in anyway. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Struck through because I am not sure when I am going to do this task. --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion, but I'm not convinced it meets speedy deletion criteria, so I'm bringing it here for more input. --Aude (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was me that tagged the article for deletion as I don't believe that it indicated notability and doesn't carry any references. The author of the article has made a defence of it on his talk page User talk:Antony Howe. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a couple of news mentions for the club with a Google News search—also, a few for the Whovention. Don't know whether this is enough to pass WP:CLUB—I'm inclined to think it isn't, since they've been around since the 1970s—but it might help. Graymornings(talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Deadly ssassin, the nomination for speedy deletion under A7 was unfounded. The article quite clearly states its own notability, as would satisfy WP:NOTE, let alone the lower A7 standard which was cited as the reason for nominating for Speedy.
"The first objective of the club was to oppose the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) in 1976 to cease purchasing the Doctor Who TV series. Eventually the ABC changed its mind, and the series has been a regular part of Australian TV ever since, see Doctor Who in Australia, section on "Broadcasting")."
A7 is quite clearly not applicable here, by two degrees of evidence against.
Considerably less inappropriate is the listing of this issue on AfD. However, by Aude's own admission, he is "bringing it here for more input", which is not the purpose of AfD. An RFC to ask whether it should be listed on AfD would be the appropriate way to Request For Comment.
The COI issue was not a reason why I marked for deletion, it was a note to the author so that they were aware of Wikipedia's attitude to that. As I've explained here and on the author's talk page, my concerns were around notability. As regards notability, I fail to understand why what you have quoted shows notability. It explains how the club came to be, and what happened after the club was formed, there's no evidence or even assertion that the two are linked. In my opinion the article doesn't meet WP:NOTE or A7. Clearly Aude didn't agree with regards to A7 hence why we're here. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anarchangel was referring to Bduke with the COI comment. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly but I was not arguing for deletion. I was just commenting to clarify whether there was a COI or not. I'll give my view below.
Delete A big, giant slab of original research. Remove the content that isn't reliably, independently sourced and there is nothing left. Wikipedia is not a club history site. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands this does not have reliable independent sources that show me it is notable enough for an article so i have to support deleting it. However, I am open to being convinced as this association seems to have been around for long enough to have attracted attention enough that sources should exist. If they are found, I will change my view, but I am not enough of a fan to find such sources. --Bduke(Discussion) 06:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to vote delete. I don't think we're going to find any more sources, and any notable club that's been around that long should have more than just a few news mentions. Graymornings(talk) 10:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand why you are planning to delete this oage when an there is an entry for the Doctor Who Appreciation Society, which founded in the same year as the Doctor Who Club of Australia. DallasJones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallasljones (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Neutral Previously, that entire page was on the article Jerry Rice; since it was so long, I felt it should be moved to its own page. If you feel that the article should be deleted, then that's fine. I'm indifferent on the matter, just so long as it is not simply moved back to Jerry Rice. --Pbroks13talk? 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A good example of summary style, although a lead paragraph should be added to the article for context. Not a content fork, as I was afraid it might be, because the subject is records Rice held at the time of his retirement, not records he/other players currently hold; an article name change might be necessary to clarify this. Notable because Rice's domination of the record books at the time of his retirement was extraordinary, one of the most notable facts about him, and a main reason for why he is often identified as the greatest football player of all time. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but this is an obsessive compilation of a few "official" records-- i.e., those that are published the NFL Record Manual -- and a lot of original synthesis in the form of using real facts for "made-up" categories. They're all true, but how many different superlatives can one think of for one person? It's a great accomplishment that he holds the record for "Most touchdowns, career" (208), "Most Pass Receptions, Career" (1,549) and "Most Yards Gained, Career" (22,895) and "Most Yards Gained, Season" (1848), among others. So far as I know, the league doesn't have a category for things like "Most touchdowns made in one state" or "Most go-ahead or tying touchdowns" or "Most seasons with at least 1 reception" or "Most games with 10+ receptions & 140+ receiving yards", etc. And the honor of "Only player with a 40+ yard touchdown pass, a 40+ yard touchdown run, & a 95+ yard touchdown reception, & a fumble recovery for a touchdown" is one of many odd inventions made by the article creators. To pare this list down would be to defeat the purpose of it. Suffice to say that there are better ways to make the point that Jerry Rice was one of the greatest players in NFL history. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per mandsford. Part of a sports announcer's knowledge base perhaps, since he has to have things to say continually, but not part of an encyclopedia. I was going to add my own choice examples, but I don't want to distract from the fun of finding them oneself. Normally of course the need for editing is not a reason for deletion, but in this case i think that trimmed down to the appropriate part, it would be better in the main article. DGG (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps you, Mandsford, or a similarly interested editor could delete the entries you consider to be OR, and let us see what's left. I think there's enough legit material in this article that the Jerry Rice article would be put out-of-balance if the legit material were merged back in; that seems to be the concern of the editor working on the Jerry Rice article. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more insulting of me to edit an author's work beyond recognition, than it would be for me to voice my opinion in a discussion. Jerry Rice has some very impressive records to be sure-- career TDs, career receptions, career receiving yardage at the forefront. While I don't think there should be a spinoff article, I would suggest doing a info box that highlights the records that are in the NFL's Record Manual. In that way, the flow of the article about Rice isn't disturbed, but the recognized stats are there. Mandsford (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well written and sourced article on a notable person with notable records. No reason for it to be deleted. Hooper (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you referring to? Mandsford (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the fact that it is sourced as the numbers aren't made up. We can note where a viewer can go, online or in books, to see or read more on the individual accomplishment. Hooper (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just did a lot of work on this article. Enigmamsg 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The decision about how to present the information and what to include and exclude should take place on the article's discussion page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I thought at first "yeah, let's get rid of this" but then I looked at the list... it's a fine example of how lists should be used in Wikipedia. As to the assertion that there are items on the list that should not belong--maybe yes, maybe no... but that's not an AfD discussion, that's a content discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article still needs more cleanup, but as currently constituted, it is suitable according to WP:LIST. The Jerry Rice article became too bloated with it. For certain athletes (Kobe Bryant is another example), separate articles are necessary for their myriad accomplishments and records. Rice is one of the greatest players in NFL history. Enigmamsg 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it definetely needs cleanup but is useful for people researching Jerry Rice's numerous records.--Iamawesome800Talk to Me 20:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteoriginal research, also rather reduntlant trivia. Yes Rice broke many records, but many of these aren't notable records or records caused by his longitivty. The only records worth mentioning is the career records, and maybe a few of the touchdown records, and that could be fit in the Rice article easily. Some of the records listed for example "Touchdown receptions made in one state(California, 115) " are clear made-up and extremely reduntlant original research, and it seems like it was written just to find a record we can add in these stats. If Rice owns the record for most receptions, and played his entire career in California, isn't that obvious. Many of these "records" has these problems. For many of the people who said that AFD isn't cleanup therefore keep, I looked though this article, and it's unsalvageable, which is a reason for deletion. Secretaccount 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC; the only information I can find on this guy are from other unsourced wikis. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just realized this article was tagged for speedy deletion when it was created, but the creator removed the tag himself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 03:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article hasn't been edited for a year. It still has text about an expected launch in 2006, and the site itself is down Alexforcefive (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, no independent coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article talks about a release in 2006, which doesn't seem to have happened - clicking the link produces the rather splendid message "904 Intelligence Not Found". JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article (without an apostrophe) was successfully AFD'd before here. I don't believe the article has changed significantly since that time, and I don't see why it shouldn't be merged into the Industrial Workers of the World article. TastyCakes (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was already nominated for deletion by the same user who clearly has some kind of political bias. How many times is he going to nominate this for deletion? Isn't there a limit on the number of times he can vote this for deletion? I say this should be overturned. [edit]. Of course my vote is KEEP. No, I'm not a sock.
KEEP This article was deleted last time as a result of a false flag campaign by someone claiming to be a member of the Panhandlers' Union -- a person who was homeless at the time with no access to a computer and is in any case functionally illiterate. The personal information used to identify this member (such as the name of an arresting officer and the crimes with which he was charged) would be unavailable to anyone except a member of the police department. The original Panhandlers' Union article was vandalized twice by someone using a computer located in either Ottawa City Hall or the Ottawa Police Station; this is verifiable with Wikiscanner. The nominator of this article has systematically targetted every single article he could find related to activism in the city of Ottawa, including Jane Scharf and Denis Rancourt. This is clearly a bad-faith nomination, and seeing as the original deletion should not have occured to begin with (and would not have, save for systemic bias in Wikipedia), there is absolutely no reason to delete this article. SmashTheState (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coming from a user that knowsathing or two about bad faith nomination. By my count I nominated two semi-related articles for deletion - Jane Scharf and Denis Rancourt, only the first of which was successful. Also, a look at the previous AFD page shows the rounding up of meat puppets was an issue to the extent that making a decision was difficult. Hopefully we can now have a proper discussion and decide once and for all if the article is worth keeping. TastyCakes (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Ah. So you're admitting that this is a bad-faith attempt at "revenge" for what you see as some kind of campaign against articles you like? SmashTheState (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: No, I am saying you're quite a complainer for someone that does so much worthy of complaint. If I were on a "campaign" I would have AFD'd more than 3 articles (one since you first complained about it). TastyCakes (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No deletion rationale has even been given. There's notability, media coverage, etc. The article seems somewhat poorly written, but it deserves a chance to be improved. Bolwerk (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Ah sorry, my rationale would be approximately the same as the previous AFD nomination: it does not presently portray a particularly notable group (they exist to... fight tickets and disrupt commerce?), is poorly written and has POV issues. I feel the content could be more than adequately wrapped up in the IWW article, the IWW being the parent organisation if I'm not mistaken. TastyCakes (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I was not aware that the political activities and affiliation of an organization had a bearing on its notability. I was under the impression that it was based on such things as media coverage. Perhaps you'd be so good as to direct me to that policy? And the IWW is not the "parent" organization. The Panhandlers' Union of Ottawa is affiliated with the IWW. Is its own organization and could, in theory, cease to be a member of the IWW at the choice of its members, just as any other union could change its affiliation. And seeing as the IWW is 104 years old and has had as many as 200,000 members at one time, "rolling" every affiliated union into the IWW article would amount to something the size of a dead-tree encyclopedia. SmashTheState (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: You were not aware that an organisation had to do something notable to have a wikipedia article? Are you saying the OPU is not notable enough to be mentioned in the IWW article but is notable enough to have its own page? TastyCakes (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - instantly found an interview on the IWW web site, just for starters. Appears to be plenty of media coverage. "they exist to... fight tickets and disrupt commerce?"-- that sounds like an example of I don't like it. Neither being poorly written nor having POV issues is a reason to delete. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Also, I don't mean to nitpick every reference, but the one you give does not seem to be independent on the subject, as spelled out here, since the OPU is at least affiliated with the IWW (they say it is a "shop" of the IWW, I'm not sure exactly what that entails). TastyCakes (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable thing to point out. My intention was mainly to show that this organization is known and discussed, and it's easy to find references. I also gave some notability points for being featured on the IWW's web site; this might be akin to being featured on the site of the NCTE or whatever other large, national or international organization you like. If that still fails the IOS test, I'd still say it passes "significant coverage" and "reliable." FWIW a "shop" is an old trade term for what was once literally a shop (printing, steamfitting, machining, e.g.) that was organized and thus a member of the union, agreeing to abide its policies, in exchange for voting priveleges and other benefits (e.g., strike emergency supplies, legal representation). Not sure if the OPU fits that model, but looks like they sort of might. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: When I said what it appears the OPU does, I wasn't inferring that I didn't like it, I was inferring that I didn't think these things were particularly noteworthy. What I do disagree with is that after this article was deleted the first time, it was remade as though the AFD hadn't come down against it, apparently using a trivial name change (addition of apostrophe) to avoid speedy deletion. TastyCakes (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the previous article's existence as reason to delete the present one. What if it wasn't notable in the past, but is notable now? Anyway, it looks like User:SmashTheState is right about the deletion being unnecessary. I can't speak to his claims of an inside job, but it looks like the deleting admin ignored what was closer to a consensus to keep, claiming there were sockpuppets (maybe there were, but I didn't see any evidence of that either). Bolwerk (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if the article is significantly improved from its previous incarnation, and this AFD results in that view, the article should be kept, and I'd be very happy to live with that result. I also agree that the last AFD wasn't particularly clear (partly as a result of said meat puppets). But surely, that alone is reason enough to revisit this AFD? TastyCakes (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just assume this is a fresh start for the case at hand? I'm not familiar with the prior AfD, and a lot of the hassle seems to be over things past. J L G 4 1 0 4 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the previous article looked like. Was it a fluff piece? I think this current article has serious stylistic problems and NPOV issues, but so do many articles. Fixing that could be as simple as moving parts of the article around into a more coherent narrative, less biased towards conflict and more towards function. (Much of the article's POV seems obsessed with proving its notability. This could be because the authors are frivolously trying to prove notability, or critics are frivolously trying to dismiss notability. I don't see Mothers Against Drunk Driving having such an obsession with media citations.) Bolwerk (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently sufficient references to justify notability. Quite possibly the Jane Scharf article should be revisited. Looking at it, it seems to me that a more modest article might well be acceptable. Anyone want it in their user space to work on? DGG (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article about something with at least national media coverage here in Canada. I do see some POV issues... I just don't feel especially bold today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baiter (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And, frankly, I am quite tired of having to oppose the deletion of notable articles like this one, when there are ten thousand articles about obscure TV characters that never get challenged. Do we really need an article for each of the characters off the TV show Gilligan's Island, to pick one ridiculous example? Or all the characters from The Venture Brothers, to pick another? Such inanity is just one of the reasons I have such a hard time taking Wikipedia seriously. --Nik (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the AFD had been done properly the first time (and/or respected) this wouldn't have been necessary. Indeed, Samir speedy deleted the article this morning, and would presumably have left it deleted it it weren't for this ongoing discussion. TastyCakes (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last deletion discussion was a farce. The entire process was derailed by crazy pranksters. Despite that, it was decided (bizarrely) that there was consensus and the article was deleted. When I voted to keep the article, I was dismissed as biased and unworthy of offering an opinion -- because I hadn't made a lot of edits on Wikipedia. (Forgive me for having a life.) There are three things in this world that you never want to see being made -- laws, sausages, and Wikipedia articles. --Nik (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't the last AFD's problems all the more reason to do this again? You're apparently being listened to now. TastyCakes (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cyclopedic. Ottre 02:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Query If somebody could find evidence of the following, quoted from this article (per the OPU page itself), that might help address the problem of POV, since if this organization is making its case to city hall, and city hall is "negotiating" with it, well, that's significant to me: "Members of the Panhandlers Union are negotiating with Ottawa City Hall and the various business improvement areas regarding the current ban on street vending so that the homeless can sell their arts, crafts, jewelry, and street newspapers, as well as perform music and street theatre. With the union behind them they can look to the future with an entrepreneurial spirit." J L G 4 1 0 4 02:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Negotiating" might be an optomistic way of putting it. The current mayor of Ottawa once refered to panhandlers as pigeons that will go away if you don't feed them. He's not exactly sympathetic to the OPU. That being said, there was a large protest group of homeless people and protestors who camped out on the lawn of city hall a few years back. While that was going on, there were various negotiations with the previous mayor. The OPU, it is my understanding, was a part of the protest and the negotiations. The protest itself was in a lot of the Ottawa media. Hard to miss a tent city on the lawn of city hall. Of course this is all hearsay, and entirely inadmissable in the Wikicourt of law. --Nik (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: I just wanted to clear up something... I've tried to edit the article. I've also tried to figure out what the hell the OPU does. The people involved in the group are "marginal", in the sense that they are the poor and panhandlers. You might be tempted to dismiss the group based on that alone -- marginalized people, you might feel, don't deserve an article. Still, the OPU has received quite a bit of media attention in Ottawa -- both in print and on TV -- as well as some national and international attention. Based on that alone, there is no doubt the OPU deserves an article. And yes, I agree -- the article is badly written, with a lot of bias. (I still have no idea what the OPU specifically does.) But that's not a reason to delete. SmashTheState, who is actively involved with the OPU, has avoided editing the article. He doesn't want to appear biased in the matter. I would like to suggest that he edit the article all the same. He's a good writer and in a position to spell things out clearly. I'm sure he could come up with a good NPOV summary of the OPU and save us all from a world of grief and hellishness. Now let us never speak of this again. --Nik (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator As the history shows, I transwiki'd this article from Anarchopedia under the terms of the GFDL. I was unaware of the deletion of a different version of the article at the time, and added the article because I believed that the sources contained therein were reliable and constituted significant coverage of the topic, thus satisfying the general notability criterion for inclusion. The sources have not gotten any less comprehensive or reliable since, and the responses to this nomination indicate that this discussion ought to be closed with consensus to retain the article. Regards, Skomorokh 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decision?: Seems like we're getting pretty close to a consensus for keep here. Baiter (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
looks like a keep to me. TastyCakes (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 18:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced this is notable and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. A google search turns up 90 results [9], so I don't believe there are reliable sources to verify the article. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editors researching the movie's notability may find more information by searching under its english title, "On Thin Ice". Of course, there will be many false positives for that phrase, so they will have to be weeded out. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently trans-wikied fron Wiki France, I have just gone through and corrected format for Wiki English. I am now involved in expansion and sourcing. User:Phil Bridger found some terrific looking sources, but I do not read/write/speak French. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have just done a painful search for sources, relying on Google translation from French. As the film was only first screened last Saturday, I can only surmise that further sources will be available in Greenlandic and French. As it stands, I am willing to accept in good faith that they likely exist. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources, info, and rationale given by Schmidt,. Someone has repeatedly tried to change the content of the article On thin ice (about an collegiate improv comedy group) to instead include content on this movie. That is not the proper way to handle the English translation of the name of this movie. SMSpivey (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And my own investigations show that a translation is more likely "The Voyage of Inuk", or in intent and context "Inuk's Jounrney". The titlepart "On Thin Ice" is used metaphorically to indicate his relationship with those around him and the dangers faced on his journey across the Greenland icesheet. Not the best of puns. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears there is good evidence of notability. Vive la France! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted --Aude (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure much of this is made up (in that I can't verify facts which should be easy to verify) and what is not, does not meet WP:NM guidelines. Most of it was originally copied from Tyler James, as is most easily seen in this diff, but it has since been edited for tone and style. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self promotion, non-notable. The subject was also attempting to override the article about Andrés Rivera with the one about himself before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the db-vand template that THEN WHO WAS PHONE added. The subject and main writer of the article removed it with no comment, which is against the rules.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the whole biography. There's nothing to suggest any of this is true elsewheres.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 18:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable, self-promotion (she is the founder of PeerSpirit; the main contributor is User:PeerSpirit). Important: Although the article Christina Baldwin was deleted, this is apparently a different Baldwin. So that's why it says "Second nomination". CyberGhostface (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the editor who seconded the prod. Clearly self-promotion. If the author meets WP:BIO, and I'm not sure that she does, this clearly would need to be scraped clean and started anew, with cited sources, preferably by someone with no connection whatsoever to her. There seems too much puffery - and Wikipedia is not a resume service. B.Wind (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--a resume whose references fail to convince me that this is an encyclopedic subject. There's a little bit of coverage from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, but not enough to warrant inclusion. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = Not notable. The few references are mentions in single sentences in larger works about someone else. The "radio interviews" which have been added are actually podcasts, they're not on the airwaves. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was listed for speedy deletion, but the article does make some claims to notability, so I declined it and am sending the article here for more input. The article's author appears to have a conflict of interest, and that's reflected in the tone of the article. --Aude (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor media figures like this (or anyone else, for that matter) without proper sources can't be notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Radio producers aren't generally considered, especially those with zero references.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
One line stub about a non-notable book, tagged for notability since August with no edits since then, no references. Little context is given and everything said in this article is already stated in the article about the author Philip Brophy. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding anything to show this is a notable book, but as Collectonian notes, the author is himself notable. Following past precedent and analogy with WP:MUSIC, non-notable works of notable creators should be merged to the creator's article: merge to Philip Brophy. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since the author is notable, but not the book.じんない 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't anything to merge, this stub is a reprint of what is already on the author's page. I think a redirect is in order. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 18:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion, but the article does assert some notability so it really doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Nonetheless, the article is promotional and self-biographical in tone. I'm not convinced it's suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and thus bringing it to AFD for more input. --Aude (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it is promotional and self-biographical in tone, then by all means go ahead and correct that. That's not a reason to bring this to AfD, neither COI not autobio are reasons for deletion, only a lack of notability is. Please check first whether notability can be established before going to AfD. --Crusio (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes strong claims of notability - professorship at good universities, collected works published by major press, cited by and highly praised by nobelists, etc., and starts RS citation of claims. A glance at the high citation results at gscholar 312, 295, 259, 154 .. confirms notability. Inappropriate tone, clearly written by a newbie but not at all delete-worthy, let alone speediable.John Z (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z. I suggest the nom withdraws this nomination. --Crusio (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable. But it is not wrong for an editor removing a speedy tag and still being unsure of notability to bring it here to see what others think. I too did this a number of times when I was learning. DGG (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was probably a bit too harsh. Sitting at home with a nasty flu makes me somewhat over-irritable, I guess.... Comment struck! --Crusio (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, what happened is that the speedy deletion tag was removed by WilyD, but a few days later the article creator repeatedly put on a hangon with no speedy there, which puts it back in the speedy deletion category anyway. Amusing, but no harm done by anyone.John Z (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), as noted by John Z. Needs to be rewritten to avoid WP:PEACOCK terms.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted --Aude (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable athlete with a non-notable blog who has made some non-notable videos. Has been deleted once before. hbent (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G4. Firestorm (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable webcomic, drawn by a cartoonist whose own article was AfD'ed and deleted as NN. The comic has a sibling, Married to the Sea, whose assertion of notability and continued survival on Wikipedia seem to rest on having ended up in the "Brilliant"/"Lowbrow" corner of New York Magazine's Approval Matrix at some point back in 2006. There doesn't seem to be any sustainable claim to real notability for this article's webcomic per Wikipedia:Notability (web), other than that it's big -- or at least not small -- on Facebook. --Dynaflowbabble 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Married to the Sea with the article Drew (webcomic artist), and rename that article to Drew and Natalie Dee. There's enough content and notability for the aggregate of the three, but I agree, they make poor individual articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a decent idea. We could also conceivably DRV the deleted Natalie Dee article to immediately merge its content, however substantial it may have been, into the new, amalgamated article and then redirect its title there. --Dynaflowbabble 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am, as a rule, willing to undelete articles for userfication or merging without a DRV, so if we go this route, drop a note on my talk page and I'll undelete the article and make a redirect for you. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; let's see how this AfD pans out first. If a clear consensus develops for a merger, I'd be glad to Frankenstein everything together. --Dynaflowbabble 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blieve that NatalieDee.com should be merged with Drew's article. Should we merge Hillary and Bill Clinton too? Saying that though, it'd be better than nothing.
For one, this article is not about the arguably non-notable Natalie Dee, it is about NatalieDee.com. Also, bearing in mind that Married to the Sea very rightly already has a Wikipedia page and that NatalieDee.com has a circulation that is not only much greater than Married to the Sea, but Natalie Dee (56,900,000 per month) is near equal to Married to the Sea (32.1million) and Toothpaste for Dinner (36.2million) added together! (To put this in to perspective; an average of 22 people look at a NatalieDee.com comic every second.
I would say that Natalie Dee is indeed notable and far more notable than many other pages that have survived AfD. IMO the deletion Nazis need to let go of the 'training wheels' style rules and make a decision based on reason, common sense and the plain facts rather than whether or not it has been in print (shall we delete the article for Wikipedia while we're at it?).
Either way, what does it hurt to leave a page that is already created and which many people wish to read? And what does it gain to delete it? Shane.Bell (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "what does it hurt" question is addressed at WP:NOHARM; as far as the statistics on hits you give, if there are reliable, verifiable sources that show those numbers, they should be added to the article to establish notability. As the article currently exists, however, I think there are valid questions about notability and there should be a merge as discussed above. Rnb (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, at least, the merge makes sense - they're an art team. They work as a team on a comic, and have solo projects as well. There's clearly a single, coherent topic to the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have researched the number of unique hits. Here are my findings comparing webcomics already on Wikipedia compared to NalatieDee.com. Compare.com Site Analytics.As you can see, I believe there is a strong case that this website is notable in its own right.Spastic on elastic (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- if we're going to have any webcomics here NatalieDee probably passes the the ol' notability threshold. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dynaflow and Phil Sandifer above. Not enough reputable independent sources for individual articles. --Dragonfiend (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyLoxyPounce! 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but only her and her comic, no need to merge her info with her hubby's. -Yupik (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the "references" cited by the article, three of them are Wikipedia mirrors, two are Facebook (hardly a reliable source), and only one might be a reliable source, thus it appears to fall short on WP:RS and WP:N (possibly also WP:V). Also, Notability is not inherited, and merging the article about one woman's webcomic to her husband's biography (or, worse, an article on her husband's webcomic) seems inappropriate as well. In addition, this article appears slightly spammy to me. B.Wind (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unlikely to be a notable model or actor, not even sure that this is the same person as has the IMDB entry of the same name Itsmejudith (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, and FWIW the person at the IMdB entry wouldn't be notable either, nor would someone with the credits of them both put together, if that should be the case. DGG (talk)
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 lack of reliable, third-party sources about this fictional character from a single film. If details about the character are subsequently added, such as how the actress perceived her role or what some critics said about the character, they exist in the context of the film and should be merged to Sky High. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and set Redirect as there is no sourced notability outside the Sky High universe. The character does have mention in the parent article that might be expanded, but a seperate and in-depth analysis of the character and her relationship with the other characters does not merit a seperate article. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 18:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Sky High. Schuym1 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main antagonist of a Disney film . That really ought to be enough reason, if we did it sensibly. The key characters in major films are notable, and all films under this label qualify as such--there always turn out to be sufficient references. There is not the least need for notability of a character except as a character--that's what they are notable for in the first place. (As soon ask for notability of an actor other than as an actor). In any case this would never conceivably be a pure delete--at the very least it would by a redirect. I challenge the nominator to specify why its unsuitable for a redirect. Ditto for the two !votes above. Redirect, i remind us all, is a keep. DGG (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with a redirect being suitable and have modified my opinion accordingly. The actress herself has her own article and so does the film. I am having trouble finding any sources showing character notability except for in relationship to Sky High, but agree that there is notability inside that universe. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to preserve the page history of this fictional character's article; it is all plot detail. Any real-world context about this character can be included at the film article, which is hardly screaming for sub-articles to be spun off. There is no need to create a redirect; searching for "Gwen Grayson" on Wikipedia will bring up the film article as the first hit. Creating such redirects for characters of a single film is not really the norm. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sky High. Repetitive unsourced plot summary and in-universe trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per DGG's challenge, I'd be happy with a redirect or a merge. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements since nomination that verify the content, including some out of universe information, in reliable, secondary sources. No reason to redlink in any event as it is not a hoax or nonsense and no need to delete the edit history as nothing libelous or copy vio-esque in there either. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per improvements to the article. The possibility of a trim or a merge should be discussed on the article's talk page, but this is a main character in a notable work of fiction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Someone please take care of the images as well. Tone 18:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely detailed coverage of a non-notable youth American football league. Wikipedia is not a webhost for local match results. PRODded but contested by page's main contributor. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I could imagine one being notable (for example, kids of significant people playing in it, so news follows it around), this definitely isn't it. Delete the pictures, too, since they really should be fair use rather than Creative Commons, and they're plainly useless outside this article. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think it is possible for youth sporting leagues and events to be notable (such as the Little League World Series), this ain't it...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as an article that gave no clue as to what it was about. All it did was credit somebody with coming up with the phrase "sleezy metal chick", which would appear to be self-explanatory; and added an external link to a MySpace page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable Neoglism created in Jan 2009 according to Author. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DFS454 (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - She has been covered in newspapers of repute [10] due to her role in Jodha Akbar [11].Pectoretalk 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutral. Per improvements. I have cleaned up the article, made it understandable, fixed format and style... but am still uncertain about her notability. I have tagged it for rescue. Perhaps Project India Cinama may have access to non-English sources. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 18:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that none of these references talk about how her role was in the film Jodha Akbar, except that it was a small role as Akbar's sister. The other information available says that she is 'a pretty young thing' and 'actress Kumkum's niece', other than noting her previous experience in a telefilm, some trainings and some theatres. But, none of these establishes notability. IMHO, she could be doing pretty well in future, but it is too early to include an article on her on WP. BTW, Newspapers and Media cover a lot of current topics, but not all of them get into encyclopedia. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. ALL but one of the references are from around the middle of July, 2008 — TheBilly(Talk) 09:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Plenty of reliable sources means that the article easily passes WP:N and WP:V. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep if there really is such a thing. The concept of "chess boxing" offends me, and the fact that this is one of the small proportion of chess-related articles deemed "Good Article" or better offends me, but I have no doubt that this article is sufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia's standards. There is no requirement that all references in an article be from last month. I daresay that the vast majority of references in the vast majority of articles are older than July 2008 (often a lot older) - see, e.g., George H. D. Gossip, recently promoted to Featured Article. And even if chess boxing ceased to exist - which would be fine with me - it would still be notable as a historical curiosity. I see no legitimate basis whatsoever for deleting this article. Krakatoa (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some editor must have thought this was a hoax or a trivial prank engaged in by drunken frat boys. Wrong! Chessboxing is for real. It is a growing sport throughout Europe and North America. Regardless of the problems it may cause in classification (physical sport or board game), this article definitely should not be deleted. DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable as shown by User:Theserialcomma above. Nominator has apparently misunderstood the intended meaning of "notability is not temporary", and suggest he reads WP:NTEMP, particularly the first sentence which reads "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". JulesH (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a ridiculous combination of games, but it is sadly notable. I know that Simen Agdestein wound up seriously hurt in a comedy stunt for TV [13] which extends my distaste for the activity, but which is yet another source contributing to notability. Sjakkalle(Check!) 15:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's completely stupid (although not as stupid as extreme ironing), but it's certainly notable. It's even been on TV. Tris2000 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Tamil Tiger, article devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position do not add up to notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism.Pectoretalk 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the above !vote as user has already !voted in this AFD. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as someone who attended the peace talks in Geneva, he can probably regarded as the equivalent of the Sri Lankan Government's envoys, which should be notable. weak keepJasy jatere (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. The only source for this is Muhammad Isa Dawud, see [14] where you find (if that is accurate) a little bit about him. He evidently also claims there is a lot of Djinn activity at this place that no one else seems to know about [15]. dougweller (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two articles in Google News, both about a different Formosa Triangle. Limited coverage (489 Ghits) in Google Web, most being about a different Formosa Triangle. The couple that are related to this article are blogs, forums, and other unreliable sources. 16 Google Books hits. Mostly about the China-Luzon-Formosa triangle. One Google Scholar hit; unable to verify. -Atmoz (talk)
Delete Does not seem to be sufficiently notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources. Is there another name under which this might be found? - Eldereft (cont.) 15:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as the author of the only substantial content has explicitly requested deletion in good faith (CSD G7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the Jacob Galan page by the request from Jacob Galan. Information on the page is incorrect.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ailiuk (talk • contribs) 2009/01/19 03:44:19
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Galan doesn't appear to be particularly notable. At least as of 2007, he was simply a graduate student at Purdue[16] so most of these papers are not primarily his work. JulesH (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judging by the Google scholar results, it's too early in his career for his publications to have had much impact yet. Doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. And if there are WP:BLP concerns, that adds to the reasons for deleting. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable by standards. I am curious what is incorrect though, as it appears the starter of this Afd added all of the information. §hep • Talk 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with JulesH and David Eppstein. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G7: the originator of the article, who is requesting removal, is the only editor to add new information (others have done maintenance work). Baileypalblue (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. SNOW applies here. Tone 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is the Washington editor for Harper's magazine and a Los Angeles Times reporter, author of the book The Radioactive Boy Scout: The True Story of a Boy and His Backyard Nuclear Reactor published by Random House, winner of the Overseas Press Club Award for a series he co-wrote, discussed in numerous reliable sources. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that the article is a stub is not grounds for deletion. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known journalist. There was a minor dustup a while back when he pretended to be a lobbyist for a Harper's story. See this article on him at the top of the 1200 gnews results, should be a lot more. A trip to gbooks shows his books get reviews, of course., so he satisfies WP:AUTHOR too. John Z (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some of this enthusiasm turns into actual edits on the article. Three years is long enough to think about it. And actually, he's just a free-lance writer for Harper's. Everybody who writes for Harper's is listed as a "contributing editor." Sham? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - As long as the subject is notable and Wikipedia has no deadline, I don't see a problem if it remains a stub for 1, 5 or 10 years. Can you point out any other policy or guideline I might be missing? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no requirement that an article be worked on to keep in in Wikipedia. Notable both as a author and a journalist. DGG (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator has not presented any reasons for deletion, whilst solid arguments to keep have been given. the wub"?!" 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a relevant rationale for deletion is forthcoming. Skomorokh 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow eep. Notability and sourcing seems solid, the rest is regular editing so we must keep per wp:AFD. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. It is suspected that a representative of the publishing company originally created the article. Farix (Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, currently this is an unnotable manga series that hasn't even begun its English release, so no significant coverage in reliable-third party sources, only minor mentions of its pending release. Fails WP:BK. Known creation of confirmed Aurora socks using the site for self-promotion (5 or 6 blocked so far). No prejudice against recreation if it ever actually does receive any reviews or significant coverage after the series begin its English release. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be WP:RS for this in Japanese, but that's beyond my ken, and I found no real coverage in English. No sign it meets any other criteria of WP:BK. No prejudice against recreation if, once the English version is out, it gets noted by reviewers and so becomes notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean the clock reset to run from the 19th? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea...it is showing in the log for the 19th, though, so guessing not. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What more central place would be where to ask a question like that? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like the answer is the clock does indeed reset. So this discussion runs to at least 14:10 on the 24th (longer, if prorogated). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as blatant copyright infringement by Woody (CSD G12). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost identical copy and paste of this [17] - perhaps copyright problem?
Relies solely on one, biased source - his own book!!
Very biased. While trying to use his short 'career' as an author of a single book to make the page notable, it just drones on about Ole Nydahl, his Diamond Way group and mentions hardly anything about Tomek himself.
The book he wrote may well have been a fraud. Many people have noted the stunning similarity in style and content with Ole Nydahl's book. Tomek Lehnhert is either hopelessly brainwashed by Ole Nydahl, as are many of his followers/clones, or the book was in fact written by Ole Nydahl and simply released under Tomek's name.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely trivial and non-notable. It's an instance I believe where everything current (or just past current) is being added as an article to Wikipedia. I don't think this is notable.Strummingbabe (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (this would be a "delete/merge" btw, closing admin) to That '70s Show. Remember the chubby guy with the frizzy hair who was Donna's dad? Did you know that his name was Bob Pinciotti? I never paid that much attention to it. Still don't remember? Donna was the red headed girlfriend who lived next door to the Formans. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep....and send out for sourcing. The article is an incisive and comprehensive study of these two characters and their relationships with others within the series. Articles exist for each of the main characters: Eric Forman, Jackie Burkhart, Steven Hyde, Michael Kelso, Donna Pinciotti, Fez, Red Forman, Kitty Forman, Bob Pinciotti, Midge Pinciotti, Laurie Forman, Leo Chingkwake, and Randy Pearson. There is no good reason to exclude 2 main players and accept these others. Either they all stay, or they all get merged. Heyyyyy.... how about since wiki has not run out of paper, they all go into one MONSTER article covering ALL these characters from the show... and including Joan Stupac, Caroline, William Barnett, Brooke, Samantha Hyde, Angie Barnett, Nina, Pamela Burkhart, Roy, Casey Kelso, Laurie Forman (replacement), Pastor Dave, Rhonda, Charlie Richardson, and Mitch Miller... as these others were major series influences too, and not simply background. Oops... I can see how this can get unwieldy. So how about we step back. Since there is too much information about major cast characters to fit into the parent article, seperate articles are acceptable. As for the information on Bob and Midge seeming trivial... that was the plot device FOR their characters... makng them "trivial and comedic stereotypes" within the series. Any article about then would by neccesity show this. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Michael QS explains very well what the distinctions are for when we merge and do not merge articles. The key thing is of course the content, but the secondary thing is the presentation. This isn't really supposed to be the place to discuss the presentation, but since we're doing it, I endorse his approach to this. DGG (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge discussion can take place on article talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me quite likely User:Aurush kazemini and user:Strummingbabe are the same person. Strummingbabe appeared out of nowhere one day and started AFDing the same articles Aurush (and his possible preceding account (now banned), user:MiltonP Ottawa) has been. Similar randomly constructed user page etc. The apparent reason for creating this account (or one of them) seems to be to allow him to vote multiple times in AFDs. At the very least Strummingbabe is a meatpuppet of Aurush, as when he shows up to vote he always votes the same way as Aurush. Anyway, thought that might be relevant. TastyCakes (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. No references provided to establish notability, and no claim to notability provided. Written in-universe. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Speedy delete. Or rather, I speedy closed it, didn't CSD it. Just clearing that up. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (person)? The article is about its author, who has also added a link to the article to the Doctor of Letters article. There are no Google hits for the person himself. At first I thought the degree itself might be adequate to satisfy the notability guideline once someone supplied a citation, but then I wondered whether the school itself is notable enough for degrees conferred by it to render their recipients notable. I Googled "st thomas a becket university" and found very few hits. All of them were references to an entity affiliated with the university or a person with a degree from there; none was about the university. Also, being the youngest person to have held a particular position, at least unless that position is itself extremely remarkable, isn't notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite various "claims" to notability, this is not a notable subject and appears to be the author writing about himself (User:Ferozkkhan). |►ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK◄| 19:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A hoax? Certainly no RS. Springnuts (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A hoax or fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of existence, really, let alone notability. "St.Thomas A Beckett" was a name proposed at one time for the Darwin college at the University of Kent. Hoax, or total imaginary peacock. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Much as I would love this to be true, I am sorry to say that it appears to be (or at least contain) aWP:HOAX. St Thomas a Becket University either does not exist or is mere degree mill. The univerities at Canterbury are University of Kent and Canterbury Christ Church University. David Livingstone Missionary Foundation of Tulsa appears to exist (as does a similar one of Canada), but has no website that I can find. It appears to have a humanitarian operation in the Philippines, but I could not see anything about Bangladesh (though I may have missed it). As a missionary foundation, I would have expected it to be promoting Christianity, something that the subject, as a Muslim, would obviously be unable to do. Conceivably, the subject directs an aid programme in Bangladesh, but it all looks very odd indeed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update The author left this link in the article: http://wesleysynod.homestead.com/page2universtities.html. Methinks it doth protest too much: they insist that it's both a college and a university, and "NO DEGREE CAN BE JUST BROUGHT, WE WILL NOT SELL ANY DEGREE OR JUST ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE ...!" I doubt the deans at Cambridge feel it necessary to make this observation on their website. More to the point, they indicate that in their 15 years of existence they've had "hundreds of students." I hesitate to acknowledge the notability of an honorary degree awarded by this school, let alone the inherited notability of a recipient of such a degree, and especially when it was written in the form of a vanity article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't even figure out if this article is fiction or a true bio. Only reference is a video game and it's been poorly "referenced" since 2007 Mrmcdonnell (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search of Google Books brings up passing mentions about him. This appears to have been a real person. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this what you're referring to? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the exact standards of notability are for politicians in pre-democratic societies, but being a daimyo (warlord) enfeifed by Toyotomi Hideyoshi himself makes him the holder of a first-level sub-national political office. By WP:POLITICIAN, that would make him notable. It's an analogy, but by that reasoning, given we've verified his existence (see above), it's a keep and translate the Japanese Wikipedia article. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above and Quasirandom's reasoning., a daimyo, and not an obscure one, if only for his interaction with Oda Nobunaga. In notability terms it's like a governor who was forced to commit suicide by his nephew the president. Here's the google translation of the japanese article. John Z (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Quasirandom. Clearly notable person, even if the article needs work. Edward321 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Being in a specialist encyclopaedia is insufficient - a specialist encyclopaedia will obviously have lower notability requirements than a general one. Tango (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a specialist encyclopedia is paper, and we're not, I'd say the reverse. Keep.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at WP:MUSIC for the sake of argument, my first impression is that the closest this article comes to meeting the criteria is by meeting criterion 1, to do with publication in reliable sources. The problem isn't that it's mentioned in a published work (specialist encyclopedia ticks that box for me) - it's just that I can't see where else it is mentioned beyond the trivial, meaning that it fails the criterion in the sense that it is not covered in multiple reliable sources. If someone can let me know if it is mentioned elsewhere, I am happy to rescind this opinion (or if I fail to, closing admin should weight the comment accordingly) Fritzpoll (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two albums (issued by a proper record label spending money on them, not by themselves), specialist encyclopedia - what's the criteria this week that this fails? - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The solitary source at the moment is not enough, but there is also a Rockdetector entry here, if that's helpful. Not really much else, I could spy. The albums might be enough to pass WP:MUSIC if the label is notable, but I'm struggling to work out whether this is the same Survival Records that started out putting out electronica. They obviously contained members of Mortal Sin, who are clearly notable, so at worst this should be a redirect. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some coverage exists (source cited in the article is fine, see also this and this), released 2 albums, and members went on to join Mortal Sin, and, apparently also Rainbow.[18] --Michig (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently sourced. We are a specialist encyclopedia, not just a general one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article makes no assertion of notability for this cipher - being very broken doesn't suffice. ciphergoth (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to go into this in a bit more detail - lots of people design ciphers, most of whom don't really have much expertise in breaking them. Those who do know how to break them can have fun doing so, and occasionally get a paper out of it, but it would seem perverse to consider a cipher notable because it's broken, unless the break is independently interesting in some way - in other words, if the paper that breaks it is frequently cited. ciphergoth (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Assertions of notability" form no part of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, nor does the nominator's idea of "fun" or the fact that a cipher may have been documented as broken. Wikipedia:Notability is quite clear on what notability actually is.
As the references and further reading sections of the article indicate, multiple published works exist, that are from authors independent of Lee, the creator, that document this subject with noticably more than passing mentions and that are pretty much canonical examples of reliablity for Wikipedia purposes. (IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences, for example, is a peer-reviewed academic journal with a policy of publishing original research that advances its field. That Ciphergoth thinks that people have "fun" submitting papers to it does not change the fact that it is a serious journal, and that publications in it can be relied upon to have been written by experts in the field and reviewed by an editorial and review board of their peers.) The Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied.
Remember the readers. They might want to look these subjects up. It's what we're writing an encyclopaedia for. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If people considered it worth investing the time to write research papers on this cipher, then it is clearly notable. Why would anybody waste their time attacking a non-notable cipher? The publication, therfore, of the cryptanalysis of this cipher is evidence of notability. JulesH (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least several academic papers on it. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per academic articles. This is a useful, interesting article—why the urge to delete? Graymornings(talk) 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple articles in peer-reviewed academic journals referenced in the article establish notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Professional boxer, apparently with somewhere between 30 and 40 professional fights in his career. That's enough to meet WP:ATHLETE. JulesH (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Entirely Original research. There has been no attempt to provide any sourcing and that is because there are no sources. The external links all relate to something completely different. Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Describes a wild fire with serious, but localized impact. Unsure if it meets criteria for notability. To my knowledge most large wild-fires do not warrant their own articles and they often destroy substantial value. It's not an open and shut case, but it's worth having others take a look at.
My new opinion is that the article is valuable. It does need some substantial copy-editing, however, the notability I think is on par with other disasters. However, I still think the issue should be decided and commented on by other editors. LH (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is notable, however, it will need some additional cleanup. LH (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is curious how every high wind gets an article, but bush fires etc. seem to have to meet a higher standard. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which high wind articles are you referring to? An article on wildfire it would be notable, but you linked to an article on a general subject, not a specific event. The question here is about the latter. If there are in fact a number of major disaster articles specific to their events, I will be the first to say that this weighs heavily in favor of keeping the article. Part of the nomination is because it's my instinct that the question is somewhat open. LH (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point was that every separate hurricane, cyclone, typhoon seems to get an article, but bushfires do not seem to be given the same benefit of the doubt. My personal theory is that it is because storms are given cute names like Katrina or Tracy. I reckon if bushfires were given names, their articles would be kept more often too. Who would delete an article called "Bushfire Chloe"? -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't disagree with your point, but the touchstone here is of course notability. Katrina was a very notable storm given the damage it caused and political impact it had. Cyclone Tracy apparently destroyed 80% of the buildings in a town and caused $800m in damages (back in the 70s). Those are notable. But to bolster your point, Hurricane Isaac (2006) appears to be a non-notable storm in terms of its damage, but it has a full featured article. Similarly, there is a list of (for the US at least) wildfires of significance at the National Interagency Fire Center site (list). The question is whether this particular fire is of similar notability. That requires input from contributors familiar with Australian news. LH (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think the comparison with cyclones is a valid one. This fire did destroy 25 homes, numerous other buildings, thousands of acres of bushland, thousands of farm animals and two people were killed. It's a bit of a stretch to write it off as a mere wikinews article. The relative lack of bushfire articles is not an argument for lack of notability, but rather for the writing of new articles, which I've actually been meaning to do for a while. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate "trivial" list. Mostly unsourced original research, or numbers from unreliable sources (TV.com - "where the fans run the show"). Aside from shows that are no longer in production, this is an unmaintainable list that will become quickly outdated. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 09:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to say delete when someone has clearly gone to a lot of work on this, but I doubt the figures and the list is unsourced. All the footnotes are truly for notes like "as of January 1, 2009", rather than sources. This one makes a good guess as to how many episodes there have been for ESPN's SportsCenter, but do we know for sure that there have been 31,195 episodes as of January 9, 2009? Or 20,718 episodes of the Today show as of 1/1/08? Every once in awhile, there will be a celebration of some sort where a program reaches a milestone, but did All My Children acknowledge a 10,000th episode in November? Has SC had a 30,000th episode? I think that this one has gone a step too far by trying to be too precise, without the tools that precision requires, and with no explanation as to how the figure was reached. It's not necessarily trivial, since the longevity of a show is often marked by recognized in the ----nth episode, but there's no room for inaccurate trivia. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that someone has obviously put work into this article, but with little to no references, it is - as you put it - inaccurate trivia.
This point is actually made evident by the fact that Coronation Street and Hollyoaks are listed as having "seasons", which they don't - they are produced all year round with no breaks between different series. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a good and useful list. Not "trivia". The solution is to fix it, clean it, source it ... not to delete it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Welll sourced and referenced article. An easily maintained list - how is this "unmaintainable"? How many shows are going to sneak by with 20,000+ episodes and not be included? Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I think that when the nominator is saying unmaintanable, it's not that a program would be omitted from the list, but that the number of episodes of Sports Center or the Today Show changes every day. I'm going to ask the question, how is this "well sourced and referenced"? Those little numbers after each entry don't lead to any citations. Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily sourceable, not really trivial. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the notes section. Those aren't sources; they're comments disguised as sources. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what I wrote. I said "sourceable", not "sourced". Just because the current references for the article are not sufficient does not mean that there are not other better sources out there. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better, the population of the earth and GNP of countries change continually, but we update once a year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to lists that change all the time, but can easily be maintained. Just like this one. Lugnuts (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I can see a need for cleanup, but taking an article to AfD is not the proper way to do that. Tag the article with various cleanup tags. I also agree with the other keep comments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up what? It's just a list. It isn't a badly-written list, but it isn't encyclopedic either. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTS disagrees with you as there are literally thousands of lists here. In fact, there are over 1200 which are featured, so please drop the "it isn't encyclopedic" argument as it doesn't hold up. Cleanup entails many things, including adding proper citations. So yes, cleanup. Do you object to cleanup for some reason? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been tagged since October for improvement, and since December for sourcing. The only "improvement" was made by one editor who added more programmes and more 'Since ...' "sources". I see nothing wrong with including episode totals on individual articles, but I think this isn't really useful, and I stand by my unmaintainable stance - it is far too much work to keep this up to date and well sourced. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 10:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only 2 or 3 months then since it was tagged. There's no timeline to get things cleaned up. There is no policy that states if something is cleaned up within x amount of time it should be deleted. Maybe be bold and find sources/refs yourself to help improve the article. Lugnuts (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if we wanted to "be bold" we would simply blank the page. We'll stick to helping improve Wikipedia by removing false information. There's no excuse for someone to toss out figures without saying where they got them from. Some of the numbers on here have obviously been made up by someone who multiplied the age of the series by the days of the year. The entry for the Today show is a perfect example of that-- supposedly it has had "20,718" episodes from January 14, 1952 to January 1, 2008. But in that same 56 years, there hadn't even been 20,500 mornings (get a calculator and do the math), and the Today show most certainly has not been on every single morning since 1952-- it was Monday through Friday until more recent years, when it expanded to weekends. Get a calculator and try running some of these numbers. It's not that difficult-- there are at least 260 weekdays (Monday through Friday) in a year, so divide the alleged number of episodes by the length of time referred to. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't say all lists are unencyclopedic; this one is because it almost entirely consists of original research and fake sources. If you want to prove that the article is notable, add some real sources; simple as that. Even adding one or two sources should prove some notability; right now, the keep votes seem to only be backed up by WP:ILIKEIT and nothing else. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of being bold, I'm fairly certain that Metro isn't ending the comment with what might be mistaken for a keep vote. Normally, I would not do an edit on someone else's comment, and I apologize in advance, but there seems to be enough confusion about the lack of any sources for the article in question. Mandsford (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was actually a good call. :) But while we're at it, should we also delete this? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that the anime list has already been nominated for deletion, and that discussion was closed as a snowball keep. Unlike the list being discussed in this debate, I have no doubt that reliable sources exist for the anime list (and in many cases, these sources are already present on the series' article or episode list), it's just a matter of someone adding them. In addition, the anime list is being actively maintained by the parent project (I confess I have no idea of the status of this list, however). -User:Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.24.177 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The apparent Today show discrepancy can possibly be explained by the fact that from 1952 to 1958, the show was broadcast live as separate two-hour editions for each U.S. time zone (Infoplease). The episode count may be including four episodes a day for about six years. --Canley (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm-- the sourcing on the anime episode count is every bit as good as the sourcing on this article. Since it's anime, though, it might be more likely to "magically" improve on its own... Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP for formatting and ref fixes. Its a keeper and better than many such lists. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other than the falsehoods and the inaccuracies, it's really good. Mandsford (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you agreeing that the article is good. WP:CLEANUP is the way to go to address any problems with sourcing or accuracy, perceieved or actual. Best regards, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much of the article isn't a falsehood or inaccuracy? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please can it with the bad faith assumptions here. It's likely most of the article contains all or mostly accurate information. There's no one here who doesn't agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but your acerbic comments throughout this discussion are out of line. If you have something useful to say, please do so. Otherwise, we don't need such unhelpful comments here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith; you just don't seem to like the fact that I disagree with you. The end discussion will be based on consensus, won't it? How will we have that if we don't hear out differing opinions? And maybe it is likely that the article could be accurate, but we need inline sources, not comments. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with you disagreeing with me. I have a problem with arrogant questions such as "How much of the article isn't a falsehood or inaccuracy?" Your comment implies that you believe everyone who has contributed to the article was purposely including falsehoods and inaccuracies. That is clearly an assumption of bad faith. If you want to discuss the merits of the article as it stands, then discuss it rather than tossing out comments or questions such as that. Such questions do nothing to further discussion of the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Metro and I have made our point that editors shouldn't smugly toss out numbers without any proof, and without any citations to verifiable sources. What we've done is very useful and very helpful. In answer to his question (how much isn't false or inaccurate), a lot of the soap opera numbers are probably close-- in fact, Days of Our Lives actually broadcast its 11,000th episode today, which I can show by this link [20]-- and All My Children had its 10,000th on November 12. SportsCenter likes to call its shows, shown three times a day, "episodes", and they celebrated 30,000 in 2007. The numbers for news shows appear to be made up-- the example of 20,718 installments of The Today Show in 56 years would mean that it was on every morning, and on twice on several hundred other mornings. Even sillier is the number for Meet the Press-- on the air for the last "4,811" Sundays, which would mean that it's been on TV for about 90 years. Mandsford (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt any of the editors who have worked on the article have done so "smugly". Yes, the article needs sources, and no one is arguing that, but this is another example of assuming bad faith on the part of the editors working on an article. Please keep comments focused on discussing the article rather than the contributors. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A possible source for many of these figures may be from this December 2007 article by Ken Hoffman in the Houston Chronicle: Prime time for a big Smackdown. Hoffman gives episode counts for a number of primetime and news programs ("Meet the Press has aired more than 4,750 episodes", "Same with the Today show, which debuted in 1952 — five, then six, now seven mornings a week. That's more than 20,000 episodes, all told.", "SportsCenter debuted in 1979, so let's put the over/under at 30,000 episodes"). Not to cast aspersions on your calculations, but these figures aren't too far from the numbers in this list (although, there is a possibility Hoffman used Wikipedia as a source), and see my possible explanation above of the Today show discrepancy. --Canley (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem - there is some well-sourced material out there, but it is out of date. December 2007 is over a year ago, and if that is all we have to go on (aside from "approximations") then it seems pretty pointless to me to have this article. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The solution to unsourced or inappropriately-sourced and possibly inaccurate numbers is to replace them with appropriately sourced and accurate numbers, or, where the exact number is unknown or changing on a daily basis, reasonable approximations. DHowell (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but this is the third day, so why hasn't anyone added said sources yet? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no WP:DEADLINE, and judging it worthless because it has not been brought up to an arbitrary standard in an arbitrary length of time goes against guideline. All such lists are mutable and need upkeep and care. It may just be that editors who might wish to do so are waiting to see if it survives this AfD... as they may reason, "why do any work if the list is hated so much and is going to be tossed anyway?" Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the lack of well sourced content, and the fact that reasonable approximations seems to go against WP:V, doesn't it? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers that change on a daily basis can be verified for the moment or date they were posted, which meets WP:V... a day or a week or month later that number changes, but that does not undo the fact that it was at one time verified. Such lists need upkeep. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've held off taking part in this AfD as I kind of see the point of the nominators, however as of today almost all the top items on this list have been sourced (I've just added three or four references myself). I agree with the removal of contentious inclusions such as the Today show until such time as they celebrate a clear milestone, and I feel that if a clear milestone and date are given in the references, it's not original research to include a more up-to-date approximation if the reader can work out or double check the figure for themselves. This type of list is not merely "trivia", and would not be out of place in a moderately specialised encyclopedia of television (i.e. Wikipedia is not Britannica). --Canley (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. Thank you to everyone who added citations, and thank you to the nominator and the persons who pointed out the serious problems that this list had. But for the nomination and the harsh-but-true criticism, there would have been no incentive for anyone to fix it. This is how AfD should work, where articles that "can be" fixed actually are fixed, and those that are not up to par are deleted. While an unsourced list was tolerated when Wikipedia was working its way up, Wikipedia has become the most popular site on the internet. In articles that people rely upon, verifiable sources have to be standard equipment, not options. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No offense, but WP:DEL in no way stipulates that articles should be deleted if they need improvement. DARTH PANDAduel • work 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Actor is not notable. This sentence from the article says it all "Ron was never a long running actor in the one Television Show, He normally guest starred for 2-4 episodes at the most." DFS454 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and this article was already speedily deleted yesterday). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Very few esults in google search [21]. DFS454 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Spammy. I don't think that reliable sources provide enough substantial coverage to pass WP:N. – wodup – 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - No apparent reliable sources to establish notability. As it was established in 2008, there may not have been enough time to establish notability. Could happen in the future, but not yet.--kelapstick (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From what I can tell, this does not satisfy the notability requirements for web content. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I stubified the article to remove unsourced, non-encyclopedic statements. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose (inferred) Site is the top torrent search engine.. I hope wikipedia mentions this service as torrents are about three fourths of the web traffic and this is the cleanest search engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingali (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC) — Klingali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
gpirate is an important free service
torrents are the most valuable form of downlaods for people of developing countries
Gpirate intends to keep it free and usable for most people
GPirate is a new search engine, that aims to organize all the world's torrents in the most efficient way. The site is now live and currently indexes over 1 million torrents.
Torrents and the Bit-Torrent protocol contribute to about 1/4 of all the world's internet traffic and we will help you find your needle in that huge haystack.
PLEASE DONT Delete this - you are doing a disservice to users
Let other users fix and clean the article but do not remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingali (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 January 2009
Delete Fails WP:WEB; obvious COI issues; article makes grandiose, blustery statements ("Gpirate discovers all the tv shows from around the world") and uses peacock terms. caknuck°resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from WP:WEB, those are grounds for repair, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete: I am not Linguistatlarge or the other person. I am a user of Gpirate and it is a service i have come to rely upon everyday.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingali (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 January 2009
Query: you understand that this is a discussion about deleting the wikipedia page, not getting rid of Gpirate itself, right? I don't understand why it's relevant that you use it? I use several piece of software every day, but that doesn't make them notable enough to have a WP entry. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good - I have not come across a single bad review of gpirate so far in all my browsing for content—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingali (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 January 2009
Keep Poor article and I wouldn't weep to see it go, but Gpirate achieves adequate notability through mentions on torrentfreak (one of the best WP:RS for this topic) and even the usually glacially moving about.com. If they've noted it, it's established enough even for WP. Half the current article content ought to be pruned though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article on torrentfreak.com about torrent searches in general Gpirate is mentioned, the article, however the article is not specifically about Gpirate (also notwithstanding WP:OSE, the only other site in the article that has a wikipedia page is YouTorrent). That doesn't counts as significant coverage that can be used to establish notability. As for the About.com references, again another references in passing (giving it special mention in their list of the top 35 torrnet sites, but it didn't actually make their list of top 35)--kelapstick (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep i m a user of Gpirate for like 20days and it is really useful. Not once has i shown any spam or junk message or any form of spyware or porn, as is common in torrent sites, It does not even serve any advertisements. It reminds me of the Google of early 97. But as you mention the article better be pruned Gpirate. Is it possible to nominate that this article needs to be cleaned up.. And number of users of Gpirate search seems to be growing at a rapid pace! I think we are going to see mentions of the search engine sooner than later Wikisudia (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral veering to Weak keepif de-spammed and de-peacocked - much more like LinguistAtLarge's version. The SPA enthusiasts are their own worst enemies if they insist on the unencyclopedic promotional tone and undo changes that remove it. Guys, if the article stays, understand that you will not OWN it and will have to allow others to edit it to comply with Wikipedia's normal standards such as neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete nn songwriter, whose only claims to notability come from riding the coat tails of the notable. Mayalld (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I Googled it before I speedied it as a NN bio, but it had been brought here at the same time. Few relevant hits, mostly Myspace. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete non notable unreleased album fails WP:MUSICMayalld (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Page himself - he IS Mr. Mister - is talking about releasing Pull on his new website. It's in the radio interview posted on Youtube. Also he is writing an email stating the same. That's proof enough. /Kos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not for Wikipedia it isn't. We don't do crystal ball gazing, and regardless of what Page says about his intentions, there is zero firm evidence that this will ever happen. Mayalld (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the guideline: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." For me it's reliable that Page himself discusses the album with radio hosts only a fem days ago. It's the first time we have his own words on the matter. Also, I don't see anything about 'crystal ball' in the guideline. Nothing about release or not, rather existence or not. And Pull exists - I have it myself like thousands of others (including the radio host joking with Page about his copy being worn-out!). Sorry if I have misunderstood the guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Themfromspace, if email is not good enough how about the radio interview from December 18th 2008 with Richard Page talking about the album release? Just curious about the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notice the word independent. Page is not independent, and his making a statement that is MIGHT be released in a post-interview e-mail is not a reliable source. Mayalld (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the repeated reference to the email when his own words about the matter is in the radio interview (Youtube link)? Again: The guideline says nothing about "release odds", it's more about "existence" as I read it. And there is no question about the album existing (it's all over the internet). The new thing is Page's own words about talking with the record company about releasing it on his new website. But anyway - I'm new here and might not read the guideline properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... the album is already out there (and has been for years) - everybody can download it. And it seems it will now be out there in a commercial way. But I guess this greyzone "position" is not enough to get an separate wikipedia page. So go ahead and delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete promotional article about nn startup company by a WP:COI author. Mayalld (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Their claim to notability is that they have invented a projector phone, but this was done less than a month ago so it definitly isn't a major invention yet. Themfromspace (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for clarity the prime reason for the AFD is a lack of notability. The article also has serious issues of promotion, lack of balance, etc, which can be summed up as issues that arise from a WP:COIMayalld (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was article had already been speedied, and was recreated by the AFD addition (NAC)Mayalld (talk)
Unelected mayoral candidate. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Few non-trivial mentions in published sources. Graymornings(talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY, and no claim that he reaches notability standards by any other thread of WP:BIO. Kevin McE (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Player clearly fails notability per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY guidelines. Re-create if and when he make his pro debut. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DavidShankbone 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Eivind (t) 14:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about the author of a vanity press book. Autobiographical and self-promotional. Graymornings(talk) 06:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta go with delete. I'm for letting the AFD run its course in hopes this can be made less promotional. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Severely autobiographical and I'm struggling to find notability per WP:BK. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article about a non-notable book. Themfromspace (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I tried I cannot find anything that allows me to think that this should remain. Paste Let’s have a chat. 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is advertising article, not encyclopedia article. Wandering Courier (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep for now. You think it is notable but have nominated it for deletion because it hasn't been translated for a week? I think not. Translate it, then check the notability. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify. Google translate made a mess of it, so I'm not certain it is notable, but I suspect it is not. Therefore, I placed the article here for discussion. --JaGatalk 09:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok. Per the translation below, DeleteIronholds (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The format makes this look a lot like a dictionary definition of "折腾" (which Google translates variously as "toss" or "toss about") with a few examples. And, indeed, Wiktionary has a definition. And no transwiki because large fragments of the text on the bottom appear to be copied directly (without attribution) from news sources. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a Wiktionary-styled entry for Chinese slang use of "toss". I rather think this would qualify for an A2 speedy, though someone that can translate may want to take this back to the Chinese Wiktionary entry for "toss". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Babelfish machine translation:
Tosses about (tosses about) 1. tuck dive; Repeatedly. "Hong Lou Meng" 62nd: “if a drop minor matter then raises the bell to beat a drum, tosses about randomly, inadequate truth.” Lao She "Four generations in one household" 70: “tosses about, in his brain is only tossing about these words: `retribution! Retribution! '” pure-heart "My Student": “the gate outward opens, a window leaf cannot close! Opened has been also peaceful, settles has opened, tossed about several dozens.” 2. suffers. "Actually Ba Jin does Exploration Collection · Belong to Who": “our motherland mother, could also not withstand again such in a big way tossed about.” Chen Qitong "Long and trying journey" second: “our place's poverty-stricken person is called the warlord the prince to be fierce, the landlord two yamas toss about little eat have not put on.” 3. spends freely; Spoiling. Zhou Erfu "Shanghai's Morning" third ten: “which now in is the factory matter unable to control, the retire and make amends, which isn't the factory I, tossed about in any case these enterprises has been all right.” [fresh idea] Hu Jintao when reform and open policy 30th anniversary congress uses “not to toss about” this word, summarizes experience which and achievement the reform and open policy 30th anniversary come. “does not toss about” uses for from populace's vivid language, expressed the very profound thought connotation, expressed the party, the whole nation to walk the Chinese characteristic socialist road's determination and the will steadfastly, simultaneously will also promulgate some questions which the reform and open policy 30th anniversary existed, `tossed about ' will only waste the time, the manpower and the physical resource, firm `did not vacillate, does not idle, does not toss about ' takes the Chinese characteristic socialist road, could enable the common people to spend on the rich and populous life, the country stable prosperous.
reveals mostly that machine translation from Chinese to English is in its infancy; but this appears to index a number of definitions of a Chinese idiom. Any notability would appear to come from Hu Jintao's using the idiom in a speech; I was able to get that much out of it. The speech may be notable; the idiom belongs in Wiktionary as far as I can see. If this is kept, it should be moved to a diacritical-free, Latin alphabet title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a dicdef of a regional slang phrase. It got famous because Hu Jintao used it in a speech recently (probably the first time lots of people in China had ever heard it). There may be sufficient news coverage to write an actual article, e.g. here's an English-language People's Daily article that gives more context [25]. cab (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From a Google translation of this article, I could tell that it was nothing but a dicdef, and a strange one at that. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiQuote (for Hu Jintao) and Wiktionary... Wiktionary takes entries on non-English items, and If it's Hu Jintao's quote, then WikiQuote should take it. Though this needs to be translated first. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7 Magioladitis (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked, unreferenced, questionable notability - and then there's the matter of the title... JaGatalk 06:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this can be speedied as a BLP violation? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural AfD as DGG and I see different sides of this and I respect his opinion. I declined an A7 since I thought it asserted notability. He tagged for spam but self-reverted when he saw I'd declined it. I don't find it to be overly spam but am willing to bring it here for discussion and consensus. Honestly, I'm not sure it passes WP:ORG as the attention it garners may only be local. However if there are enough sources, it could probably be salvaged, so I don't think it's hopeless. As it's 1:30 AM and I don't have the time or level of wakefulness to investigate, I'm neutral at this moment. StarM 06:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be honest, this is borderline A7/G11. Either would have been a perfectly valid speedy. It isn't notable, and it is far from neutral. Mayalld (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't say why the club is notable, and I can't find anything on it either. Themfromspace (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds. -- I agree with the nominator that the article implicitly asserts notability, but I don't think it goes on to demonstrate it. I understand why it wasn't speedied.--S MarshallTalk/Cont 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comments, I will work on it today to make it more encyclopedic and to add more significance. Thank you. Kehancoc (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will rewrite spam if i think the organization important enough; the deciding basis on which I thought it not appropriate was that they devote 10% of their revenue to nonprofit cause, and that 10% has so far been in toto: $4,000. This basically is, to quote the article, a book group to support "a new women's section of the bookstore in the small town" of Skaneateles, New York. DGG (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice to writing an article in English about this subject. Since we're only deleting a garbled machine translation, we're not losing much here, Sandstein 08:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This unreferenced, machine-translated (but nicely illustrated!) confusion should be deleted--it has been tagged as requiring translation for more than two weeks, but nobody has taken up the task. The deletion would be entirely without prejudice with respect to any future creations of (reasonable) articles with the same subject. Bongomatic 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A car model by a major maker like Toyota should be notable. The article as it is does give some information, besides being good for a laugh. It does no harm to anyone to keep.:-) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What information does, for example,
Only 5 door body, in the マイナーチェンジ 1.3 was 1.0 L is the most set L, were sold. Such comically on Ichihara Etsuko, and Sambei on TV ad,, also became a topic.
give to an English-speaking reader, our target reader? This is machine-translation gibberish. Lack of notability is not the only reason that we delete articles, remember. We also delete them for being impossible to make any sense of. An incomprehensible machine translation, from which no sense can be made, is not useful to the reader, however notable the subject may be, or however humourous you may personally find it to read. If you think that there's information here, feel free to make a good stub that an English-speaker can actually make sense of. You now have 4 days. You already had 2 weeks when the page was listed at PNT. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Since you asked. This tells me that the car only comes in a 5 door (hatchback) model, most with a 1 liter engine, one version with a 1.3 liter engine. The car's humourous television ads were talked about in Japan. That is much better than no information.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Dufour (talk • contribs) 2009-01-19 20:36:57
Guesses aren't information. Your guess at what it means doesn't match very well with the words. It seems to be ignoring some proper nouns, for a start. Not even you can work out what it was meant to say, it seems. As I said: gibberish. Uncle G (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, more to the point, if someone actually steps up to do something with the article, they can just refer to the original article on jawiki, rather than trying to make sense of this botched translation. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to the translator. The article is about a notable topic that can be verified. It just needs cleaned up. Themfromspace (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "the translator". Everyone here is a volunteer. And this article was already listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation for two weeks, the standard and long-standing procedure, with nothing happening. We don't keep untranslated pages indefinitely. This is the English-language Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean literally send it to an appointed translator, but just have someone knowledgable in Japanese translate it. And remember there is no time limit on Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (bucking the trend). This article appears to be derived directly from ja:トヨタ・デュエット. It's been utterly mangled in machine translation; if we want an article on the car, it'd be much easier for a translator to start over with the jawiki article. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did what I could to make the links work in the article, but it's impossible to get an article out of that mangled mess that's still left. Start over again through the proper channels, i.e., listing the Japanese wiki article at Wikipedia:Translation and waiting for someone to translate it. If either of the two people above want to keep it, please have a go at it and see what you can do with it. Policy at WP:PNT states that articles listed for more than two weeks should be sent to AfD and this one has been around for some time now. -Yupik (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, the model is notable, and requiring cleanup is normally no grounds for deletion, but in this case the article is so mangled as to be virtually incomprehensible, possibly even a G1 speedy candidate. In its current state, the article is unsalvageable, and it has been listed at WP:PNT for more than two weeks. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, it is indeed a Daihatsu Sirion with a Toyota badge, in which Daihatsu is owned by Toyota. As there are no real difference between the two, I say merge to Daihatsu Sirion. Donnie Park (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find authority for this, it would seem to be a sensible solution. Bongomatic 06:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has gone two weeks without a meaningful translation. WillOakland (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the points people have made I'm going to have to change my vote. I can see that this article will not be able to meet WP's standards of reliable information. Just leave Toyota Duet as a red link in a list of Toyota cars and someone will write a good article in English.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daihatsu Sirion, which already has information about the car being also known as a Toyota Duet, and is acutally readable. DHowell (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information referred to in that article is unsourced--not that I think it's controversial, but it should be sourced. Bongomatic 07:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced but uncontroversial material is better than some text that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so I am willing to support a redirect. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this in a Google Book search, but the book itself is unaccessible there. HereThe New Zealand Herald says that the Duet is "sold in New Zealand as a Daihatsu Sirion". DHowell (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - current automobile model is notable. Needing cleanup is not a reason for deletion at any time. This article appears to have been translated either by programming or by someone who not exactly the strongest in English. If this is identical to the Daihatsu Sirion, a merge of relevant information (as recommended above) is not a bad idea provided that this is consistent with similar clones in other countries' vehicles (Chrysler did this often over the past 30 years; so did General Motors). B.Wind (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable Charlatan Silk Knot (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horribly-written promo for his website and YouTube videos. Advertising. Barely coherent article. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Keep after Mrschimpf's rewrite making it about the notable 1980s actor, and removing the YouTube/website advertising for the non-notable person of the same name. KleenupKrew (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article about 80's actor which seemed to be hijacked to go into detail about some other Tony Longo. I have removed the offending content. Nate•(chatter) 06:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest speedy close since the article has been restored to it's original intention. Themfromspace (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KeepRedirect Our article on it is very poor, but there are nearly a couple of hundred matches in google books: [26] Even discounting the primary sources, there's still a few dozen solid scholarly sources left. A few dozen matches in google scholar: [27] Google generally: about 20,000 matches. Jayen466 05:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the trademark, they seem to have lost it, according to this press report just a couple of days ago: [28]Jayen466 05:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Osho (aka, Bhagwan Sree Rajneesh). Nothing about this product/brand name for meditation establishes any notability apart from the Rajneesh movement, so any mention of it belongs there and not in a separate article. KleenupKrew (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the present state of the article, I don't think I would quibble with a redirect decision. However, Süss (1996, ISBN 3532640104, p. 123), a Christian scholar, asserts the technique is done in various generic workshops, as well as some schools and universities; Stephen Murgatroyd, Senior Counsellor at The Open University in Wales, mentions using it in a book on Counselling published by Routledge Taylor & Francis Group (an academic publisher); it pops up in a book on Stress Management; a book on Transpersonal Psychology again by Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, and going from the sublime to the ridiculous, it's also got a mention in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Tantric Sex (Penguin Books). The work presently cited in the article actually devotes five pages to a description of it. I'm only saying, if someone were to find himself at a loose end on a rainy afternoon, it would be possible to write a well-sourced article about it ... Cheers, Jayen466 07:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I'm from Oregon and remember hearing about this cult. My cousin actually joined it. Anyway, redirect to Osho. As KleenupKrew said, there's nothing about this article that establishes notability outside the Rajneesh. Graymornings(talk) 06:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. there could be a valid detailed article--there's no shortage of sources. But at the moment, all the content is included in the main article. DGG (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'll close this early as it's only going to go one way and because the subject fails one of our core policies, that of being verifiable in a reliable source. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Novel "will probably be written sometime in 2010". KleenupKrew (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for reasons stated, not to mention lack of content. Definite WP:SNOW. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean delete speedily? If there were a CSD criteria for this page I would have tagged it, but A7 doesn't cover books. Graymornings(talk) 06:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's snowing and there's no reason to drag this out.--S MarshallTalk/Cont—Preceding undated comment was added at 10:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
speedy delete- this is one of the cases showing why WP:CSD A7 'no assertion of notability' should be altered to apply to all types of article. StickyParkin 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. In fact, the run for this series was very short. Google search under the Kanji title is not turning up any reliable sources that I can tell. Author also appears to be non-notable. Contested prod. Farix (Talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable sources, despite its finish its run months ago. No reviews and article nothing but plot summary. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JA wiki appears to have two sources...? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is footnote rather than a source, and the other's citing a bit of invented etymology. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both are to the manga itself. --Farix (Talk) 14:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short-lived series that didn't take and made no splash. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No effort done to prove that it deserve to stay on wikipedia, 0 reference, 0 external link, not even one link to the japanese publisher. Sorry that not enough. --KrebMarkt 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete A7 (non-admin closure). Cquan(after the beep...) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that website has no notability: no hits on Google news, no hits on Google that establish notability via independent, verifiable, and in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. trying to go to newsfight.com finds that it is down or does not exist. Article speaks of it in the past tense. it seems this site has already established its lack of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. There is not even an assertion of notability...so tagged. Cquan(after the beep...) 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 07:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band, fails WP:BAND. I also can find no references to Silver or to Danny Mangold as a well-known musician online. This article appears to have been speedily deleted and then recreated by the same author, who also removed my prod. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have done more research, and am now convinced that Danny Mangold was indeed a musician from Fargo, who played in a band called the "Metro All-Stars", later "The Metros", who moved to the Minneapolis area and put out several records; Mangold later owned a music store in Everett, WA. However, I have yet to find ANYTHING online about the band Silver from Fargo that did not originate from the apparent author of this article, Mick Wagner. If the band existed (and I now think they probably did), they seem to have vanished from public memory. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Released a notable song that charted, passes notability requirements per WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC) My mistake for not reading it properly, Delete. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that this song was by a different band named Silver, and this was a factor in forcing the Silver from Fargo to change their name. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Please check out the information regarding "Silver: at: https://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f8000000008048508 The proposed deletion is inappropriate and is not motivated by genuine editorial concern. Also, Brianyoumans' use of my real name instead of my user name is a violation of Wikipedia poilicy and will not be tolerated.
I assume you are referring to WP:OUTING? Brianyoumans has not violated any policy; you posted your real name on your userpage, for gods sakes. If you don't want the house burnt down, don't lend your petrol card to an arsonist. Things posted on freebase don't qualify as reliable, third party sources as required by WP:SOURCES; anyone can write a page or edit is, regardless of their professional knowledge or reputation. For the same reason we don't use other Wikipedia articles as references. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material at Freebase lists Mick Wagner as Silver's lighting person, which would then make his authorship of the article a conflict of interest. But, really, the main point is that the band does not meet WP:BAND and does not have multiple reliable sources. Incidentally, the material at Freebase seems to be contributed mostly or entirely by former bandmembers. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No assertion of notability. Google search under the Kanji title is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Prod contested using an WP:OSE rational relating to Star Trek and Buffy episodes. Farix (Talk) 04:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Unnotable series with completely unsourced claims that it was cancelled due to low readership (which would also indicate lack of notability) and a plot summary. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources.-- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 05:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article even asserts its non-notability: deleted after 12 chapters due to reader non-interest. Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not popular in Japan = Not notable in Japan = Not included in Wikipedia.--KrebMarkt 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No other articles exist on any specific border crossings into and out of the United States, not even the busiest one of them all in San Ysidro, California. Additionally, two of the three external links in the article leads to an invalid page, and the only working one is simply an aerial google image. This is borderline WP:PROD to be honest. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Err.. See Category:Mexico-United States border crossings and Category:Canada-United States border crossings, and specifically San Ysidro, San Diego, California. All these are covered. Generally, geographic locations have been held to be notable in the past and I don't see what is different about a border crossing that distinguishes it from these. JulesH (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so far, the only sort of man-made places where we always keep the articles are inhabited villages or towns, not individual buildings. This may be significant, but I'm not sure. It's essentially like making an article for each named rest area on a turnpike. Maybe we should, but I'm not sure we have a precedent. DGG (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Canada – United States border crossings#Road crossings. The key information is already in that article and the unsourced statements in the last para can easily be included if they can be sourced. To keep this as a separate page, I think that there needs to be evidence that it can be expanded beyond a stub. Since, at the moment, the main article does the job I am not convinced that having its own page is needed. Smile a While (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the largest border crossing in Quebec and a major port of entry for eastern Canada it should remain. It may not be seen as important from an American perceptive for its size, however, in Canadian terms it is important. The majority of the passenger and freight traffic entering the United States from the greater Montreal area pass through this crossing. The dead links were working when they were placed there. They have since been removed. They were of importance while they existed. One was a traffic camera looking at the crossing and another explained the importance of the crossing for the economies of Quebec and upstate New York. Looking at a road map of the area, one can see how geography and road infrastructure play an important part in its large volume of traffic. It is not only a collection of buildings but it has its own little community which as grown around it to support the large numbers of people passing through it. Recent investment and expansion at the facility underscore it importance to Quebec. One can read Government of Canada to Fund Expansion at Border Crossing Facility in Lacolle, Quebec, McLellan to probe security at Quebec border crossing and Quebec — New York Corridor for facts and figures to how and why it is important and also why it should have its own article. Sirtrebuchet (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Quebec until/unless the above information specific to the crossing is incorporated and cited in this article. Until then, the redirect as suggested will do (with a mention in Champlain, New York), but its importance/notability would be more easily demonstrated if there were citations from reliable sources from both sides of the US-Canada border. Also, the redirect preserves the previously-written text for later use, unlike a deletion. A side note: if a reader is expected to "figure out" the importance of something that has a Wikipedia article, that article is not doing its "job" of stating what it is... and why it's here. B.Wind (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the misunderstanding. The quote "for facts and figure to how and why it is important" was a typo. It should have read "for facts and figures to how and why it is important". I was hesitant to write a more lengthy bit, so i included some links to show that this place really does deserve a mention on Wikipedia. I have since edited the typo. Thanks. Sirtrebuchet (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyLoxyPounce! 04:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Notability isn't inherited from being a border crossing, and I can't find any independant, reliable sources that document why this is a notable crossing, with the weak exception of it being the busiest border crossing in Quebec. A redirect to Saint-Bernard-de-Locolle would be appropriate also. Themfromspace (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's custom and practice that geographic locations are notable.--S MarshallTalk/Cont 10:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And it appears other US-Canada border crossings do have articles at this point so that argument for deletion fails. Collect (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid justification for keeping an article nominated for deletion. B.Wind (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but when the deletion argument essentially boils down to "other stuff doesn't exist", it's pretty much necessary to point out that said argument is objectively wrong in its claim. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- That's precisely my point. "Other stuff exists" doesn't justify keeping it. The flip side of that is that "other stuff doesn't exist" doesn't justify deletion. Make sense?--S MarshallTalk/Cont 10:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is no place for hostility. I believe WP:CIVIL covers this. B.Wind (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out, lots of articles exist about border crossings on the Canada-United States border, and the Mexico-US border as well, so that argument doesn't hold much water at all. And beyond that, I think the past consensus that geographic places and highways are both sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia both apply here. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability in this substub article on a family name. Jfire (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyLoxyPounce! 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: It is not enough for a stub as it stands. An extra sentence and a reference would make all the difference. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'd be willing to flop over to a keep if any more worthwhile info to fill this stubstub out were to be forthcoming. -Yupik (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - had this been released a year and a half later, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion CSD A7. There is no assertion of notability in the one sentence "article." B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 07:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be anything spectacular about this month in Australia and New Zealand. Seems to be pure listcruft, and I don't see how this would be of interest to anybody. Firestorm (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of why this is a notable intersection of time and place(s). JJL (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the article, this doesn't appear to be a particularly amazing month... nothing that special seems to have happened. Also, it seems to be unrefedErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--pretty non-notable list. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These lists do seem to exist for April 2005 - May 2006, however as they haven't been created since then and it doesn't look like anyone's missing them I think it would be safe to delete per not actually being notable as a month in 2005. Matt(Talk) 05:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have now added the rest of these months to this AFD. Anything below should be for all of them.Firestorm (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May 2006 in Australia and New Zealand is actually a redirect to May 2006 in Oceania. The Oceania ones go to January 2007 in Oceania. Matt(Talk) 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are the archives for Current events in Oceania and its predecessor Current events in Australia and New Zealand. These regional current events pages were a regular part of Portal:Current events at the time, but they have all slowly fallen into disuse, in part, I suspect, as Portals became popular. I stopped maintaining the Oceania version in January 2007, as it became clear that no one else was interested in contributing to it. See also other regional current events pages, and as an example of other archive pages, ((Indian events by month)). There are also a group of templates and articles linking all these together, such as ((May 2005 events)) and Monthly events, 2005. These tie these pages into the archives of the current events portal, such as May 2005. I believe all these pages should be dealt with together, and not this small sample handled in isolation. Accordingly, I think we should keep these articles until a fuller discussion takes place.-gadfium 07:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Combining Australia and NZ only is also a bit odd given that the two countries are fairly independent of each other. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being per Gadfium. There must be some use somewhere for this content and deletion at this time is premature. Perhaps a move out of article space is the appropriate course of action. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think that 3 years outdated is considered "premature". If somebody wants to move it out of article space then they're free to do so, but is this information going to be useful to anything? Firestorm (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Even the '(Year) in New Zealand' cats are mostly a bit empty. We don't need to subdivide them by month, and mixing Australia and New Zealand makes no sense, given how few pages would relate to both countries. --Helenalex (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per Grutness above. Matt(Talk) 03:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - so far I have merged April - July 2005 and November/December 2005. dramatic (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe dramatic is merging the New Zealand content, but the Australian content has not yet been merged.
According to the GFDL, we cannot delete an article which has merged into another since the contributor history must be preserved. Normally we redirect in such a case. This is a problem for these articles which are being merged in two directions. I am happy to forgo any rights under the GFDL as far as deletion of these specific articles are concerned, but the articles have contributors other than myself. The solution is possibly to add a note (an edit summary would be fine) to 2005 in New Zealand and similar articles, and to redirect these articles to the more general monthly article, eg May 2005, with a note or edit summary at Talk:May 2005 explaining that the content was actually merged into 2005 in New Zealand and 2005 in Australia. This will of course get ten times as complicated once the Oceania archives are dealt with, which is why consideration beforehand would be a good idea.-gadfium 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 80% of the NZ material is already in 2005 in New Zealand with idential wording. Most of what I have transferred has been references which were missing from the latter. dramatic (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium, one possible solution might be to turn them all into redirects to 2005 in Australia and New Zealand and 2006 in Australia and New Zealand, then create those two pages as disambiguation pages to 2006 in Australia etc. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a better idea than my one.-gadfium 06:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom - articles add little encyclopaedic value. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 07:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, no reliable sources to be found. Previous discussion was "no-consensus", 2 years ago. Plenty of time for refs to be found, if they existed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, 3 years ago. Time flies. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 13:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for pointing out the date of the old AFD is that WP:NOTE wasn't a policy then. [29] ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:48, 20 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 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software, per WP:NOTE. Also, the trivia section was annoying, so I removed it. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I get 2,200+ gHits for the software. It seems to be worthy of a modest article like this. Tim Ross(talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the application appears to be uniquely notable as a one-of-a-kind editing and collaboration tool. Would like to see better sourcing on this though. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am proposing this article for deletion as Stan Jones fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standard for politicians. He has never held office, has received no significant media coverage. His only came to fame was being a candidate for political office who has a rare skin condition, argyria which in and of itself does not make him notable. Therefore, he really has no notability and this article should be deleted in my opinion. Pstanton 07:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw some media reports about this guy a while back, not on his blueness, but of his political views. Basically, what he says in that YouTube video is what made him notable for me. When I found out he was blue, I got quite a laugh out of this guy. I vote for keep, but I have edited his article once and think he's a barrel of laughs. It just so happens that his politics and his blueness might add up to WP:Notable. I like to saw logs! (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, I'm just not sure, maybe his article just needs expanding but at the moment it certainly doesn't appear to fit the notability guidelines for politicians, which is that they hold elected office and/or receive major news coverage and neither of those seem to be true. To me, he just seems like another failed political candidate who has *00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
weak delete - I'm more a WP:N stickler than most people here, and to me, notability would be demonstrated by significant comment in relatively-important press or books, showing notability more than just within the USA, and which can be expected to remain relevant over time. The article presently does have a mention in BBC as a source, but that's all. It seems Jones' notability is tied up entirely in losing an election twice as a fringe candidate, and having turned blue. Given he's not as well known or politically successful as Papa Smurf, I'd have to say the subject fails notability right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there is no multi-national notability requirement in WP:N. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I'd think that having an article on a failed US finge party politician, when we likely wouldn't consider an article on (say) a failed Botswanan fringe party politician, might violate the spirit of WP:BIAS. Then again, that's just me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - I also stumbled across WP:BLP1E. Is that a more convincing argument? One could argue that turning blue and running as a fringe party candidate are two events. But then again, we (the outside world) would have never found out about him turning blue unless he'd ran as a candidate to begin with. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly covered in media, either as an example of a person with argyria [30], [31] or because of his pivotal role in the United States Senate election in Montana, 2006 where he is percieved to have "stolen" votes from the republican candidate, allowing the democratic victory [32] and subsequent Democratic control of the Senate. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - All I know is my gut says maybe. But I'm not a neutral - so I maintain a marginal keep. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:46, 14 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 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the color of one's skin doesn't make him notable in itself. He still has to be covered by third-party sources in a non-trivial manner. All references to him are trivial and do not meet the guidelines of WP:N or WP:BIO. Themfromspace (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can see both sides of this. On balance I think he's probably received sufficient media coverage to meet WP:N, but I recognise his relative unimportance as a politician. I think the multiple re-listing in search of consensus shows that consensus won't be reached.--S MarshallTalk/Cont 10:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I can see that, and I'm a little bothered by that as he clearly doesn't fulfill notability for politicians (being elected to office) and his only real claim to fame is having a rare disease. But we don't give EVERYONE with a rare disease an article... Thats my take on it anyways. --Pstanton 07:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete A Google search brought up nothing to confirm his notability and the claims of TV work in the article are not referenced. Boleyn2 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are sources that confirm the legal analyst claim [33], and if the author had just mentioned those, I don't know that this would have been nominated. Part of good writing is to tell people where you got your information. Mandsford (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 14 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 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone who has ever been a talking head. I don't see notability here. THF (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding a paragraph in an industry magazine Super Lawyers, I don't see any notability here. The sole claim to notability is one case, the Jeanine Nicarico murder case. Sounds pretty WP:ONEVENT to me. TJRC (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party verification. JamesBurns (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Luke Rhinehart. Author is notable; brief summary of book should be moved there. I don't understand the comment on 'verification': the book is published. Martin (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, just ignore him, he always says that. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 14 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 03:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Luke Rhinehart. While it was an easy task finding third party verification for the book, like this mention at the BBC.co.uk, or The Independent, none of them provide any stand alone notability for the book. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Luke Rhinehart - author and some of his other works are very well known/ cult classics- not this one. StickyParkin 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-->
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Small and completely non-notable club. They play at just about the lowest level of rugby in the Netherlands, and rugby in the Netherlands is small anyway. Aecis·(away)talk 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the following articles for the same reason:
To provide some clarity, rugby in the Netherlands is divided into five leagues, the Ereklasse being the top. RC Greate Pier and SRC Thor are presently in the 4e Klasse, which is the lowest possible league. Rugbyclub Eindhoven PSV are one league higher, in the 3e Klasse. Aecis·(away)talk 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. These are good nominations for clubs that are not notable, since they do not practice their sport on a high enough level. BTW, I didn't even know the Dutch had so many rugby leagues. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 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 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional sports teams are notable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a professional sports team. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. They play at a level that isn't notable enough for inclusion. Themfromspace (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The information in this article is poorly presented and already exists in the main Besbarmak article. The article, on a certain part of the dish, discusses the entire Besbarmak serving ritual, which is covered in the Besbarmak article. Therefore, the Koy-bas article is redundant and doesn't need to exist. Oral Thrush (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvula! (talk • contribs) 2009/01/12 05:19:15 [reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you see duplicate articles that are "redundant", then Wikipedia:duplicate articles should be your first port of call. This is Articles for deletion. Deletion forms no part whatsoever of dealing with duplicate articles, a process that doesn't even require one to have the tools available to an editor with an account, let alone administrator tools. Uncle G (talk) 22:57, 17 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 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest withdrawing this nomination and boldly redirecting or merging the page. Graymornings(talk) 07:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable fictional sport in one novel, nothing significant found on Google News/Scholar/Books. Only linked from List of fictional games. Prod rejected in early 2008, redirect to the novel article not beneficial as this sport is not even mentioned there. – sgeurekat•c 10:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At best, redirect to the novel. Punkmorten (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 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 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. A few hits actually come up under "conysoft", rather than "cony soft", but it's might thin. I'm also not a big fan of listing the names of several people and more or less stating that they're engaged in a crime. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Cony Soft article has no references or sources according to the big citation block at the top of the article. There's no proof that Cony has connections with Waixing, Super Game or Hummer Team and I believe someone just made this up. Share your thoughts on this page. --Burai (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's one of the better known pirate companies. I mean, the games they made can be found extensively on YouTube. Paul 1953 (talk) 12:19, 17 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 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was previously nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Walterschied) and deleted as a copyright violation. (The creator was also blocked for sockpuppeting in the discussion.) The current article doesn't seem to be a copyright violation but still doesn't address the previous nom's concerns - it doesn't meet notability guidelines and has no third-party references. Graymornings(talk) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC) See below[reply]
This article is not a copyright violation and it has references and external links. Could you please explain the third-party references?
I would be happy to edit the article in accordance with Wiki standards. Industry11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Industry11 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a minute. Didn't realize the previous article had been deleted and salted - I was previously only aware of one AfD debate that was closed per copyvio. This article should be speedied as an attempt to circumvent policy. Graymornings(talk) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--since the article has to go (subject not notable), though I don't know if that's the way to do it (this being a recreation). The article is unsourced, and is pretty much a copy of the person's biography available at http://wonderlandnyc.com/company.htm. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet notability and has no reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources cited are either primary, or from organisations who promote the subject (e.g. Automattic). Cynical (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, why isn't this article tagged with an AFD notification? Second, try a Google News search for sources. Personally, I found sources in three different languages. To me, that denotes notability. Thanks - ShoesssSTalk 03:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's an edit war on this page, which might be the reason for its appearance here without a proper AfD nomination. I'm neutral about deletion. --Lockley (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did not know anything about the edit war (which looks to be over 6 months ago) and I do not know what is wrong with the AfD nomination... I will try to fix. 16x9 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Understood, thanks for pursuing! --Lockley (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 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 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable footballer that does not meet WP:ATHLETE as he yet to play in a fully professional league. Indeed, his club is yet to play in a fully professional league. He has played international football at a junior level. Mattinbgn\talk 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article neither demonstrates nor asserts adequate notability for its subject. Being an Under-17 player for one's country, or signing with a football team, is not sufficient to qualify for an article in Wikipedia. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not convinced that these guys meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. There appears to be some third party coverage at The Sound Projector, but I am not convinced this meets the notability criteria. Prod removed without explanation by unregistered SPA in October 2007. I thought I'd bring it here for the wider consensus. Thanks, sparkl!sm hey! 17:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I couldn't find a lot of coverage, but this provides some useful info, if perhaps not from a recognized reliable source, and this includes reprinted coverage of Philip Sanderson's post-Storm Bugs work from The Wire. Allmusic has one of their albums as an AMG album pick (although there's no review there) [34], they were mentioned in The Guardian as a post-punk band that is now "the focus of cult worship".[35] A substantial list of releases also - seems reasonable to have an article here, but some good sources would help a lot.--Michig (talk) 20:26, 14 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 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-->
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 07:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This subject of this article barely meets notability guidelines, there has been constant edit warring and Stuart Campbell himself has requested that it be deleted. I therefore propose that we do just that and have added a tag to that effect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any tag added by you (perhaps you forgot to save?), but be aware that the article has been through an AFD, and normally articles that survive an AfD (especially those that survive via keep rather than no consensus) aren't prodded. Feel free to put it up for AfD again though, obviously. In addition, I think Durova is currently in discussions with Campbell about deletion of the article, so it might be worth waiting a while to see if anything comes from that. Dreaded Walrustc 14:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This subject of this article barely meets notability guidelines". Ah, now we see your true colours revealed. Another person claiming to be trying to "improve" the entry by completely obliterating it. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I probably did forget to save last time but I have added the tag and saved it now. I also checked 'what links here' it is is essentially nothing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, It appears that you didn't create the AfD page properly. Check it again; its still blank. Themfromspace (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone who knows how to do it properly could do it. If nobody thinks it is worth doing then there is no point anyway. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from discussion on article talk page, slightly refactored to allow for AfD's conventions. I'm just clearing a backlog and have no opinion whatsoever on this AfD or the article. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞a reasonably good buy 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Indeed this is a problematic article and indeed there appear to be conflicts of interest with the subject, but those aren't valid reasons in themselves to delete an article. The largest reason I can see for deletion is that under WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help#Expectations articles of people with transitory notability can be deleted. In my opinion, notability isn't temporary, and since Campbell meets WP:N today, his notability isn't transitory or of minor significance and this article should be kept, problems notwithstanding. Themfromspace (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, what good does the conversation above serve for this AfD? It's odd seeing that I commented in this before I ever went here. Themfromspace (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Barely meets notability guidelines" is a reason for keep, not for nominating for deletion. COI is not a reason to delete, nor are difficulties in editing or maintaining NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete (see comment below)original comment: - I think the only reasons for deletion are that the article is problematic (not a valid reason), and that the subject himself has requested deletion. If that request goes through then obviously I support the deletion; otherwise I don't think the reasons for deletion are good. I think we have well-supported articles about people who are less notable than Campbell. Jumble Jumble (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for switch - actually, I've been kind of taking it on faith that the subject of this article passes WP:N or WP:BIO - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3]secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" (I've included the footnotes for this statement below). When you look at that, I'm not 100% convinced. The article currently relies very heavily on self-published material. Of the 12 currently listed sources, five are from Campbell's own site, one is a page which contains a short blurb and then a link to Campbell's site, one is a link to another Wikipedia article, one is simply the words "Amiga Power" with no other information, one is used to verify two statements about Campbell but doesn't actually mention him at all, and one is a link back in to the same article (actually I think this one is an accidentally-removed book citation). The other two seem good, but only one of them probably fits the definition of a reliable secondary source, and the context in which Campbell is mentioned doesn't really establish notability very strongly. I mean, it's NTK - I've been in that. (It does indeed verify that they calle him "Britain's best games journalist".) Perhaps someone could give a quick list of the secondary sources that can be used to establish notability here? Thanks. Jumble Jumble (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
^Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
^Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 03:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to draw the attention of any new participants in this debate to my comment above (reason for switch). So far I have been unable to find details of any sources that show that the subject of this article passes WP:BIO, but I have only checked Google, Google News and Google Books. Without finding these sources, we really don't have any evidence of notability at all. Jumble Jumble (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because (1) I believe the subject himself has requested it (subject to verification by Durova), (2) I don't think it will harm the encyclopedia not to have an article on him (while the subject feels it may harm him), (3) almost all the citations in the article are to the subject's own site anyway (and of the ones that aren't to his site, nos. 5 and 8 don't even seem to mention the subject, and 11 is an e-mail newsletter). There was one BBC cite earlier, which mentioned he was a spokesman for the FairPlay campaign, but that was all. Jayen466 13:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm pretty sure Stuart Campbell has been covered more than once in the mainstream media; for example, he was the direct subject of an article in the 23 November 1993 edition of the Daily Star. Likewise, Computer Trade Weekly published an advert for Renegade Software claiming The Chaos Engine was "SO GOOD, EVEN THAT BASTARD STUART CAMPBELL LIKES IT". His notability is that he's one of the best-known video game journalists of the 1990s (along with, say, Julian Rignall), but that also makes it hard work to churn out references; work by him, featuring him or about him tends to be printed on dead trees and is not available on the web, except Stuart's own copies of his work, on his personal website. Relying on Google search is not going to turn up magazine and newspaper references from the 1990s, which is where you're going to find reliable references to the subject. Still, these are not reasons against inclusion, they are reasons for better editing of the article itself. Kyz (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Jayen states, I did receive an email to that effect. Never got follow-up verification which is why I didn't initiate this myself. But if another experienced Wikipedian is sufficiently convinced that the request was genuine to nominate, that's satisfactory. A Wikipedia article is nearly always on the first page of Google returns for a living person's name. If we aren't managing that responsibility adequately and the person isn't famous enough to have an entry in any reliable encyclopedia, then let's let them off the hook if they ask for it. Courtesy costs nothing. DurovaCharge! 23:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable cuisine, The article has existed for over two years and is not much more than a start. The only citation is a blurb from a travel guide. As a major contributor to the food and drink wikiproject, I can say that not all national cuisines are notable. In cases such as this, we usually provide a link to the culture section of that country's article (example: Culture of St. Kitts and Nevis#Cuisine) or to an article about regional cuisines. As such, this article should be deleted and folded into the home country's article, Dominica or the Caribbean cuisine article. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's no point in discriminating between France, Dominica, Mexico, Cuba. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article could sure use some expansion. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. As a search phrase, it has its value, but the article has no legs to stand on. In response to Mr. Accountable, there is plenty of reason--some cuisines are more notable than others; this one doesn't seem to have much. I think Caribbean cuisine (an article that needs some help, incidentally--where's ChildofMidnight when you need him?) is a good target for a merger here. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe that the food traditions of an entire nation are not worth an article. True, more material is needed. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course it is notable, it only needs expanding Warrington (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Keep The title Cuisine of Dominica must not be deleted: it should kept to ensure comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of all world cuisines -- large and small alike (see List of cuisines). Work is needed to expand the article and bring it to the level of other cuisines. Until that time, Cuisine of Dominica should be merged and redirected to a Cuisine section in the country article Dominica. --Zlerman (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Keep Non-notable cuisine? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the rationale. Maybe we just don't have as much interested editors in the cuisine as editors in French or other cuisines, but the article is about "national cuisine" which can potential to be expanded.--11:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep this national cuisine. We don't eliminate articles about nations simply because they are small geographically or population-wise. Badagnani (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many "Cuisine of" articles are on WP, and drawing a line seems rather unrewarding. Collect (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - National cuisines are by nature notable and this AFD is unnecessary. Additionally, when magazines like Cooking Light and the country's own tourism authority feel it is worth noting, then it's notable enough for inclusion here. Here are some sources with good information that could be added to the article (no time right now to do it myself, but this is a good start for someone): Wikia Recipies Wiki (GFDL licensed), Cooking Light article, Discover Dominica Authority, Bradt travel guide excerpt, tourism site, travel site, A Taste of Nature Island Cooking: Dominican Cuisine ISBN 978-0333719701, Recipe blog. --Willscrlt(Talk) 14:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--"The surest way of knowing a country and its people is to study their eating habits, the food they eat and the way they cook it", 1 --J.Mundo (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not all nations are per definition endowed with a cuisine that is readily identifiable. Cuisine tends to ignore national boundaries to a great extent. Just because it has its own flag doesn't mean it's unique and requires a separate article. (Just imagine the silliniess that would be cuisine of the Vatican City.) If you want to keep this article, you shouldn't try to save it with by referring to travel guides and tourist propaganda. A Taste of Nature Island Cooking: Dominican Cuisine is the only thing that looks half-way reliable in explaining what it is that distinguishes Dominican cuisine from that of the neighboring islands. PeterIsotalo 15:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Vatican is not a nation, it is the Vatican City, a city in the city, in Rome. .
Travel guides are reliable sources from well known publishers that can help establish the notability of the subject. The Vatican is a sovereign state, but it can't be compared to Dominica because the majority of the residents are clergy and have dual citizenship .--J.Mundo (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Vatican is a sovereign state, no matter its size, format or location. It was an example to disprove the idea that all nations can be associated with a particular national cuisine, not to delete this article. And tourist guides are only authorities on tourist-related issues. They're not written to serve as neutral descriptions of cultures, and should be used with great caution. PeterIsotalo 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Since when is it necessary to have "neutral descriptions" of the cuisine of a country? Yeah, I suppose an article that talks about a country's food tasting like roadkill or having blatantly false information would be bad, but most legitimate travel guides (such as the ones I included) are not the type to take great liberties with their information. The travel site I mentioned, would be a less reliable type of source since its goal is to gain hotel bookings. A legitimate travel guide is designed to entice people to travel to the country, but that doesn't make it inherently unreliable. As to the silly example of the Holy See (as it is properly called), IF it had a distinctive cuisine (apart from Communion wafers and wine perhaps), then it would deserve an article. Dominica appears to have a cuisine distinctive from its neighbors, albeit similar due to its location and resources. I think it is pretty clear that this article should be kept and also that it needs expansion. All the references and information found here should be copied to the talk page to help editors improve the article, but it's fine as a stub and does not need deletion. --Willscrlt(Talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not a silly idea at all, it is a quite interesting idea. Vativan cuisine would be a very interesting culinary article, with culinary traditions and regulations since the 12-th century.. Warrington (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Caribbean cuisine article is too broad. All the Caribbean countries have different distinctions and flavours from one another. The only problem with the article is that it's a stub and needs to be expanded upon. Thricecube (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is notable enough for a tiny little article - Yet one that would be too much if merged into the Caribbean cuisine article, which, as has been pointed out, covers islands that are all distinct from one another. To fulfil the mission of an encyclopedia you have to include a lot - not just the highlights or the exceptional. --Steve (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into countries' main article, unless it is renamed "Food and drink of Dominica", as after review of the countries' website, it seems the country itself does not have a cuisine, more a set of dishes and ingredients. Not all cultures have a cuisine, the term cuisine is used too loosely. If the article could be expanded (how easy would it to be able to find more info?) then I would support the creation of the article by the title I suggested here.--Chef Tanner (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. Not just because it's a national cuisine, but, really—how does the encyclopedia benefit from the deletion of this article? There's clearly a cuisine of Dominica distinct from that of other Caribbean islands. The problem is finding sources, not notability. I don't want to bring the concept of "inherent notability" into this, but you really should have thought twice about this. Anyway, here are some sources:
Keep How could a national cuisine not be considered notable? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - As of this point, no one has provided a single policy based reason to keep. No one has provided a single source that proves its notability, the sources provided do not show anything about the cuisine of the country. They mention meals had at restaurants, but that is it. A cuisine is the historical and cultural significance of the dishes and customs of the people who reside in a nation or as stated in the linked article A traditional cuisine is a coherent tradition of food preparation that rises from the daily lives and kitchens of a people over an extended period of time in a specific region of a country and which has notable distinctions from the cuisine of the country as a whole; it is not dishes, recipes or other such fare. As stated by Chris Tanner, this article is not about the cuisine but about its food and drink.
Further, the sources being provided do not establish notability of the nations cuisine. The tourist bureau is not a reliable source, it is primary source that is inherently NPOV and cannot be used to establish notability, only existence of foods. The other quoted sources are a combination of tourist guides or travel sections in newspapers. They have only the smallest blurbs about what someone had for dinner while on vacation, basically a summary restaurant review. The problem with them is they are not about the subject of the article, they are about Tourism in Dominica. They do not establish notability of the cuisine, the just establish that the writer had a dish at a restaurant. It is my belief that you will be hard pressed to establish truenotability.
Several contributors have commented that all national cuisines are notable, that is however not the case. A notable cuisine would have some impact on cuisine as a whole or establish itself outside a region or country. Have you seen a Dominican chef on "Iron Chef"? Can you provide a link to a Dominican (Not Republic) cookbook that has been published beyond the borders of the country? How about a text book on the subject? Can you find a Dominican restaurant in your city?
This article does not stand on its own. It needs to be merged into the main Dominica article and turned into a redirect. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy makes good points, but an encyclopedia also has to have a degree of completeness. It has the national flags of all countries, not just those flags that are notable in design or historical event. It has (or should have) an article on every country - not just those judged to notable. If we toss out all cuisines or all foods that have not been represented on "Iron Chef" we will be busy doing AfDs -- and have chosen a funny kind of standard. I believe that notability here resides solely in that food which is of Dominica and that it is reasonable to have an article on the cuisine of Dominca... if it differs from the region - which it does. So, I am saying this article IS notable and that is the policy for keeping it. Is Wikipedia running out of disk space for storing articles? Will the presence of this article harm another? Do we know that people planning a visit to Dominca, or the people who live there, have decided not to ever look at this page in the encyclopedia? Is the link to that article going to diminsh the knowledge of the person who wants to know about food in Dominica? The rush to use some arbitrary or subjective measurement of notability to remove an article does not improve the encyclopedia - improving the articles does. --Steve (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that countries are not notable, what I am saying is that every single aspect of those those countries is not necessarily notable. Every aspect of the country does not deserve its own article, some subjects can be equally covered in a blanket article about its culture, history or economics. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but if there is some uniqueness to the African-creole cuisine that is Dominican, that is notable (even though I can't imagine it being anything but a small article.) --Steve (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have found some possible books on the subject from Google books, but cannot look at them, so if anyone can find them somewhere at a library to look through for info that could be used, and adding it as a solid reference, please do. A Taste of Nature Island Cooking: The Cuisine of Dominica By Hyacinth I.R. Elwin, Loye Barnard, Sylvia Duckworth, and Lennox Honeychurch and Food Culture in the Caribbean By Lynn Marie Houston
I followed up somewhat on one of the books in the comment above. It gives some interesting hints on the base cuisine being African fused with local influences (Taino) and colonization (Spanish), and changing with the passage of time. There is a solid source in Jean B. Harris (she has even been on some cooking shows - no, not Iron Chef :) I put the info on the talk page of the article. --Steve (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At last, something that establishes a bit of notability! But my question still stands, does it make the article of standing on its own? It still needs a history of its traditions to truly qualify as a stand alone article and nothing more than a list of ingredients. I still believe it does not warrant a separate article, it still should be merged into the main article or the Culture of Dominica article (preferable). I am not saying that it isn't worth covering as a section in one of these articles, only that it does not deserve its own article. Follow up please and this goes the way of the dodo... --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of its traditions that you refer begins with the African dispora where slaves took with them their native tastes and understandings of food to a new land. Different parts of Africa had different cuisines and different parts of the Caribbean were populated with different African tribes. (I can still remember a Cuban-African lobster bisque with some coffee beans in it - I wish I knew more of that dishes pedigree). Dominica's imported creole cooking fused with the spanish colonial power's cooking traditions and changed with the influence of the local indians (and I understand that only in Dominica are they still an influence in this area) and all was adapted to the local produce. Islands in fact produce islands of cuisine - a degree of separation. But the article doesn't absolutely need that history to be viable - it only needs to be notable (there is no requirement that I know of saying such a history is required.) --Steve (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responses: It's like the entire concept of cuisine in smaller locales is on trial here. I did look through many pages of policies for anything that helps clarify the situation, either for or against keeping this article. Except for the very general notability guidelines, there doesn't seem to be anything to provide clear guidance here. Looking through recent AfDs on Cuisine, it seems that largely there has been no consensus (resulting in Keep by default). Back in 2005, Ecuadorian cuisine was AfDed for some of the same reasons as this one. Looking at the article today, it's pretty hard to imagine that there was ever an issue with it. Likewise, Cuisine of the United States was used as an illustration of a sparse page that was pretty much nothing other than a list of foods; today it's a pretty decent article. Lithuanian cuisine just survived an AfD with even fewer sources than given here, but with a better written article.
I also tried to determine how travel-related sites have been viewed as sources in the past in similar topics, and I couldn't really find anything except that national tourism sites (like the Discover Dominica Authority) seemed to be considered as reliable and one tour operator's site was blasted for being unreliable commercial junk.
Jeremy asked "Can you find a Dominican restaurant in your city?" Sacramento doesn't have a large Caribbean population in general, and a Dominican population specifically. Without a culture to support it, it's unlikely that there would be one in my city, regardless of its notability. For example, there is no Ecuadoran restaurant either, but obviously the Ecuadoran cuisine is notable. A quick Google search did reveal a few Dominican restaurants (Uniondale, NY; NJ; NJ; FL; RI) and several people asking around if there was one locally and listing specific dishes they were seeking that were specific to Dominica ([36]). I assume that the "Have you seen a Dominican chef on Iron Chef?" question was just to make a point, but since Iron Chef primarily features chefs from throughout Asia, why would they have one from a Caribbean nation? Likewise, Iron Chef America should really be called "Iron Chef USA", because they really don't include chefs from throughout America, but rather only from within the USA. Given Dominica's population, I'd be surprised to see more than a handful of Iron Chef worthy chefs ever coming out of Dominica, let alone being invited to participate in the program. Jeremy asked for "a link to a Dominican... cookbook that has been published beyond the borders of the country", and I already gave one (A Taste of Nature Island Cooking: Dominican Cuisine ISBN 978-0333719701); I am sure there are more. The New York Times has been used as a reliable source for many, many articles herein, even if the topic was only mentioned in the "travel sections in newspapers".
In summary, this article is a stub with considerable potential. The "Cuisine of X" is a common subarticle of the main Culture article for many countries when the cuisine is unique (which it appears to be from the given sources), interesting (proven by the fact that travel writers do write it up in huge metropolitan newspapers and major cooking magazines like Cooking Light), and has reliable sources (to which there seems to be a bit of disagreement here, but several sources have been found after only quick searches, and more will be found). --Willscrlt(Talk) 10:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, indeed. And this is not an article about Dominican cuisine in US, it is an encyclopedical - article about the world’s different cuisines. Warrington (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just wanted to state that the term "creole" denotes a cuisine derived from Spanish descent, so stating it merged with "Spanish colonial power's cooking" is improper. I think this is where people so not realize the significance of the term cuisine. Similar to Louisiana, USA where Creole cuisine is derived from Spanish descent, while the Cajun cuisine which most people mistakenly call Creole is a mix of Creole with African and Caribbean island influences. I'm not sure this island nation has enough of its own indigenous influence other than using local ingredients to be able to support a full article, but a section on the main article on its "culinary practices" seems more appropriate to me. Also, make sure when you look up information on this countries' cookery style, you are looking up this country and not "Dominican cuisine" as they are two different countries.--Chef Tanner (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is "Dominican" cuisine? There is the Dominican Republic, and that probably confuses things terribly due to the similarity in names. The CIA World Factbook entry states that when referring to the nationality of people from Dominica, use noun: Dominican(s) and adjective: Dominican. The book A Taste of Nature Island Cooking: Dominican Cuisine uses the term, but "Nature Island" appears to be a nickname (or probably a marketing phrase) for Dominica promoting the fact that the island has preserved so much of it's nature areas. Perhaps this is like saying "American" cuisine, in which there is a common understanding that it means "of the United States", but really it could (and sometimes does) mean "of any part of North, Central, or South America". So "Dominican cuisine" would seem to be an appropriate term for both countries. As Chef Tanner stated, it's important to be careful when checking sources. Thanks for pointing that out. --Willscrlt(Talk) 14:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wrong forum (forum shopping?). The nomination was for merging the article back into Culture of Dominica - AFD is not the place for merge proposals. The merge proposal should have been made on the relevant articles' talk pages. The Transhumanist 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. You can't delete and "fold" back into the Dominica article as the nominator mentioned—there's no such thing as "delete and merge." This isn't the place for a merge proposal, although I think we've gained a pretty clear consensus that it shouldn't be merged. Graymornings(talk) 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I did not create the article, but helped the creator somewhat. He has been published in photography magazines (now one of them has been referenced), and per the subject's website he has a copy of an interview he did for a magazine. The only problem is that the subject is Ukrainian so most of the references (including the copy of the magazine article about him) are in either Ukrainian or Russian. At least the online references which I've searched for. Killiondude (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request The article lists two exhibitions in the Gallery of the City Exhibit Hall of Mykolaiv/Nikolaev. Schliker's own site mentions both, says that one was a solo exhibition, and has illegibly tiny reproductions of what seem to be posters or flyers. These claimed exhibitions interest me far more than the claimed fashion shoots do: after all, people must be pretty interested in somebody's work to want to see it in an exhibition, whereas people ogling a fashion pictorial are far less likely to be interested in the photography than in the frocks. (Clearly there are complications, such as that of vanity exhibitions, entirely paid for by the featured artists, that attract few if any viewers.) Unfortunately I can't use the Cyrillic alphabet with any confidence, let alone read Russian or Ukrainian; however, other people hereabouts can. So where are mentions by the gallery, or by independent and disinterested sources, of any of these exhibitions by Schliker? -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep photographer was written about in "STUD" magazine, a Ukrainian magazine, and also: The photo "When There's No Way Back" was the 1st Place winner in the magazine "Popular Photography & Imaging", see http://www.denschliker.com/news.html. In addition, Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Policy is crystal clear articles for deletion is NOT the forum to clean up articles.
Strong keep Here's the references to the newspaper articles about exhibitions he organized and took part at (these are articles from well known Ukrainian newspapers "20 Minutes" and "Pravda"):
WP:PRESERVEPolicy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information."
Wikipedia:NotabilityGuideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."
Wikipedia:DeletionPolicy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
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."
Why didn't the nominator attempt to clean up the article first before nominating this article?
Alternatively, please userfy this article. This article was the very first contribution that the new editor had. travb (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
photographer was written about in "STUD" magazine, a Ukrainian magazine / Yes, but have you read this, or do you know anybody who has? ¶ The photo "When There's No Way Back" was the 1st Place winner in the magazine "Popular Photography & Imaging" / Yes, but if US photo magazines' competitions are like those of their Japanese counterparts, this means little: Japanese magazines have them every month. I'm not saying they are like this; I'm asking. Any comments? ¶ Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." / Which is just what I did. Did you? Any books by Schliker? Any reviews of the exhibition(s)? I couldn't find any, but then I'm unable to look in Russian or Ukrainian; are you? ¶ And why userfy the article? -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has had a scanned copy of his interview with a "STUD Magazine" on his website for some time now, here. I think travb meant to request userfication of the article in the event that it is deleted (one of the things that WP:RESCUE states). I found a couple of news references in Russian. I posted them on Talk:Den Schliker. I don't know if they would be considered "trivial" or whatnot. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more reference (the third one) from the Ukrainian "20 Minutes" newspaper where Schliker is nominated for the "Photographer Of The Year 2008", he's listed there among two other unknown to me photographers: http://20minut.ua/news/141062 GeoffBarrenger (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outlooks On Life: Volume II. Moscow, Russia: FotoLoft. 2007. ISBN978-5-91435-005-2. GeoffBarrenger (talk) 00:02, 17 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 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet the basic criteria for notability. The deletion reasons amount to NOTKNOWNTOME. DGG (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep there were three references from newspapers, one from the book, two from the exhibitions. So the author's notability was confirmed. GeoffBarrenger (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An article about the stylus that comes with the Nintendo DS. Definitely not encyclopedic. Graymornings(talk) 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, its existence is only a matter of convenience: one may use any object, even one's fingers, as long as it doesn't scratch the screen. Second, because this device is nothing but a piece of plastic, it is definitely not worth its own article. A one-sentence mention in Nintendo DS is plenty. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Nintendo DS. Minor accessory for the DS without encyclopedic interest to warrant an article. gnfnrf (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above and the fact that an article about a generic plastic stylus is not encyclopedic unless a compelling reason is given. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nintendo DS. Some of the info there could fit well in a section about the features of the DS, but clearly does not deserve its own article. Firestorm (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a criteria, I would've tagged it, but it's not nonsense, vandalism, or advertising, and A7 doesn't cover, well, styluses. Graymornings(talk) 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the snowball clause as well as that I cannot find anything encyclopedic in which to merge into Nintendo DS. I would only support a redirect if 1) consensus establishes that the page be redirected to either Nintendo DS or Stylus and 2) another redirect, Nintendo DS stylus (with proper caps) is created and pointing to the page determined per 1). MuZemike 19:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, definitely no need for a separate article. Pagrashtak 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of short sources [37] and I strongly suspect some UI conference has an article on it (hey look at least a brief mention at [38]). That said, I'd strongly support a merge. But this is AfD, not AfM. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something here might also be interesting. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These short news/scholarly mentions might warrant a section in the main Nintendo DS article (interesting stuff!) but I'm not sure a separate article is the right way to go. Plenty of electronic devices have styluses, but we don't have/need an article for Palm Pilot stylus or HP Compaq tablet PC stylus. A redirect to a new section in the main DS article might be a good option if someone would be willing to do the research and add the relevant info. Graymornings(talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with a merge editorially. But as I understand AfD the question is if the topic of the article meets our guidelines and policies. It does IMO. I personally think the information would be better presented in a merged article, but the topic is notable per guidelines as I read them. I believe that in AfD we should only "force" a merge if there is a guideline/policy requirement to do so. Hobit (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like process overkill. Can't we discuss keeping/deleting/merging/redirecting here in one go? Why have one discussion for deletion, then a separate discussion for merging later? Let's get it out of the way—it's not like this is a controversial subject. Pagrashtak 14:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta. The thing is that editorial decisions are generally best made by experts. AfD isn't here to get articles merged (though that can be the result). It is here to remove pages that don't meet our guidelines. This one does, so IMO AFD's output should be "keep". Hobit (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does everyone think of a redirect to Stylus#Modern_use? That section of Stylus mentions the Nintendo DS. If someone attempts to search for the stylus itself, it might be useful. Graymornings(talk) 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking and also what I have proposed in my above !vote. Frankly, there's nothing content-wise that is not already mentioned in both Stylus and Nintendo DS; hence, the only question that remains is where to redirect to, as I have mentioned above. We might very well, per WP:IAR, discuss that here; it's also not right to speedy keep an AFD due to a small technicality as it violates the spirit of that policy. MuZemike 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - valid search term. Pretty sure it's not notable independently of the DS itself. Merge unnecessary as the material is unreferenced and not particularly well written. Marasmusine (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nintendo DS if equivalent content doesns't already exist there. SharkD (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The IP User:87.221.81.204 tagged this article for speedy deletion, claiming that it does not assert the notability of the subject. I declined this, because I believe that the first sentence of the article is an assertion of notability. However, the IP believes that the assertion is insufficient, and that the subject is actually not terribly important. I know nothing about quantum game theory, so I am taking this to AFD. Danaman5 (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough Gnews hits (in German) to satisfy me that the subject is notable. Most of the hits appear to be referring to this individual. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known co-author mentioned in Physical Review, and a number of books on quantum theory. [39] inter alia. Collect (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A total of 19 gHits for the man's name does not seem to indicate much notability. Quantum game theory clearly exists. For Eisert to be sufficiently notable under WP:BIO or WP:PROF, though, I would think that it has to be an important concept, not merely one that exists, and Eisert would need to be shown to have been a major developer of the theory. Just calling him a "pioneer" is insufficient to my mind. He may well be deserving of an article, but this one needs more work before I'm convinced of it. Tim Ross(talk) 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His CV claims 76 publications, which is more than enough to satisfy the first criteria of WP:PROF. Many hits with Google scholar (probably about 76 unique). -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The gnews hits are enough to show WP:BIO notability, and the gscholar hits are highly cited : 217, 197, 165, 133 . . . (citations are more important than the raw number of publications). Especially so for a newish area, which is presumably notable - see our article.John Z (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), as noted by the editors above referring to citations and indep. news coverage.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable in his field. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Spam page (although admittedly borderline) created by an editor whose name (Exploretalenteditor) is a bit of a giveaway that they are in some way connected to teh website Explore Talent which, coincidentally, is mentioned and linked to prominently in the article. Their deleted contributions include a spam userpage along the same lines. GbT/c 14:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The subject seems notable; the article currently doesn't do a good job of demonstrating notability, but this should be fixable. There were a couple of external links and one short section which could have been viewed as spam, which I have deleted, but the body of the article seems fine in this respect. I don't see the spam userpage supposedly created by User: Exploretalenteditor. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to edit My fascination with the wikipedia project led to my adding this topic. I do feel that the topic is noteable. As I am a new editor, I am learning the finer points of wikipedia. I am unaware of any type of spam associated with my account or entries. Please specify what elements that are viewed as spam and they will be rewritten. I have spent time researching and developing this article to meet the high standards of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipartner (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikipartner, are you the editor formerly known as Exploretalenteditor? I'm glad you are interested in working to make this article better. We were concerned that the references to websites such as exploretalent.com might be advertising, considering they were inserted by an editor with the username of Exploretalenteditor. The questionable content is deleted and those issues are resolved, no need to worry about it. For suggestions on how you might make this article better, see my comment on your talk page. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding Yes, I am the former user ExploreTalentEditor. I never thought that by registering this editor name that it was not in accordance with Wikipedia username policy.
I am very much interested in contributing to the Wikipedia project. My intention was never to advertise as I understand and agree with the importance of the integrity of Wikipedia. I will review your comment on your talk page. Thank you again for communicating with me. Wikipedia is a wonderful and amazing project but it can be a bit complicated to navigate. I will watch closely the developments on this article. I hope that my contribution will remain and will make every attempt to improve its content based on your feedback. As you can see, as requested, I have abandoned the old username and created one that is acceptable to Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipartner (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.44.188 (talk) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now spam-less, no reason to delete. Collect (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to develop my first entry. Wikipartner (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.44.188 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unnotable fairy tale; the article doesn't even imply why it is notable, only that it exists. A lot of things exist, but that doesn't make them notable. Tavix(talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are lots of results indicating this is a well established and well known story. The article needs to be expanded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I initially thought the creator of the article made this story, but since it's also listed in this book as a traditional Vietnamese fairy tale, I no longer believe that. That doesn't change the fact that the article states the obvious. Anyone searching for information about this would already know it to be a fairy tale (or at least a piece of fiction). When I've reached the 25th result of my Google search, I'm on my last one and none of the references actually mention any details about the story - I just find copies of the tale. Unless it is made to be verifiable, there's no chance of expansion and significant encyclopedic content. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Has been around since late October with no changes. 1 external link and 1 sentence. And that one sentence is partly just the title qualified with "is a Vietnamese fairy tale" I speedied according to A3-No Content. --Pstanton 09:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Declined speedy deletion. Please review A3, this article does not meet it. SoWhy 11:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stong KeepThis is a notable aspect of Vietnamese cultural heritage. Why would you want to destroy such a contribution? it has a citation, there are likely others out there also. Let's rate this article as stub class and list it with some projects and see where it goes.Critical Chris (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonably obvious that the reasons are, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, that the article is unverifiable from any sources at all, with all efforts to find sources having currently failed (since only bare repetitions of the story have been found so far), and that any literary, critical, historical, or other analysis of it for an encyclopaedic treatment would be an original one. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 19 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 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've not heard of the fairy tale myself, but WP:BIAS warns against unconscious geographic and cultural bias.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't like deleting articles about folk/fairy tales, but this one seems to have no notability beyond the bare fact that it exists. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have doubts as to whether this story is notable or not, but I am not in the place to judge as Vietemese culture is generally hard for westerners to access. I found three tellings of this story online, here, here, and a third which is blacklisted, and each of the three is slightly different. This would be an indication that the story isn't a hoax and really exists. As to the question of notability, I doubt any of us can answer that with certainty without consulting someone who's knowledgable about Vietnimese culture. When in doubt, we shouldn't delete, especially since the article isn't controversial in any way so I think we should keep it and stick some tags on it for now. Someone who knows something about Vietnemese culture should have a look at this. Themfromspace (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could determine notability easily, without personal knowledge. All that needs to be shown is that multiple independent published works (in any language) exist documenting this subject in depth. We've all found the re-tellings. (I did, too.) No-one has yet actually found even a single secondary source that can be used to build an encyclopaedia article. We cannot perform our own original analysis of the story. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but as I cannot read Vietnamese I can't go to google.com.vn and search for this story in the place where secondary sources would most likely be written. Themfromspace (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the Grimm tales are "not notable" if one wished to make that claim. Notability of fairy tales or parables is, IMHO, only dependent on them being widely known in their original place of origin. Thus this is sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a standard fairy tale in the Vietnamese repertoire of fairy tales. Plenty of secondary sources mention this story. See this Google Book search. DHN (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the limited citation it has (a book that includes the tale) I believe it exists. As for significant coverage, most sources would be in Vietnamese; we need a user who knows Vietnamese to adequately cover this. Given that the article has satisfied the bare minimum requirement of WP:V with the anthology, I'm inclined to eventualism. Estemi (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there are sources that its a part of the national tradition, as there seem to be. This is why such articles cannot be speedied. DGG (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Graymornings(talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Being the ex-wife of a notable person is not itself notability. The article now makes an assertion of further notability - see my comment below. Graymornings(talk) 02:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. I'm not convinced that being the spouse of a notable person is a claim of significance; I nearly speedy-deleted the article under criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Divorce. Erm, I mean delete. Notability is not inherited, so it stands to reason that it is not marital property either.Firestorm (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Changing that to weak keep. The article now asserts notability, for a better reason than being the ex-wife of someone notable. Still not entirely convinced that she absolutely deserves an article, but i'll give her a chance per the new evidence. Firestorm (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. This is just sad. Actress is obviously notable. Just by checking "what links here," could see that she had major role on US soap opera, appeared in Broadway run of Tony-nominated play, and had won notable acting award. Appeared on Broadway in premiers of plays by notable playwrights Lanford Wilson and Jules Feiffer. What happened here? Easy to see. New editor wrote first two sentences of very useful article, then was hit over and over with templates until he quit the project. Nobody commenting here checked anything out. Shame. Shame. Shame. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At least half of that due diligence is on the part of the article creator. If the assertion of notability is not clear in the article, we're not under any obligation to shake all the bushes before deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original article didn't even have an assertion of notability - I'm surprised it wasn't speedied. The new version of the article now goes beyond her status as the ex-wife of a notable person, so I'll give it a weak keep now that it's at least verifiable. Let's keep this discussion open, though, in case other editors have anything to add. Graymornings(talk) 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now makes a claim of significance (the Derwent Award) and backs it up with reliable sources. Notability is demonstrated in the article and verifiability is achieved. The revisions made since my last !vote turned the article into a keeper. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 07:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a two line-stub that was five minutes old when you nominated it for deletion. What's the rush? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notability issue, not about the quality of the article. Time is not making this product any more notable. Graymornings(talk) 02:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, did you look yourself to see if you could find sources? There are thousands of very brief stubs with no references, the vast majority of Wikipedia article started out in a similar sad state. One day they will stop making Cheerios, and there won't be any new information on them, but will that change the fact that they were once a very popular cereal? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did look for sources myself and couldn't find any beyond brief, trivial mentions on internet forums. If you can find info from reliable sources, please add it to the article. Graymornings(talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern that Ruskets is Non-notable. That could very well be true. Weetabix is an international product. Few people know that Ruskets was the name of the product that was manufactured in the United States until the 1960's, which makes Ruskets a part of the genealogy of Weetabix. Perhaps this short stub will attract more information about the history and historical value of the product. The building, still being used as a food processing plant in Riverside, California, is a beautiful example of the art deco period of American architecture. If more information is gathered will it qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbee27 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-19 03:00:30
Delete. If Google News finds only two passing mentions of a product, then the subject is likely not notable. It may well be almost identical to Weetabix, but notability certainly doesn't transfer via perceived similarity. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that a rename and refactor to Loma Linda Foods is the way to go, since that is what I can find documented, and since that's what the article is documenting in its first sentence, and what the article's creator seems to want to expand upon above. The company has an article in ISBN 9780810853454 on page 176, for example, which gives a 1-sentence mention of the product. Wikipedia should address things in the way that sources do, and it is the company, not the product, that is what is documented by sources here, even by the sources that this article itself cites. The product just gets mentions. It just gets a mention here, for example. This title should be a redirect to the company, which is of course what renaming the page will automatically achieve. No deletion is required to achieve any of this. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if Loma Linda Foods warrants its own article on WP (and if someone either creates the article or beefs up this one...) then I'll gladly chime in with the proposition above, for a merge/rename. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, good thinkin' Uncle G. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there has to be a reasonable mount of time given or articles to develop, and a nomination so soon after writing the article should , in my opinion, except for thinks like blp and copyvio, be rejected out of hand. Those who actually want to improve the encyclopedia, when seeing an article like this, should tag for more sources, advise the editor how to develop the article, and--if if help seems to be needed, look for sources oneself. If it was widely advertised, it will have been commented on. Most of the relevant periodicals for the period are not yet online--certainly not via the googles. DGG (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG and it took me less than a minute to find 20-some listing on Google books,[40] at least a couple could help here. -- Banjeboi 01:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the sources found by Benjiboi. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that neither you nor Benjiboi took the time to read the prior discussion, the books that your Google search turned up, or even the article under discussion here. If either of you had, you'd have found that several of these books just happen to contain the two words "ruskets" and "cereals" somewhere, and have nothing to say on the subject, and you'd also found that the one book in your list that does say something useful on the subject is the one that not only is already cited in the article but has also been already addressed in the discussion above, where it has been noted that on page 176 it gives a 1-sentence mention of the product in prose that actually deals with the company. Counting Google hits is not research. And contributing to an AFD discussion without reading either the article or the discussion, or indeed without even reading the very sources that one is putting forward, does not help to advance it. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's a shame to assume of of that. These all might not be sources waxing eloquently on the fine virtues of a cereal product but combined they do support that the product was noteworthy enough to be mentioned even though the product's producers may have had an alternate, or even no, route to promoting this food item. -- Banjeboi 03:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what is a real shame? Nominating an article created by a new user minutes before it was created. Then, informing about the deletion without first welcoming the user or offering guidance about our policies. What ever happened to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers?
I wasn't aware that I hadn't welcomed the new user - I somehow thought I'd placed a welcome template before I'd nominated the article for deletion. Dumb mistake, and I apologize for it, but I don't make or fail to make noms for deletion based on the experience of the user. Please assume good faith on my part here. See the discussion above - I still don't believe that the product meets notability guidelines (the fact that the company had or didn't have routes to publicizing the cereal is irrelevant) and think that the creation/rename of Loma Linda Foods might be more appropriate and better-sourced. Graymornings(talk) 10:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are inappropriate, please accept my apologies. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. You were right, I should be a bit more careful - no one wants to scare away new users. Graymornings(talk) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added the 2 (and only 2) references I found catalogued in the Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index. These are not passing mentions, but part of the article and all of the article respectively. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Making an appearance or two on a reality television show does not make you or your group notable. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable to the point of trivial.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a fan of this group, but their third-place finish in ABDC is not enough to be Wikipedia-worthy (and I find it strange that the runner-up SoReal Cru did not have an article of their own). 121.97.141.54 (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It is quite unusual for an article to keep a speedy deletion tag for a full 24 hours. I guess no admin is willing to make a unilateral decision on this one. It is about a music school with unclear notability. Borderline case, but Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I've done another Google News Archive search and have found some sources from the local newspaper (Palm Beach Post) about this music school. Most of the news links are from the calendar for local community events. This news article is the only exception I can find. I don't think that that single source from the music school's local newspaper is enough to pass the notability guidelines, so I will remain at a delete vote. I'm open to changing to keep if MichaelQSchmidt (talk·contribs) or any other contributors are able to find better sources. Cunard (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I just performed a facelift to the article... cleanup, copyedit, wikifying, and sourcing... and it sure looks better and more encyclopedic... but its notability can only be found through the deeds of its more successful students. Wonderful as the work they do is, notability just ain't inherited. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability per WP:ORG. While searching proves that the school exists, nothing shows any sort of notability. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. My thoughts exactly. But even though its removal might one day be flagged among my "deleted edits"... I had to at least try. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references just don't do it for me, half of them don't having anything to do with this school. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, I don't know where you are getting the whole palm beach university thing... I happen to go to stringendo, which is why I wrote this, and I can tell you it definitely has no affiliation. It's a non profit organization, and it's mostly run by the Handman and Schaad families. [Personal attack removed] Anyway, from living Around here and attending Arlington School, "Stringendo" is quite well known. Evidently, that's just too local for you, but whatever. It is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask the fudgecicle (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woman who appeared on American Idol a few days ago in a bikini; not sure how this makes her notable. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Vernon, she has been listed as one of the most searched for topics on Yahoo and Google since she appeared on television. I also feel she is more than just "a woman who appears on tv in a bikini." She has done quite a bit of modeling, singing and has her own fashion line. dwcusc (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral...Delete--one single (silly) event, and she is not likely to make it through the Hollywood session (oops, that was my crystal ball speaking). Drmies (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we're being narrow-minded that you automatically call for someone's deletion. Have you gentlemen and ladies taken a look at Google Trends to see the spike in search trends for the lady in question? Take a look: http://www.mykatrinadarrell.com/news_googletrends.htm—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwcusc (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If she's such a notable and successful person, surely there must be verifiable, independent, in-depth sources that will sustain your argument. Please add those to the article if you have them; please consider also that someone's popularity on Google really doesn't mean a whole lot--esp. considering that she's probably being Googled cause she doesn't know how to dress decently ;) . Drmies (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't wait to see Drmies have to come back and eat his words after the fine work that MQS has done. Oh, such joys in life and I'm not sure I'm worthy for these wonderful blessings!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... crow? It tastes like chicken. Either she gets more attention over the next few weeks, or she goes back to Hooters. I just think this AfD is a bit premature for someone getting so much press. If she fails, we can always either delete her or merge her. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge and Redirect to American Idol (season 8). Here I go again... tilting at windmills. I have done copyedit, minor expansion, and heavy sourcing to the article. She has extensive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject which surpass the basic criteria of notability for persons. And in acknowledgement of people notable only for one event, and considering the overwhelming coverage of her surpassing the general notability guidelines, a merge to American Idol (season 8) may be indicated. might be a "last resort". Her celebrity "career" is only days old, and if/when it develops further, an expanded article a seperate article may be indicated and the merged informations may be then returned. is a certainty. It's "one event" as of today... but the way she is now being covered, in one week it will be 4 events... and in a month 8 events. The ball is now rolling down the hill and gaining momentum. I predict Letterman and Leno for beginners... and greater and growing notability based upon the recent furor. She will definitely not be a one-trick pony. Wiki has time to see if I am right... and if I am not, then another AfD would handle it and I will sheepishly grant my lack of prescience. But being involved in film and television personally, I can fairly and accurately opine that her "pony" has left the starting gate and is only now entering the first stretch. (Yikes - too many metaphors). Just as I opine at some future film articles that they are a tad premature... so then is this AfD. Premature. For gosh sakes, the article is but hours old. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For better or worse, she's notable. There are a variety of ways of achieving notability, and she has certain natural endowments that will cause her to continue to make waves after her "stardom" was established on American Idol. The citations are already very substantial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, Childofmidnight and Michael Q. Schmidt, I STILL DON'T LIKE HER! There. (Is there an emoticon where I can stick out my tongue at the both of you?) Nice work, MQS. Good man. Why don't you fix the world? Drmies (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One article at a time... one article at a time. And thanks. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MQS, very good work and thank you! Some very good sources added. I did make one minor edit to one of the external links if you don't mind. There is dispute that www.katrinadarrell.org is her "official site." This article summarizes it well actually: http://www.mykatrinadarrell.com/news_katrinadarrellorg.htm. Some blog entries by the lady in question have stated that she is not the owner and resents the owner is claiming to be her. So I thought better to remove that site. Thanks! Dwcusc (talk—Preceding undated comment was added at 11:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Nice. I removed the Dot Org from EL's and replaced it with the Dot com. Good catch. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 00:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MQS, I'm sorry, I removed the .com also. That site is owned by an unrelated couple. She does not yet have an "official" website, only her MySpace page (www.myspace.com/btchsstayh8n). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwcusc (talk • contribs) 09:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't gonna sweat it. She's gonna have lots of coverage and an "official' site is assured. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment As the extensive citations make clear, she's not notable for one event. She's notable for participating in the most watched television show in North America. For featuring in the start of the season. For being featured and discussed on lots of other shows and in the news media. For feautring in the advertising for the event. For being discussed as someone who wore a bikini to her audition on the show and passed the first round. I know there is a lot of bias against pop culture, but the extensive citations demonstrating notability are there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - She hasn't got enough buzz to have the article warranted. BUT, if she makes the top 36 (and we will know in about 3 weeks), this will at least have to come back as a redirect (with the extra buzz possibly warranting the article then). For now, I say delete this, but that may change. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's easily enough press coverage to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already more than one event, and she's coming back for round two. You're ignoring all the coverage she's received outside of the episode itself. Look at the large numbers of sources with substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources: (1) She isn't mentioned in the Guardian article by name; (2) she gets a brief mention in a short blog post in the National Ledger article; (3) she has a (partial) one-line mention in the Newsday article; (4) a pretty brief mention in the Journal Sentinel... need I continue? She may be mentioned in those articles in passing, how does that confer notability? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's mentioned in numerous article, and there are several where the title and the substance of the article is wholly or almost wholly about her. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The previous AfD was closed inappropriately, especially Inclusionist's comments about the nominator (whom I believe IS Russian). Phone Call to Putin is a non-notableneologism used to describe electric shocks. The previous AfD has misunderstood what the topic is about. WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The sources used in this article do not give significant coverage of Phone Call to Putin, but rather to Alexey Mikheyev, and mention Phone Call to Putin in passing. The term does not meet the basic notability guidelines, and would be best placed in an article on Alexey Mikheyev, and done so in passing as per the sources which discuss this notable individual. RussaviaDialogue 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It was decided to "keep" just a couple of days ago. If you think the procedure was wrong, you should ask for review.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Biophys, if you don't agree with procedures try a procedure to change the procedure and don't try to by-pas the procedures. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per Biophys. The nominator should be advised to take it to WP:DRV. Martintg (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full listing period for the 2nd AFD isn't up yet so think of it as simply undoing the improper non-admin closure of the 2nd AFD.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable slang term.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep lets try not to waste this discussion boards time any longer. JBsupreme (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, then, that you retract your accusation of bad faith (which is what "speedy keep" means) made against the nominator, and actually have a proper discussion. The prior discussion was closed after only 1 day. AFD discussions are supposed to run for five. Trying to shut down a perfectly good faith nomination as you are, after rapidly shutting down a prior discussion, will only make it seem like all of you are unwilling to discuss, or even answer, the points that were raised in good faith in both discussions, by both nominators. Uncle G (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that, I assumed in good faith that all procedures where followed there (it seems first AFD was also clossed after 1 day also...)... anyhow that means he/we should start to complain about administrators who simply ignore the AFD procedures... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now we could go to Deletion Review, notice that the prior AFD was a non-administrator closure, get that overturned (which any administrator can actually do on xyr own recognizance, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure) because, as is plain from the first AFD, there is no consensus and so an early closure is inappropriate, and start a fourth AFD discussion. Let's just assume that we've all done that little dance. Assume, if you like, that I, with my administrator hat on, have undone the prior AFD closure and re-opened the discussion, most of whose participants are here anyway. Let's now have a proper AFD discussion, to run for the full period, and to address the article and the subject, not the nominator or other participants in the discussion. Please continue with it below. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I think it would be better to rename the article to Police torture in modern Russia or something, cause that part of the article is fully referenced and more interesting (I think). Then can Phone Call to Putin be made a sub chapter of that lager scoped article. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above comments. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Human rights in Russia. Per WP:NEO the title is a non-notable neologism and hence the content should be merged. On a procedural note, it was inappropriate for User:Neurolysis to do a non-admin closure after one day so this AFD is perfectly reasonable and necessary. The closing admin can take into account the comments made by users in the previous AFD if they haven't already copied those comments here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a POVFORK, in that it is part of the 2008 South Ossetia War series of articles, and it totally omits cyberattacks by Georgia on Russian infrastructure (RIA Novosti, Russia Today, etc websites were hit by cyberattacks). The substance within the article is already covered succinctly within the SO War series of articles. RussaviaDialogue 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable and sourced. Article 2008 South Ossetia War is already huge. Thus, a creation of sub-articles is welcome. One can either include cyberattacks by Georgia here or make a separate article about this.Biophys (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no need for this article. The corresponding part in the main article is not too big. Please continue editing on this subject there. Wait until the section becomes too large and split then, but not sooner. And if we split, then the article should be called "Information warfare in the 2008 South Ossetia war", and include alleged actions by both sides, not just by one of them. Offliner (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - main article is 141K. Merge is impossible. In fact, more articles like this should be created to reduce the size of the main article. Think of the people who measure their modem speed in baud. WilyD 03:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge is impossible". I have to comment on this. Please compare the content of this article with the corresponding part in the main article. There isn't much difference, except that the latter is written with a much more neutral tone. We are already trying to trim the main article in all possible ways, but splitting of a three-line section only to rewrite it with a less neutral tone isn't really the way to go. Offliner (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rationale for deletion is rather lame. It is a reasonable topic for coverage with much potential for growth. Note that 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia grew into a large article and no one claimed it was a POV fork of Bronze Night. Martintg (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 102 words. Most likely not more than 1.5KB. Not a viable spinout. Sceptre(talk) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can grow, and is valid in its own right. Dream Focus (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable event. Garnered extensive coverage in the international media. --KoberTalk 06:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, mostly sourced from blogs and the like. Mayalld (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork on non-notable topic.DonaldDuck (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In that period even wikipedians from Georgia could'nt edit in wikipedia. It coverd also in the Hebrew newspapers. Geagea (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Biophys's reasoning above. This article meets relevant Wikipedia criteria for notability and sourcing and should not be deleted. --Friejose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I cleaned up this article, and I note that there are numerous NPOV sources for the assertions made therein. --Friejose (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These days, cyberwars are fast becoming a routine part of life, so it's reasonable to cover them similarly to the way regular wars are covered. This gives us a ruling precedent: regular wars are commonly grouped by offensive. It would make no sense at all to, say, delete Attack on Pearl Harbor as a WP:POVFORK on the basis that it doesn't describe USA's counteroffensive in detail. There's a separate article for that, and quite rightfully so. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very POV fork, very weakly sourced, extremely POV-looking article. All sources provided make strange claims and deductions, based mostly on primary sources (i.e. sites and media being attacked). No evidence provided of attack being performed by Russian intelligence services, although the article claims so. --GreyCat (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no information in the article beyond a sentence or two, and I don't see it expanding. It is already covered in the war article. See 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia for a better article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did we start deleting article stubs? This article has much potential for expansion. Note that 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia also started out with a sentence or two. Martintg (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every article starts out with a "sentence or two", including the ones that are deleted. Not a good argument. The two sentences can be merged into the larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can expand the corresponding chapter in the main article. That way it's easier for other people to keep an eye on the additions and their neutrality. Offliner (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can be expanded to cover cyberattacks against Russian sites, or a new article can be created for that. In any case, this is a valid article subject. Everyking (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable private currency. Very few Google hits, no news or other non-commercial sources. From what I can tell from the previous deletion debate, it can't have improved much upon the old version - it's two lines with no refs. Am nomming for deletion instead of speedying because I don't think it's an exact recreation of the deleted version. Graymornings(talk) 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gcache indicates this may have shut down, and this article has already been deleted before. Maybe give this a one-line mention in Alternative currency. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there really isn't anything to merge besides, possibly, the name "Phoenix." Drmies (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has this really been deleted once before? If so... WP:SALT Speedy. JBsupreme (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is all of two sentences with no assertion to notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
