Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< June 8 June 10 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content into The Hills Have Eyes (series) and redirect. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hills Have Eyes documentaries

edit
The Hills Have Eyes documentaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Requested by 203.143.248.114. StaticGull  Talk  16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I don't have much opinion either way on this article - I don't think these documentaries are inherently notable, but the article isn't blatantly violating any policies either. It is verifiable, as they do have pages on IMDB (see this search for 'The Hills Have Eyes': [2]) - which may also be evidence of some degree of notability - but we don't generally have articles on spin-off documentaries, unless they're particularly notable in their own right (the only example I can think of is Empire of Dreams, and even that's questionable). Perhaps this is an area where a new notability guideline is needed. Terraxos (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close call, but merge with The Hills Have Eyes (series). As the article is currently presented, it has the wrong name (it should be List of The Hills Have Eyes documentaries or List of documentary films about The Hills Have Eyes) as it is essentially a list article, but is a list of four entries long enough to stand on its own, especially considering the lack of information on each of the entries? Clearly, the answer must be "no"; but since these documentaries were produced alongside the films in the The Hills Have Eyes series, it seems more à propos to merge it into that article about the movies series and give it the appropriate weight there. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Hills Have Eyes (series) as I doubt that the article in question would be expanded enough one way or another to be a worthwhile list article; at the same time, the documentaries don't seem to have notability that is independent of the film series. Separating the entries into independent stubs would be inappropriate on many levels here. I also agree with IP's point that a merge would enable the documentaries to be given the appropriate weight relative to the Hills Have Eyes series movies. B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article was speedily deleted. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faster is Better : French

edit
Faster is Better : French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by non-notable performer (William Girard) whose own article is nom'd for speedy deletion. There is no speedy criterion for albums, and in fact, speedy deletion is specifically prohibited for albums, even if the artist is nn. Corvus cornixtalk 23:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T.N. Baker

edit
T.N. Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable author. All of the information seems to be a rework of the bio on her website, including the part about liking hot bubble baths. BradV 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Wiv Me

edit
Dance Wiv Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an apparently non-charting, non-notable individual song. No reliable secondary sources that establish notability have been provided, and the only rationale provided is that it has received airplay and is by two notable artists. That's not notability per WP:MUSIC's section on individual songs. Erechtheus (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fumble Rumble

edit
Fumble Rumble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I haven't nominated an article for deletion in a bit, so bear with me here. I cannot find anything to substantiate this article in order to qualify its claim of "notability" I'm a huge football fan, but this completely unreferenced article about one play in one game, at the collegiate/non professional level no less, has me baffled as to its inclusion here as a separate article. I've done the appropriate google searches in earnest, and I'm only turning up Wikipedia mirrors. I recommend deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. I didn't realize that Give a Little Love was just an international release of their 1986 album Heartland. I have cleaned up the page and moved it to Heartland (The Judds album); given that Heartland produced two Number Ones and was certified platinum, it is no doubt a notable album. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give a Little Love (The Judds album)

edit
Give a Little Love (The Judds album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources exist for this album. It's not listed on All Music Guide or anywhere else that I can find. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. - auburnpilot talk 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SKE48

edit
SKE48 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This band doesn't even exist yet. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article does meet the WP:MUSIC notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatz (band)

edit
Blatz (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources to establish notability or verifiability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PadmaPrasad

edit
PadmaPrasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, no references, possible self-promotion (created by Pprasadnair (talk · contribs). Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is verifiable and can meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slam book

edit
Slam book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been tagged as unreferenced and original research for way too long! The closest thing to a reference is the connection to the movie Mean Girls but the book in that isn't even called a "Slam book" but apparently a "burn book". I can't find any encyclopedic sources for this subject. As it stands there is no verifiability. It may be that these books do exist but without references we have to assume that the analysis is pure original research. DanielRigal (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the phrase is in use but does not seem to have a consistent meaning that enables us to write about it in a coherent, encyclopedic way, hence the confused mess that the article is currently in. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a news article about slam books, it is a news article about something else that mentions slam books briefly, in passing. It might give us some clues to infer what a slam book is but it doesn't get us any closer to an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We need to do more than define terms. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep substantial enough for an article, additional references will be scattered but should be findable.. If "burn book" is a synonym, make a redirect from that. The preferred title can be discussed on the talk page, not here. DGG (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I thought back in January but I didn't find any good references and, after almost 6 months tagged as unreferenced, you have to wonder if there is any hope of getting an acceptable quality of article out of this. I don't mind being proved wrong here but I don't want the result of this AfD to be a Keep but for nobody to ever do any work to bring the article up to standard. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, since it's been stubbed.. - Philippe 19:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triplemania

edit
Triplemania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Confused, no-context essay about an organisation or something else involved with wrestling. Its "references" defy comprehension. Even if this turns out to exist and be notable, it still fails WP:V and WP:NOR.  Sandstein  21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paintbrush (software)

edit
Paintbrush (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software article full of images which should also probably be deleted. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Little (rap group)

edit
Plastic Little (rap group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This group fails WP:MUSIC; judging by All Music Guide, they have released only one full-length album (She's Mature) on what seems to be a small indy label. But the talk page suggests that things are controversial here. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom (non-admin close). BradV 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastbury Farm J.M.I primary school

edit
Eastbury Farm J.M.I primary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Primary school of dubious notability. The school's web page says it has an enrollment of 45 students and 30 part-time in the nursery. BradV 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, WP:HEY in 12 hours. I thought this was beyond hope, but clearly it wasn't. I'm withdrawing the nomination. BradV 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Change to redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Special Love Movie

edit
A Very Special Love Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline OnlyinTheatresThisChristmas (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote do Redirect to A Very Special Love, per Howard the Duck's comment. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was quite prepared to register a keep, since we don't delete film articles just because they're not American or European, but the film doesn't even seem to exist yet. The link to imdb goes to an entirely different film. "A Very Special Love Movie" may be another title for the film linked at imdb, but it doesn't star Sarah Geronimo. There are too many unanswered questions here. Corvus cornixtalk 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a comment on the article's content. SGGH speak! 09:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, his edits border on hoax and fanboyism. Besides the references provided are not notable. Starczamora (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, this changes everything! So there's already an article about this movie...your comment was really helpful, thanks! Victor Lopes (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete; no prejudice against recreation. - Philippe 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner For Schmucks

edit
Dinner For Schmucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be provided to show that filming has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Obvious nonsense.-Wafulz (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry potato

edit
Cherry potato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Likely hoax. No references of any kind, no relevant Google hits at all. Looks like something someone made up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn -- Roleplayer (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St John's CofE Primary School

edit
AfDs for this article:
St John's CofE Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Reason for the contest was "got an outstanding in Ofsted". I don't see why a primary school article containing nothing other than the name of the school and where it is should be kept just because it got an "outstanding" in its Ofsted report. Roleplayer (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Man, A Band, A Symbol

edit
A Man, A Band, A Symbol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

500 copy compilation album featuring minor bands, released by a redlink record label. No reliable sources cited. Prod was removed with the comment "deprod please take to afd for consences please". J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. If someone has actual information about the guy, feel free to recreate the article with some assertion of notability. -Wafulz (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hammerschlag

edit
Peter Hammerschlag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article is only one sentence, and that sentence asserts no notability. AniMate 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) AniMate 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somastate

edit
Somastate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously speedied, I've decided to give this one a chance at AFD, just in case... A band article with no independant sourcing, and IMHO no real indication given of notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus; default to KEEP. - Philippe 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krewe of Orion

edit
Krewe of Orion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I WP:PRODded this article about a Mardi Gras crew for lack of notability. The PROD was contested with comment: "all MG crews are probably N." I disagree. As it stands, this is a local club with 300 members. Many such clubs exist (even when restricting to Mardi Gras, Carnival, Fastnacht etc. groups) and they would certainly not automatically pass WP:ORG, in the absence of some truly convincing secondary sources. However, I found only some mentioning in the local press, and directory-style announcements. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's almost all behind pay gates, but with ~90 sources I'd think there has to be something with which to build an article. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I hope there's more to say about it from the press mentions. But I notice its not the New Orleans MG, so I'm not sure about significance. I notice that particular Mardi Gras does not have an article of its own, so quite possibly the individual components might not yet be notable. Best solution problably is to use this as a start for an article on it. DGG (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laissez les bon temps roulez! (That's the Cajun equivalent of Keep) As per Cari's comments - the notability can be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a decade old and from a city where most of the people drive the 45 minutes to New Orleans for Carnival. With some more secondary sources maybe but as it stands they are too new and not notable enough. L0b0t (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Local press is no less reliable then regional press, and New Orleans being a major city, I wouldn't go so far as to quantify it as "local" my self. MrPrada (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, neither this group nor the newspaper which reported about them are located in New Orleans. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Advocate, source of the 90 stories about the group listed above, is the primary newspaper of Baton Rouge (another major city) has a New Orleans bureau ["The paper maintains bureaus throughout south Louisiana as well as in Washington, D.C."], and is obviously notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. MrPrada (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which does not mean that everything the paper writes about is notable. See further below. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The krewe in question is not based in New Orleans. And there are Mardi Gras celebrations outside of New Orleans, too. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That, I think, is a good point. The Krewe in question is from Baton Rouge. The Baton Rogue Mardi Gras celebration merrits only passing mention here. Whereas NOLA and even Mobile have their own articles. This Krewe is only 9 or 10 years old and from a city who's celebration is eclipsed by the Mardi Gras in NOLA just 45 minutes away. Baton Rouge Mardi Gras and its Krewes are just not notable enough for inclusion into the encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no requirement that an event needs to take place for X number of years before it is considered notable. Few events rival the New Orleans Mardi Gras, so the argument that Baton Rogue cannot measure up to it is a chalk-and-cheese comparison. --Ecoleetage (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the point. As it stands, we have here a local club that was covered in the local press (that's part of the business of the local press isn't it). Every city has a plethora of such clubs - carnival clubs, sports clubs, whatever -, and they would typically not pass the notability criteria. Things might be different if this were a group of the New Orleans Mardi Gras, since that one is world famous; but that's merely hypothetical since this club is based in Baton Rouge. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as an FYI: Baton Rouge is the capital of Louisiana. We are not talking about a small town club, but an annual event in a capital city. I have difficulty understanding the attempts to marginalize the city, its media and this event. --Ecoleetage (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. The idea that Baton Rogue and The Advocate are non-notable is far-fetched, and while I could see this topic being not notable if it had received minor coverage, 90 articles is not minor. MrPrada (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think anyone is trying to marginalize the Baton Rouge carnival, it's just that the Baton Rouge celebration has done nothing to distinguish itself. It is eclipsed by the NOLA celebration 45 minutes away. My assertion is that FIRST Baton Rouge Mardi Gras should be written, with a list of Krewes, then expanded into Krewe articles if warranted. We don't have articles for all the NOLA Krewes or all the Mobile Krewes or Galveston and these cities were celebrating Carnival centuries before Baton Rouge. Yes The Advocate is a local paper. The Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Cleavland Plain Dealer, New Orleans Times Picayune, Tallahassee Democrat are ALL local papers, that is not a value judgment on their journalistic ability, it is a reflection of their circulation, coverage area, and readership. When the Baton Rouge Carnival is notable enough for its own article then we can discuss articles for their individual Krewes. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you say about having L0b0t pour some Hurricanes while I get out my guitar and play Iko Iko? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One can often find me on upper Decateur St. enjoying neat Bourbon whiskey. Or at the Maple Leaf Bar watching the Rebirth Brass Band. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination has been withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time

edit
I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion of this article. I stand by my reasoning of WP:V and WP:RS deficiencies but it seems pretty clear that my interpretation of those two policies, especially the latter, is quite different than that of the more active editors in this area of expertise. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC) This song from Mariah Carey's album E=MC² is claimed to be the next single. The article lacks verification through reliable sources that it will, in fact, be released as a single. Although it was performed at a concert in Japan, please notice previous claims of upcoming singles from that album based on such incomplete information: [9], [10] and others. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that unlike "Love Story" (which had only a couple of interviews supporting it, right after the release of "Bye Bye") and "Migrate" (which was never announced as a single, officially nor unofficially), "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time" has the "support" of various paparazzi pictures showing her filming the video. Now, that's not official, but I'm just making note of it. Plus, this single was released in Japan already (hence the Japanese charts, although I also realise that they're not the official Oricon charts). Due to the fact that it's not officially verifiable at this point, can't this be made into a redirect to the album page until otherwise proven or disproven? SKS2K6 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my vote to a keep as FMQB, a radio industry site, has confirmed a radio date of June 30, and the official Mariah Carey website has confirmed that this will be the new single. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parallel to Migrate is the fact that this ecyclopedia was flooded by speculations of it being released as a single after it was performed on SNL, just like this sing was performed in Japan. If the article contained any verifiable and reliable sources at all to support the claim that this song is being released as a single, I would drop this whole thing. But there is absolutely nothing. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it's already charting in Japan, which makes it somewhat notable regardless of whether it becomes the third single in North America/Europe or not. As there is only a little bit of info regarding the Japanese release, it can easily be merged into the album article until we get confirmation of release in the States. That way, we don't delete the page history, which is not the thing to do apparently, according to Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand the point you're trying to make about it charting in Japan, but having only a link to the Japanese Billboard charts, where do we get enough verifiable information to write an article larger than a stub? WP:MUSIC#Songs states A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. I'm arguing that this is not the case for this song. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Isn't This and That enough proof?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.s.a.s. (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • What we mean by reliable and verfiable sources is something official, like a statement from her record company confirming the release, or Billboard releasing a news blurb confirming it, etc.. Although Carey stating it is not totally unreliable, the fact of the matter is that these things can be changed at any time (like "Love Story" from this album, or "Say Somethin'" from her last). SKS2K6 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*I get your point, but u can see her shooting the video....if thats not enough proof, i dont know what is....J.s.a.s. (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep We have plenty of other articles on songs, and Mariah Carey is supposedly famous or something. So I'm not sure why this should be deleted, just because it might not be an actual single. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is most definately a single, that has been confirmed 100% because it was given an adds date which was listed by FMQB and Allaccess both of which are legitmate music industry sources i honestly don't see why the tag is still on the article this has been resolved 2007yo2 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getaway car

edit
Getaway car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Eggs in Grand Theft Auto

edit
Easter Eggs in Grand Theft Auto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely in-universe; essentially a guide to finding Easter eggs, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not for. I'm sure eeggs.com or some other wiki will gladly take such a list though. Wafulz (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herschell Wynton

edit
Herschell Wynton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a producer who has produced 1 million songs (an unsourced statement of course). Gives 5 references but none are articles with non-trivial coverage about this guy, per WP:MUSIC... most are just track listings. We need better sources, otherwise the article should be deleted. Rividian (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Philippe 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poptropica

edit
Poptropica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a non notable game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep L0b0t uses "Notability" as a point to delete. A quote from the notability section - "Online games are likely to be notable if they have a particularly large paid or free subscriber base.". Please note Poptropica.com's rating in the independent internet rating company Quantcast[15]. Poptropica.com receives over 3 million unique monthly views, and over 130 million page views [16]. Idocartoons (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Virtual world under Education section. The same press release from Pearson has found its way onto sites such as Reuters, Virtual World News, and CNW[19][20]. Corvus cornix has pointed out one review from iVillage. These are still a bit meager for a full article and might instead help flesh out Virtual world into a better article. If greater number of reliable sources with real-world information can be found, then the article can be spin-out from Virtual world. Jappalang (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the two sources Idocartoons mentions just above which provide significant coverage in multiple sources and thus establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant in the Sand

edit
Elephant in the Sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It isn't notable enough to have an article as it's just a mixtape Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3OH!3

edit
3OH!3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability per BAND. The band is playing the Warped Tour, but there are at least 85 bands on the official list, so I don't feel that it is a strong enough assertion of notability, being that they are not a headliner. Being on Warped is not an automatic N, either, as quite a few bands on the comps (since 1998) have no articles, and the total band list is much larger than the comp album list. This band has opened for artists, which is no big deal for a band - local bands open shows all the time, and I don't know that the headliner has anything to do with that process as opposed to the venue booker. Most tellingly, all their listed shows are Denver-area, which is where they are from, meaning that they are a local band that has not toured outside of their city. Prod was removed by a Denver-area IP who has never edited anything save that article, which means there may be a COI issue here as well. MSJapan (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Indy band, signed to an indy label that seems equally insignificant (in fact, it's up for PROD right now). Hopefully they get their name out there, but until notability is established, nothing for here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Save". Acts are Colorado based not Denver based, which is less local than the original argument suggests. Myspace Page has close to 1.5 million hits, which indicates some renown. Music Style is Unique, possibly original creation. In addition to that, its sound provideds pride to residents of Colorado. Its a unique thing for the state, and everyone loves them. This page has been created (then deleted) multiple times by multiple parties, eventually it will have to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.126.110 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. This is one of the most notable bands in Colorado. Their popularity and relevance is undeniable. They have sold out show after show across the country. Conversely to what Japan says, they are headlining a portion of the Warped Tour as well. And though other bands on the Warped Tour play only a select few dates (ie: 1 to 10 dates), 3OH!3 is actually on the entire tour. The significance of being on the Warped Tour CD is important too as only the most relevant and large bands are on the CD thanks to tour founder Kevin Lyman. Also, KTCL in Denver has a long history of discovering such bands as the Flobots and The Fray and 3OH!3 is just the next band in line. I urge this page to remain here and it has to remain eventually. 3OH!3 is too significant for this band not to have their own page. Ajkaneobrien (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Ajkaneobrien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. All the arguments brought up are contradictary by nature. You state that just being a member of the Warped Tour does not represent noteriety, however, this is a tour that has been around for years, and headlining it has not only just jumpstarted many bands carreers, but in some cases (Blink 182) has defined them. If you say that is not a relevent tour and does not warrent a page, then by the same token many bands that have been on the Warped Tour still have a Wikipedia page even though in your eyes they do not deserve it. It is truely a rediculous notion that Headlining an event with so much national prestige such as the Warped Tour is not reason enough for a Wikipedia page. To emphasis what AJKANEobrien said, KTCL, the radio station in Colorado that regularly plays 3 oh! 3 can be credited with boosting the carreers of the Flobots, who recently are on tour and have made television apperances and the National hit, the Fray. With that track record, and a headlining spot on the Warped Tour, it is likely that 3 OH! 3 will recieve great nation attention in the coming months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.227.158 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I for one have no prejudice to recreation if this band in the future meets WP:MUSIC at that time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is not crystal ballery that this band is in fact a headliner on ALL of the the nationally recognized and highly attended Warped Tour stops. Your argument against the tour is that they have some bands be filler for some of the shows, however, this band is playing every stop nationwide. That recognition by the commite who puts the Warped Tour together should be enough noteriety by itself that people who know music and what people like believe that this band has enough staying power and talent to be broadcast on the national stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.227.158 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.warpedtour.com/warpedtour/bands.asp. Directly to the right, it states that 3OH!3 is featured on the whole tour. The creators of this tour want to put the best product out there, and making 3OH!3 a full time member is evidence of their noteriety. Boom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.227.158 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. I find it laughable that with 10 million articles in 253 languages, "Dennis the Tiger" is questioning a page about a band as notable as 3OH!3. Just because Dennis does not know of the band does not make them any less significant. Oh, and the band does match the Lord (our God) Wikipedia's criteria for notability.Ajkaneobrien (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)— Ajkaneobrien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Save.They were cited by Colorado’s Westward as the best of in Colorado in there genre in 2007. http://bestof.westword.com/bestof/award.php?award=377917. This proves rule 7 that it has become the most prominent representative of a city, beating out national bands such as the Flobots. In addition to the Warped tour, where they are one of 40 bands to achieve the level of performing every show on a national concert tour, they are headlining the Pemerton Festival in British Columbia and the Bamboozle left festival in California. Both the warped tour and the aforementioned festivals represent rule 4. In addition to that, their record label, though it is young, has national acts on it and has notoriety in its own right for being a sub-company of Atlantic Records, thus taking care of rule #5 with there album coming out on that label in the next month. As for media coverage, if you Google their name, numerous outside sites in the hip hop, punk rock, and news outlet articles about the band pop up, thus meeting the criteria for rule #1. And finally, in addition to having 1.5 million hits on their myspace page, their hit music video has 233,613 views on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.227.158 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — 24.9.227.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a google news search and found this, then found this too. Their Allmusic page doesn't give much away though. sparkl!sm hey! 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might change my mind, Sparklism. I can't get to the link on the Syntax from work (firewall blockage, dunno why), but the camera may or may not be questionable as it appears to be a local news story. IMO it brings it to "borderline". I'll check it later this evening or work with other consensus on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with revision - In its current form the article is pretty weak and not NPOV, as seen with the claim that they are "headlining" Warped Tour. They most definitely are not. Still, I came to this article because I was curious about the band due to the fact that they are playing at Warped Tour. The links provided by Sparklism, especially the first one, seem to be enough to assert notability along with their touring on Warped Tour. TecmoBo (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright I've revised the article so all the statements are sourced and the POV is fixed. I used Sparklism's first link and some others I found that were legitimate. So as I stated above, my vote is to keep in its revised form. TecmoBo (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It certainly reads, better, but I don't know that it asserts any sort of notability. Assuming this album comes out and charts, that might change things, but if the label signing is a fundamental part of their notability (which is about the only thing I can see that would) WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply until the album release. MSJapan (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save 3oh!3 is huge in both Boulder and Denver which satisfies rule #7. Also they have have been in rotation of channel 93.3 so that satisfies rule #11. And on top of that headlining Warped Tour and opening for Snoop Dogg and Sum 41. Just Because some of you haven't heard of a band doesn't give you the right to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.81.89 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree somewhat with MSJapan that their notability isn't impressive, but the fact that they are on the official Warped Tour 2008 Tour Compilation disc doesn't help their notability? The bands on their aren't randomly thrown together; they are nearly all well-known. Even if 3Oh!3 isn't in the same class as those bands, doesn't been chosen to be on the compilation in the first place show some notability? TecmoBo (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Normally I would agree, but there's 50 bands at one track apiece, so I think it diminishes the weight of the comp substantially. A similar case might be Guitar Hero; there are indie bands on there who don't have articles, because they're simply not notable outside of having a track on the game(s) in the bonus section, and they aren't advertised on the packaging. MSJapan (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both - Nabla (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audience of One

edit
Audience of One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn high school band of a current indie musician (Anthony Green). The article freely admits the band went nowhere, and the notability policy states that notability is not inherited - Green is notable as part of and because of his band Circa Survive (and that's questionable, IMO, but not up for debate here), not as a solo artist past or present. Unsourced article, prod removed on this and the album by an IP as its only two edits. MSJapan (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the album article as an NN album of a NN band.

I Remember When This All Meant Something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Nahi Tou Kabhi Nahi

edit
Abhi Nahi Tou Kabhi Nahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable film, no sources listed. TN‑X-Man 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is no need for this to have notability "outside of the community it is geared toward" any more than there is any need for articles on Hollywood movies to have notability outside of their target community. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, Tru Thoughts overhwlmingly, bands kept owing lack of discussion, with a humble suggestion that AfDs aren't fit for more than 2 or 3 closely linked topics at a time. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tru Thoughts

edit
Tru Thoughts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable label; sources given are primary or Discogs, not reliable.

Also nominating related musicians and albums::

Hint (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Will Holland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Quantic Soul Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 5th Exotic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apricot Morning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mishaps Happening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An Announcement to Answer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep QSO and merge to Will Holland I could find several profiles of the band by reliable sources. Non-trivial profile coverage from Lexis: Nige Tassell, "For those about to squawk", The Guardian (London), December 7, 2007 (1094 wds); "An eclectic set from quantic", Bristol Evening Post, July 12, 2007 (674 wds); Andrew Drever, "Young and Restless", The Age (Melbourne, Australia), November 12, 2004 (536 wds); MARTIN LONGLEY, "FUNKED UP AND GROOVY", Birmingham Post, December 8, 2003 (266 wds); Louise Ramsay, "Quantic Soul Orchestra Komedia Brighton July 25", UK Newsquest Regional Press - This is Brighton and Hove, July 25, 2003 (433 wds); "Quantic Soul Orchestra", Bristol Evening Post, June 12, 2003 (430 wds); Beth Pearson, "It all went apricot-shaped; Will Holland's life plan ended in early failure, but he has had more than enough success since then to make up for it, reports Beth Pearson", The Herald (Glasgow), December 6, 2002 (804 wds). QSO also gets 240,000 ghits. I think keeping all content about QSO in the Will Holland article makes most sense, because he's had several projects, and it pretty much looks like QSO just is him. Mangostar (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge QSO album articles Did not find much coverage for individual albums when searching for QSO--don't think the sourcing is there. Mangostar (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hint Could not find adequate independent sourcing in Lexis. Mangostar (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tru Thoughts Haven't thoroughly investigated this one, but with so many ghits and at least two notable artists signed to them (Will Holland/QSO and Alice Russell) they are surely notable. Mangostar (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tru Thoughts - This is a well established, though independent electronic and dance music label, who have released 60+ albums and over 100 singles over the last 9 years. I've added some more of their notable artists, and will look to add more (independent) info and refs. Gram123 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Possible Merge Will Holland & Quantic Soul Orchestra - Though Holland's name will be less recognisable to people than his musician / band names (Quantic, Quantic Soul Orchestra and The Limp Twins), it makes sense to merge the pseudonym articles into one article under his real name, and make the others redirects. Most of the info appears to be under Will Holland already. I understand the possible deletion of the album articles, as they aren't much more than stubs and they probably didn't achieve significant chart positions. Gram123 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep every article, as Quantic and The Quantic Soul Orchestra are different projects. You won't merge Fatboy Slim and Freakpower, would you? And Tru Thoughts is separate from both, being a record label. As for notability, Tru Thoughts is the most notable deep funk/nu funk record label in the whole world. It's just like nomitating Anticon. Additionally, Will Holland's projects are also notable deep funk act of 2000's, though not to the degree of bands like The Poets of Rhythm. I'm shocked with this nomination. And with such aproach (nominating for deletion something you are not an expert in) as well. Netrat_msk (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to Netrat_msk's final point, I've looked through the music articles the nominator (User:TenPoundHammer) has created (specifically those listed User:TenPoundHammer/Pages I created#Music pages I created) and I've got to say I don't recognise any of those artists or albums at all. Selecting one at random (Marty Raybon), I took a look at the article and frankly, from an outsider's pov, it appears that there is little difference between the notability, quality of article, and standard of external sources for that artist, versus the ones nominated here. I wouldn't dream of being presumptious enough to nominate Marty Raybon for deletion (or any of those other articles TenPoundHammer has created), as it is absolutely beyond my area of knowledge or expertise. If a music label / artist / album doesn't appear to have good sources, shouldn't they be marked with something like a {{refimprove}} or {{primarysources}} template, rather than automatically deciding to nominate them for afd? Gram123 (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam seth Nelson

edit
Adam seth Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was previously speedy deleted under the name Adam seth nelson. The subject of the article is an actor turned public relations person. The article is long on name dropping and short on references. A search for reliable sources turns up nothing to substantiate notability. The only Google News result on a search for "Adam Seth Nelson" in quotesis a wedding announcement. Whpq (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply G4 applies only if the deleted article was previously deleted through AFD. The previous article was deleted through a speedy. And in any case, I don't know what the contents of the previous article were. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battrick

edit
AfDs for this article:
Battrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A browser-based cricket management game with less than 10,000 members and minimal to no reliable sources; of the three cited references, one is a blog, one is a dead link, and the last is a one-paragraph mention on a specialty sports management game website. I see nothing here that helps this pass WP:WEB other than its connection to Hattrick - and if that's the notability, perhaps this should be merged there instead. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the most petty deletion I've ever seen on Wikipedia. And that's actually saying something, because I've seen some petty crap in my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.65.222 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 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 - Nabla (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Abu Shandi

edit
Mahmoud Abu Shandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A clearcut case of WP:ONEEVENT - a Palestinian deported from Canada as a security risk. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT doesn't seem to link anywhere particular, just Biographies of living persons. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close as redirect. The article is borderline A1/A3 material as a one-liner with no context or information, but given the depth of discussion at the main page a redirect is just as useful as deletion. Shereth 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Goonies 2 (film)

edit
The Goonies 2 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Purely speculation at this stage, and the article doesn't even mention that. There is a Goonies 2 video game, that was supposed to be a sequel to the film which already exists The_Goonies_II Ged UK (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, owing to no hint of consensus, but an editorial merge may be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVS: Dose verification system

edit
DVS: Dose verification system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article, as written, reads like an advertisement for the product; I consider it unlikely to be salvageable. The subject of the article is a niche market tool for clinical radiation dosimetry. (Note that the article describes in detail how to obtain insurance reimbursement for the product, but offers scant comment on the device's operatation—even mention of the type of dosimeter employed is omitted.) While our dosimetry article could use expansion, per WP:NOTCATALOG there is no need for Wikipedia to be a catalog of dosimetry products and services.

The article was created by User:Smg2008, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been the creation of this article and links to it from high traffic articles like breast cancer and prostate cancer (see Special:Contributions/96.234.60.75). This article was originally PRODded on 5 July; the PROD tag was removed today by the logged-out original author, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. (In case of any ambiguity, I'll note for the closing admin that my not-vote is to delete this not-article.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As it stands, it does read as an advert. However, a quick google search shows that it might be notable - it has been cleared for treatment. It's a shame that there are no notability guidelines for drugs and treatments (well, none that I can see). I would say though that any that are cleared for use on human patients, or trialled drugs/treatments that have received multiple secondary coverage should be notable. With a rewrite, it might make for a good article. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - well researched arguments of notability - Peripitus (Talk) 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Russell (singer)

edit
Alice Russell (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC because the artist does not have any charting music, and the indie label upon which notability might rest relies on her and only two other artists for its notability (they cannot support each other for notability!) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And more from Lexis:
  • The New Zealand Herald, April 15, 2007 Sunday, British soul singer returning to play with the Drop
  • Waikato Times (Hamilton, New Zealand), March 24, 2007 Saturday, Return of the soul sister
  • The Observer (England), October 22, 2006, The young soul rebels, Elle J Small
  • The Evening Standard (Palmerston North, New Zealand), March 17, 2007 Saturday, The grand manor, WHITE Tina
  • South China Morning Post, September 17, 2006 Sunday, Alice Russell, Mathew Scott
  • The Scotsman, September 15, 2006, Friday, Alice Russell, Fiona Shepherd
  • The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand), January 14, 2006 Saturday, sound check; ALICE RUSSELL, ANDERSON Vicki
  • The Age (Melbourne, Australia), November 18, 2005 Friday, Expression marks; MUSIC, ANDREW DREVER
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReaSoft Image Converter

edit
ReaSoft Image Converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable software ju66l3r (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoft pdf printer

edit
Reasoft pdf printer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable software ju66l3r (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LinkConnector

edit
LinkConnector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company is probably notable but this seems highly promotional. Sources are numerous but selfpublished or press releases. Editor may have COI. Triwbe (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable spam. References do not come from reliable 3rd party sourcing and the whole thing is an advertisement disguised as a legitimate article with the idea the the more references it has the more notable it must be. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and feed to the sandworms, noting nonetheless that cruft is indeed a meaningless word in AfDs. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life-shield blanket

edit
Life-shield blanket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crufty topic with no independent sources and no evidence of notability. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Rescue Me characters. - Philippe 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Garrity

edit
Sean Garrity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In-univese biography of a fictional character. This topic is completely OR and unreferenced, and does not establish the notability of the character. Removing the OR material leaves us with no content for the article, so I'm listing it for deletion. Mikeblas (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tore Rønningen

edit
Tore Rønningen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a hoax. Neither Hamarkameratene's squad listings nor the unofficial list of Norwegian international players mention him. Although the article links to the website of a guy named Tore Rønningen, no information can be found anywhere on his football career. 96T (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggy Wuggy

edit
Huggy Wuggy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Random neologism. This is an encyclopedia, not wikiquote or wiktionary (not that it would be appropriate there either). ZimZalaBim talk 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought of that, but figured it was a recognizable phrase, and not complete nonsense. But if someone wants to speedy it, I won't object. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The coverage is trivial, and there's nothing to indicate this this movement is substantial, substantive, or encyclopedic. - Philippe 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Californian independence

edit
Californian independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no reliable sources that such a movement even exists other than a few Yahoo groups and an essay by someone described as a satirist; notability is not shown and reliable sources do not seem to exist. Large portions of the article are clear original research and essay (WP:SOAP) Article should redirect to List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_States, if anything. Stlemur (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you mind posting a couple of your sources? At the moment there's none in the article itself and I'm personally struggling to find anything even half credible... The closest the article gets is a satirical opinion piece from 2002 that includes the highly encyclopedic "10 Most Bitchin' Reasons California Becoming Its Own Country Would Be So Cool". Other sources include a Google group that hasn't been active since October 2007, and a primary source website that is almost completely devoid of content... Debate 木 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion I'll agree with David Barba and say that it does indeed need to be rewritten right now, but I don't think it needs to be deleted.
"At the moment there's none in the article itself and I'm personally struggling to find anything even half credible..."

Here's a couple of sources that seem credable:

Iveri R. (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)— Iveri R. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Neither of those sites establish notability. One guy with a webpage is not a movement. --Stlemur (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I was think of when I opposed were a few groups organized several years ago that made news in a few California local and college papers, and if I remember correctly the SF Chronicle or Guardian. However it appears now that they have since disbanded and whatever material there was I can no longer find. What a shame. It's really too bad in my opinion. Far out political movement, that a half jokes to begin with, are really the best and most creative.--David Barba (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! I was about to concede my position. But sources found.

"Long Live Secession!", Salon.com
"If at first you don't secede", also Salon
"California Split", New York Times
"Movement explores possibility of California secession", The California Aggie
"Californians Dreaming of Secession?", CNSNews.com
"Forget Canada, let's have California secede" By Jeremy Beecher & "California, independent in everything but reality" by Patt Morrison Daily Trojan and LA Times, I can't find the originals sorry.

Basically, the committee set up in 2005 called "Move On California" to explore California secession got the most press coverage (it appears to have since disbanded) and otherwise secession reflects a popular cultural fantasy, often satirical, yet genuine sentiment none the less. The article does need to be rewritten to reflect to real scope of the "movement" and its cultural and political context- highest affinity following conservative Republican success in the 2002 and 2004 national elections. --David Barba (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth:
  • 1. is about Vermont and succession generally. California warrants barely rates a paragraph and a half in a much longer article - a couple of flavor quotes from a "former evangelical minister".
  • 2. is about Liberal disenchantment, makes some vague commentary on succession generally, and doesn't mention CA succession anywhere specifically.
  • 3. is an op-ed, mainly on the USA being too big, with some throw-away speculation that CA might be a candidate for succession someday.
  • 4. reports the same single news event as #1. The report notes "5,000 hits and 200 e-mail responses" to the organization's website (following minor news coverage).
  • 5. a tiny, cookie-cutter article quoting the "former evangelical minister" again.
  • 6. Appears to be a blog, with quotes attributed to the LA Times including "we don't need no stinkin' secession either", an op-ed piece that's more of a general rant.
So anyhow, if a single news cycle story about the loony pronouncements of one individual, coupled with a couple of op-eds that don't even clearly advocate the topic, and a couple of other minor references in articles about something else are enough to establish notability around here then near every boy and his dog, not to mention every piece of trivial satirical commentary, have a case for articles as well. Debate 木 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think notability has been established. If you feel the article does not reflect the reality presented in the sources, rewrite the article- don't delete. Debate, you argument at this point comes down to personal preferences (your opinion)- not wikipedia standards. This question veers a bit off-topic and don't take it too personally, but why take wiki and encyclopedic knowledge so seriously? Important to note (since we're discussing Cali anyways) that most Californians have less strict attitudes about these things. This user personally happens to believe all knowledge is ultimately subjective anyways, so get over it.--David Barba (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been established. Quoting from the General Notability Guideline, we have:
  1. Significant coverage: Only trivial coverage has been shown; the news articles linked to all fail the criteria for notability in news coverage.
  2. Reliable sources While I'll readily admit the newspapers cited are decent newspapers, their coverage is trivial. The non-trivial coverage does not come from reliable sources; it's blogs, internet fora, and self-published websites.
Furthermore, I'd like to ask that everyone involved in this discussion please refrain from making assumptions about the modes of thought of either their fellow Wikipedians or of Californians. --Stlemur (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Notability guidelines: "News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services."

The California Aggie, Solan.com, and CNSNews.com are independent of the "movement" and associated groups/individuals in question. The other sources reflect opinions, notable to the sentiment of California secession under discussion (Patt Morrison is not a nobody in California public discourse). Your point about sources: The blogs linked are not the sources- they are reproductions of the articles actually published in reputable sources- LA Times, Daily Trojan ect. It is otherwise difficult to acquire the entire texts from archive for demonstration purposes- to prove what they actually said. If you can help in this regard it would be appreciated. The blogs are not being cited, the newspapers are. Again you are subjectively characterizing this coverage as trivial- your opinion, not the guidelines. Please direct your criticism to rewriting the article.--David Barba (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those news outlets are independent, as I've already stated. Their coverage is, I reiterate, non-subjectively trivial according to the guidelines cited above. I'll quote:

News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria:

1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate.

2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future).

(1) is not met, and (2) is not met.
I'm not arguing and have never argued in this discussion that something being copied in a blog makes it an unreliable source; it's simply that every citation provided thus far is either insubstantial, unreliable, or in the case of many of the pieces cited by the article and by you, outright satirical.
As for rewriting the article, the reason why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place is that if one includes in the article only facts cited in reliable sources, there is nothing at all left other than "two websites and a Yahoo group have people who think California should secede from the US." That's not even a stub. --Stlemur (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is clearly met by the sources provided. You are characterizing these sources, from reputed outlets, as "insubstantial, unreliable", selectively judging sources based on personal assessment of content rather than notability.--David Barba (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then show us a book, a documentary, a non-trivial academic study, or an important public debate independent of news services on the subject of Californian independence. --Stlemur (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note, also WP:UNDUE, which is where we started and which entirely sums things up for me, quote:

  • "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." (my emphasis. nb. nor is this an "ancillary article", it's the main article)

Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To closing admin, note also the vote stacking above. Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stlemur, the editorial articles included in that list (I believe only the California Aggiee and CNSNews.com are strict news reports) constitute public debate (that's what editorials are), apart of the historical record- even if you and I may find some silly. Some additional sources "How to Secede From Jesusland, Without Really Fighting" SF Weekly, "Political groups want California to secede Union" Daily Titan, "Free California: is independence the answer? " by Robert Nanninga, "Group Explores California Secession" by Jeff Morrissette. But to further assure you there is the documentary A State of Mine (2008) featuring the Move On California group.

Debate, your point is mute in this debate (about deletion) but refers us to another discussion- one I totally agree with having- as to whether and how this article ought to be merged with another more appropriate main article- made into a "ancillary article". And about prominent adherents- Jeff Morrissette founded the since disbanded group Move On California and the current head of the Californians for Independence is Kyle Ellis, attendant to the 2007 Chattanooga 2nd Secessionist Convention put on by the Middlebury Institute wiki: Middlebury Institute. I also hope the large number of texts by different authors shows that this sentiment is/was more popular than a few crackpots. For future reference altering an article or merging it with another in order to better conform with Wikipedia standards is always preferred as opposed to ought right removal of material, apart of operating in good faith of which making false accusations of vote stacking is not. The democratic experiment of Wikipedia is about maintaining an open mind and interest in the unfamiliar.--David Barba (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, none of the additional citations quoted cover anything other than the short flurry of light/novelty news concerning Jeff Morrissette's short-lived 2004 website. Jeff Morrissette is not significant per WP:BLP1E. At best we've established a case for an article about Move On California, however I'd personally argue against that per WP:NOTNEWS. Can I further suggest that there's one editor violating WP:Assume good faith, not to mention borderline WP:Civil, in this debate and it's not me. Debate 木 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly find your new highly technical argument fairly silly- most wiki articles are based on less than has been established here. I believe notability for an article on California Secession (possibly ancillary) has been established and will let other users come to their own conclusions.--David Barba (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Other articles are based on less" is not a valid argument in deletion debates. I'm inclined to think, though, that part of the problem here is a dearth of voices; should I re-list the article on AfD so there are more than three opinions here? --Stlemur (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-listing sounds like a smart idea. This article is obviously controversial and something approximating consensus would be good. Cheers. :) Debate 木 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stlemur (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the sources quoted mention a movement called "Californian Independence" that I can see. There are a couple of sources that quote a movement called "Move On California" but one of them is a student newspaper, which can hardly be described as a notable publication, and the other is CNSNews.com which is a marginal rightwing source. The movement itself also appears to have disappeared shortly after it arose. So I just can't see any reason to have an article on it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable political standpoint with a lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing for verifiability purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be a lot of rumbling about this but I don't see in the article (or am I aware of otherwise) that this movement has had significant influence on the policies or politics of California or the United States as a whole. Perhaps it could be merged into some California politics article as a compromise. Thetrick (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Secession in the United States, it isn't especially notable in and of itself but there is enough information to include it as a section in the article about various sundry secessionist movements within the country. Shereth 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second Merge proposal. Perhaps in the future it will merit its own article, but not now.--David Barba (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murge in to Califonia or even Atzlan if it's Mexican by nature.--86.29.253.81 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Front Page 2 --Taboo Tongue (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was previously quoted by David Barba above, is one article copied to a free (advertising supported) webhost, is a one-off op-ed piece, and the only mention of Californian independence in it is the contention that "if" the US were to break up the "obvious candidate" to go first would be California. I'm still not seeing anything in this debate that is anything other than trivial, throw-away stuff buried in articles largely about something else entirely. Debate 木 00:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [[1]]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shahnaz Husain

edit
Shahnaz Husain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wording reads like a public relations puff piece and primarily deals with a companies products and marketing, not a bibliography. The cut-and-pasting of the web page [27] that until recently appeared in the article has been deleted.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected for now seems best. The full article remains available in history but in its present state this is superfluous. Suggest use of {{under construction}} when resurrected to avoid further crossed wires. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding the Indian National Army

edit
Controversies surrounding the Indian National Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is an exact copy of Indian National Army's controversy section. Since the original article is quite good and does not require to be broken in subpages this article can be deleted. gppande «talk» 12:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Excuse me, but could somebody please show some courtesy and notify the creator of the article when nominating for AfD??? If you see the Talk page, I have explained I intend to shrink the parent article, hence it is not going to remain a "cut and paste" for eternity, but will be significantly improved!!! But I am insanely busy for another three or four days. The parent article is quite long, and summary style would mean that every lengthy section would need to be condensed. This was the same as what was done for a preceding section on INA's operations. If you do not have any constructive contributions to make, please do not disrupt others efforts to improve articles. I have undirected Alexius' redirection. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think someone should close this AFD now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime+

edit
Prime+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Future TV channel with absolutely no assertion of notability or any references whatsoever. A google search brings back far too few hits to be notable. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Roleplayer (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If notability is established at a later date, it can be recreated. - Philippe 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L reborn

edit
L reborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. A google search brought back 4 hits, too few for this to be at all notable. In contesting the PROD I was informed that I had got the name wrong and that I should have searched on the original name, for which I got 28 hits. Still not enough, imo. Roleplayer (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I feel this should be kept, few results on a single search engine does not mean this deserves deletion. Many things start off small and have few results on search engines, give it time and wait to see what happens is what I say.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonKid666 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super! When that happens, feel free to recreate the article. WHEN it happens. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade timeline

edit
AfDs for this article:
Beyblade timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is a timeline revealing a plot for a series, is most fancruft and serves little encyclopedic value to wikipedia Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe that one list – a timeline – is justifiable for works of art that pass WP:FICT, as Beyblade certainly does. I echo DGG's point about viewing this as simply another (user-friendly and intuitive) way at presenting material included elsewhere. Skomorokh 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks more like a character list than a timeline - with characters listed by their appearances. Many of characters in the list have articles - and not just the ones linked in the navigational template (example) and all of the "teams" have articles. The list therefore seems to serve the reasonable purpose of navigation. Personally I'm not sure if all the teams and characters that have articles should do, most seem to be poorly written and unreferenced but since they do have a list for navigation seems reasonable. Guest9999 (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a "character list", it is still unnecessary as it is redundant to List of Beyblade characters. Two are not needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep owing to no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fly (magazine)

edit
The Fly (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no sources independent of the site itself, and fails the specific criteria laid out at WP:WEB. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cher's Forthcoming album

edit
AfDs for this article:
Cher's Forthcoming album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete this article. This article contains pure speculation with no references to back up those rumors. While it is appropriate to post information that may or may not happen with respect to a future album, there must be some reference to the origin of such rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRoman1976 (talk • contribs)

Comment It took me a minute to figure out what "10 lb. hammer slaw" was. What a difference spacing makes! :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Biado

edit
Ed Biado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since they may have a lot of material published under a by-line on the web, the notability of professional writers and journalists can be tricky to understand. Most of the sources cited by this article are things written by Mr Biado himself, which does not confer him with wide notability through independent coverage by reliable sources which have published pieces in which he is the subject. There has also been odd, steady vandalism. A Philippines IP editor has tagged it as spam and as a joke, hinting something here is likely amiss. The article even quotes his Friendster profile. What's that about? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I brought this speedy up to Gwen following my own hesitations due to the vandalism mentioned above. It was tagged once as a hoax, but the person does exist as a published writer. I agree that I have not been able to find coverage of him yet, and if it isn't found it probably should be deleted (although some seem to be kept, and others deleted in AfDs). However I think the fact that he's a writer for a newspaper asserted enough notability to avoid a speedy on the grounds of A7. I plan to keep looking for coverage of him/his work during the AfD. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite his sage advice on socks. Socks are a "basic" consideration for any well-dressed man and attractive socks are an indispensible addition to all male wardrobes, an expert has commented. Thank you for that aperçu, Ed, sock expert; I plan to remember it and think I'll go with navy blue tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial accomplishments. But none the less enough accomplishments that it wasnt a speedy. DGG (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to notability concerns. There are no independent and reliable source that is focused on the writer himself.--Lenticel (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard as obvious advertising. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 17:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etoo

edit
Etoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:SPAM, reads like an advertisement, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Philippe 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor the Assassin

edit
Igor the Assassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unverifiable. If this character does really exist, I'm sure he's been very careful to keep out of any reliable sources that we can get access to. The OCNUS reference is really just a blog, and it quotes the News of the World which is more famous for pics of topless girls than actual news. Igor would make a cool web comic character though ;-) — FIRE!in a crowded theatre... 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interconnect agreement

edit
Interconnect agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was unable to find any sources that defined this phrase or make it WP:NOTABLE. This article is almost a WP:DICTDEF, an "interconnect agreement" is an agreement to interconnect two networks. It has been a stub since it was created in 2005. Before I proposed the speedy-delete, I tried to think of how to expand this and couldn't think of anything, nor could I think of a good target to redirect. I checked for similar articles to see what I could expand this stub with, but couldn't find similarly used phrases such as "sales agreement", "purchasing agreement", "marketing agreement", "property agreement". WP:SIZE says that if an article stays this small for more than a few months, you should think about merging or something. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand, then keep: This article needs expansion, rather than deletion. Interconnect agreements are typically complex, involving coordination of routing policies, acceptable use policies, traffic balancing requirements, etc. etc. Legal requirements are often an issue: for example, networks may be forced by law to interconnect with their competitors. A good article can certainly be written on this topic. -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment yes, that's what I thought, before I actually tried to expand it and find any reliable sources to discuss such issues. It's a geeky topic, and wikipedia has a WP:BIAS toward such issues. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There ought to be some sources available for this. The article itself is written reasonably clearly and seems free from covert commercial agendas. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Failure to find material on a general topic by keyword searching under phrases one things of is not the only approach. And I suspect it may be used more generally for communication and transportation networks as well. DGG (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May Be

edit
May Be (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sailing boat Thetrick (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shōjo.  Sandstein  22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shojo

edit
Shojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see any good reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. It is all about descriptions on the Japanese term for 'virgin' unlike Shōjo. Appletrees (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a win-win solution, yes. Get rid of the article about a Japanese word that never even entered the English language, and keep some of the information. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (Addendum) While looking at the articles that link to Shojo, all of them are referring to the term for "young girl" or the shōjo demographic, but it is not being used to refer to a "virgin girl". So restoring the redirect to Shōjo would be perfectly fine while including the above footnote. --Farix (Talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Wiktionary the obvious solution for a dictionary definition. As for incoming links that have the wrong meaning, they should be corrected to go to the right article. The words shojo and shōjo have very different meanings and, to a Japanese speaker, distinctly different pronunciations, and it is good to get the links to go directly to the right article. In addition to transferring to Wiktionary, put an entry on "Shōjo (disambiguation)" as Nihonjoe suggested. Fg2 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources, we gotta have sources.. - Philippe 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Visioner's Tale

edit
AfDs for this article:
The Visioner's Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not only no google hits for title, but frgments of the first line and one middle line get nothing. Nothing even remotely similar in The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, edited from numerous manuscripts by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899). 7 vols., or the newer EChaucer at the University of Maine. Originally copied from an anon creation in 2005 at Simple Wikipedia. T L Miles (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is probably a hoax. That it is "generally omitted from most editions of the Canterbury Tales" on account of being a fragment (my copy includes fragments; why not this one?) is an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary evidence; I see no evidence whatsoever. The author claims that it is to be found only in academic commentaries; that's a weird claim, and certainly not supported by Google Scholar. If I had access to better academic databases, I could be certain enough to recommend a G3 speedy, which I imagine will be the end result anyway. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks like somebody put the hoax over on them also. Note the copyright holder. The Council has a feedback form, but it doesnt work for me. Looking for an email address. DGG (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Canterbury Tales - It's not in the complete Chaucer because it's ascribed to Chaucer and it's a palimpsest. Authorship is dubious, but someone might look for it. The Tales article should mention it. Also "taken in"? Reed College. No, he probably didn't use the word synchicity. But writing in Middle English -- as one of the first authors of serious literature to use English -- a few loan words from French or Latin would be expected, so he might have used synchicité. Found only in academic commentaries is not a weird claim, most Bibles gloss over (or ignore) varient texts. As it stands, though, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot behind this article (probably a page in someone's Lit 411 text) and this is clearly not a notable topic, redirect it. If we come up with something solid, we can add it to the Tales article. If a deeper look (off-line: yes, actual dead trees, people) finds nothing, kill the redirect. Otherwise, we're assuming it's a fairly detailed and subtle hoax, assembled with a fair deal of care and mistakenly deposited in Simple. Seems unlikely. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Can you provide a source ascribing it to Chaucer? I can't find even one, apart from the two pages linked to above, neither of which mentions it beyond linking to the same audio file hosted on a non-existent site. (Of course, if there were more than that [for instance, a working link to the file], either would pass muster for me.)
2. My point about "synchicity" is that the only definition I can find for it (or for "synchicité") is computer-related, and doesn't make any sense in Chaucer. Does it have some other meaning?
3. I see your point about the "found only in academic commentaries" claim, but I'd like to see (or at least hear of) such a commentary. I'm having no luck finding one.
4. Hoaxes sometimes are quite detailed and careful; see the AfD on the orange-bellied pike, which was a very well-written and comprehensive article about a fish that didn't exist.
In short, I'm perfectly willing to accept that this poem exists--if given some evidence other than two links to a non-existent audio file. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first, on internal evidence--chaucer's poetry--all of it--rhymes. This does not. The general imagery and the theme is totally wrong for his period & unparalleled in his work. The language is of course wrong--but this is evaded in the article by calling it a modern reconstruction. The name of the "Danish scholar" is not provided. The original text is not referred to. Palpinsets are overwritten ancient manuscripts--for Chaucer's time this is about a millennium anachronistic. As for external evidence, the word "visioner" in any form does not appear in the Middle English Dictionary; there is no entry forthis in MLA Bibliography or in several other bibliographies I've checked, and finally--thereis one use of the word "VISIONER" in any bibliography of literature--it happens to be the use of the German word in a title of a Danish article on the nazis. That explains the Danish connection. DGG (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't found a specific reference to this text and realize this article will go away soon. That said: Yes, Chaucer's poetry rhymes: in Middle English. In Modern English? Most texts go out of their way to ensure it does, but not all.[30] The theme is all wrong? Well, that's not my field, that's your opinion. "Palpinsets are overwritten ancient manuscripts"? Strictly speaking, a palimpsest is from parchment that has been scraped and reused. In more ordinary usage, it can be virtually anything where an original work is hidden under a final work: the original building in an evolved structure, seemingly meaningless sections in current oaths, erased illustrations in hand copied texts, paintings under paintings, etc.[31][32][33] Ones one such use is the claimed text of "Judas Iscariot's Tale" in the Pardoner's Tale. Visioner is from a "German word in a title of a Danish article on the nazis"? Interesting speculation. "Visioner" is an otherwise unknown word? Sometimes that happens in translation: you're forced to be a bit creative. Again, Chaucer isn't my area, but I had a student from Uruguay who was puzzled by more than a few "words" from an article that had been translated from German. Let's stick to solid reasoning on this one: we have no reliable sources, so we delete it. All the rest is speculation on top of speculation. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We All Die One Day

edit
We All Die One Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per "Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs" and WP:OR. It wouldn't be acceptable even on the album Cheers since there are no references to back up all of this. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk

edit
Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, can't use prod tag because an admin removed it (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of the discussion below: keep.
  • Keep author of about 30 books in polish--some held in over 40 US/UK libraries, which for a Polish author writing on Polish history, is fairly substantial. But the article really needs some information besides what's there. since everything's in Polish, someone else will have do do the work here. I would like to be a little more confident though about the publisher and nature of the bio. DGG (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Crusio. Passes WP:BIO based on the published biography, and seems to pass WP:PROF as well. There is a bit more info about the biography that Crusio mentioned at GoogleBooks:[35]. The publisher of the biography, "Wydawnictwo Poznańskie", seems to be well-established as well[36]. Nsk92 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of emo artists

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of emo artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wholly redundant to Category:Emo musical groups (both sort alphabetically), which is what List of emo bands and List of emo groups redirects to. Sceptre (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP At it again, eh? We've been through this. The List of emo bands is nothing but pure OR. The list that you want deleted complies with wikipedias current policy and guidlines and is by far a better list. You need to read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. The List of emo artists complies with each. It is sourced by reliable and varifiable sources and is NOT influenced by personal opinion. Redundent my foot. If any thing, the List of emo bands should be deleted, as it violates all policy.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN; categories and lists "should not be considered to be in conflict with each other" D0762 (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion stated according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, bad faith nomination by the same editor who nominated it just two months ago where it was explained quite clearly that categories and lists are not exclusive. There is no valid reason to nominate the same article again. According to guidelines, "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap". The list should be used to improve the category, as suggested in guidelines, as the category contains poorly sourced articles. So i suggest this is closed and sanctions brought against the nominator if this and the disruption of the article continues. --neon white talk 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explain to me how the list differs in any way from the category apart from the columning. All I can see is an alphabetised list - which is what a category is. The references can be added to the band articles. At the very least, the list and category should be synchronised. I think the passage you link to also doesn't mean what you say - I don't think it supports redundancy (and for the record, the reason for nomination is different - the previous one was because of the stigma attached to the label making it a synthesis and POV-pushing hotspot). Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That it completey irrelevant. As has been pointed out many times and you well know that lists and categories should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Neither is favoured by the community, the consensus is that they both should coexist and compliment each other. That is the current consensus and this is not the place to argue in favour of one or the other and it is certainly innapropriate to use an afd to try and make a point. The guideline WP:CLN clearly spells out the pros and cons of each and states attempts to delete one in favour of the other is considered inappropriate. "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." The articles is also a valid fork of the main Emo article. --neon white talk 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've gone through this, read the guidline. It supports our position.(13Tawaazun14 not signed in)96.234.176.56 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? As many people thought it would be better as a category... Sceptre (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem with a category would be we'd lose the sources, and without that people would start adding whatever they wanted to the category without justification. But I agree with Sceptre that the sources could be added to the band articles. D0762 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what the guidelines suggests doing. You use each to improve the other. --neon white talk 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both.  Sandstein  22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Of Glastry

edit
Baron Of Glastry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Glaister family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

Probable hoax, there were no baronets in the 13th century. References do not check out, for example, this is all thepeerage.com has to say on people named Glaister. Also nominating Glaister family as the only thing apparently notable is the supposed barony/baronetcy. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT sourcing

edit
IT sourcing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay / original research / how to guide / fork of existing articles. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Happy, John

edit
Not Happy, John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No viable assertion of notability for this book. As for saying it "inspired the 'Not happy John!' campaign, I suspect it is more likely to have been the other way around. I'm am dubious over that claim and would need to see some evidence. Moondyne 09:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee County High School (Leesburg, Georgia)

edit
Lee County High School (Leesburg, Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested because "experience shows that deletion of high schools will certainly be contested, so prod is inappropriate". Non-notable high school. Fails WP:SCHOOLS. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderlust (1991 novel)

edit
Wanderlust (1991 novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not go beyond plot summary, violating WP:NOT#PLOT; plus, the topic seems to fail inclusion guidelines (WP:BK). The only point it WP:BK#Criteria it might meet is #1; but for that, sources are missing. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No references and presently fails WP:BK. It is available on Amazon and my be salvageable if someone put some effort into it other than regurgitating the plot. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - author has written notable material, hence notable. Part of a notable genre. Fully agree it needs some out-fo-universe material, however article quality is no grounds for deletion per se. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has some real world content, and therefore meets WP:NOT. Tho published in 1991, still in about 200 libraries in worldcat, and many public libraries did not include their holdings in WorldCat then. Translated into spanish, Hebrew, Danish. Notable series. Kirchoff is a major SF author. Another possibility is to merge into one article for the subseries The Meetings Sextet, DGG (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is neither inherited from the series nor from the author. Per WP:BK, all books of an author would be notable if he "[...] is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.", "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.". Is doubt that is the case here. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as entry in a notable series of books. Picking and choosing violates WP:NPOV which takes precedent over other considerations. The article, of course, needs to be improved. But that's a content issue. Any book with wide distribution that isn't vanity press is inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Any book with wide distribution that isn't vanity press is inherently notable." This does not match the consensus at WP:BK (I don't find this kind of inherent notability there.) Then, what's the standard for "widely distributed"? There are millions of books that are distributed in large numbers (else publishers wouldn't print them). Far more books, certainly, than Wikipedia has articles. One should not confuse an encyclopedia with a library catalogue. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
right, but the library catalog is different because it includes both the books of wide distribution, and those without wide distribution. One or a few libraries represents collecting for purely archival purposes, unlike Wikipedia -- What many libraries collect, though, is collected because of the general interest of the readers. What the general public notices is notable. DGG (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material; Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. If you think this is a notable book, provide evidence to support your opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics

edit
AfDs for this article:
Exopolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is based on a self-published book. Much of it is WP:OR, anything that isn't should be at Alfred Webre Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Works (Band)

edit
The Works (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable band, prod removed because "has references that show notability". Only reference that works is for an announcement of a gig in a major newspaper, trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hanley (Edmonton)

edit
Mary Hanley (Edmonton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has nothing other then an infobox with an image and some information which isn't sourced and fails to state anything that would make this school notable. Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Carlson.

The result was Keep - The subject is notable enough. There is no consensus to delete it. I note that the AfD was made by an inexperienced user, but the article should be judged on its merit regardless of who nominated it for deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Carlson

edit
Andy_Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
  • Comment doesn't appear to be a nominator listed but, I'd say Delete as non-notable musician with no reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment I've had a look and it seems that User:Randy333 nominated it with "05:34, 30 May 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Carlson‎ (←Created page with 'Insufficient background information--more information needed for complete and accurate entry') (top) " this edit summary. I'm still learning towards delete but, feel for clarities sake that the fact of the AfD nom being this persons first contrib may need looking into. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the stub only cites one source, and I don't think it passes WP:RS. I don't think the stub passes WP:BIO either. The stub might be an autobiography. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, found a couple other sources, [40],[41], the article also might want to reference the ISBN of his book [42] and his self published CD [43]. As well as finding the New York times article that the other sources reference. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs work but notable: two-time state champion, state grand champion, Mel Bay author, recorded with famous bands. — eitch 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 05:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, clearly meets the notability guidelines. Since the AfD started more sources have been added, though BLP concerns mean any controversial content will need to be extremely well sourced. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mae-Wan Ho

edit
Mae-Wan Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, does "third party" mean "secondary source" as in "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" or does it mean "tertiary source" as in "encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources". Are reliably sourced news articles or journal articles acceptable "third party" sources? Are her own reliably sourced books or journal articles acceptable sources to describe her own views? --EPadmirateur (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Third-party" means that Mae-Won didn't write it. Nothing she writes on her own can possibly establish her notability, regardless of who published it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for deletion and agree that this article can never amount to anything because the only stuff written about this person is either from herself or from non-reliable sources such as purveyors of alternative medicine or anti-GM activist publications. Mainstream science essentially ignores her pseudoscientific views. Ttguy (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep as not having established notability through reliable third-party sources. This lack of reliable third-party sources means that the article has, at times, devolved into edit-wars over whether her CV substantiates fields of expertise claimed in her 'biographical sketch' (both sourced from the subject). There just isn't enough here for a solid article, let alone one that needs to carefully navigate a controversial subject. HrafnTalkStalk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because Mae-Wan Ho is notable by a number of measures. Third party citations have come and gone in the article that would support that. However, I doubt that any reliable sources or neutral presentation would be allowed by other editors. Since its inception, this article has served as a personal sandbox for a few editors who used it consistently to publish discrediting information about her, even after the material had been removed, and to remove or strongly dispute any positive information that might be put in it.
For example, User:Ttguy has used a set of favorite items for discrediting Mae-Wan Ho:
  • From the beginning through to the present, that she is a vivisectionist who likes to burn rabbits' eyes (and is therefore a hypocrite): [44] [45] [46] [47]
  • Also from the beginning, that she believes living organisms don't follow second law of thermodynamics [48] [49] [50]
  • that she has been involved in cloning humans and therefore a hypocrite [51] [52]
  • that she is a "AIDS denier" and the "treatment she recommends is selenium and other antioxidants" [53] [54]
  • that her claimed academic credentials are "inflated" and simple claims of what fields she worked in are false: [55] [56] [57] [58] Ttguy even has [his own webpage containing his personal analysis of Ho's credentials, which he uses in the article and in the talk to support the claim that Mae-Wan Ho's credentials are don't match her claims
  • that she may have been fired for incompetence from an academic position [59]
  • when positive or balancing information is added, it's removed usually for trivial reasons [60] [61], including the one third party reference that made it into the article [62]: why? because it was "POV"
Also User:Hrafn has disputed what should be non-controversial edits, for trivial or contrived reasons [63] [64] [65]
It's ironic that the first two editors to jump in and vote to delete this article are Ttguy and Hrafn.
So this is what WP:BLP allows: the unbridled two-year-long campaign to discredit a person's reputation, where deleted material is constantly re-added, and where honest attempts at balance and neutrality are smacked down to the point where the only thing left to do is delete the article. It would be impossible to add any reliable third-party sources to this article in good faith because, I'm afraid, they would be removed for trivial reasons within a day. I have no interest in Mae-Wan Ho or her positions but I strongly oppose the kind of editor POV pushing and bullying that is evident in this article. I asked in another place "is this the way WP is supposed to work for biographies of living people who happen to do something some editors don't like?" Hey, I guess so, and when it gets really bad, we just delete the sandbox. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there has been substantial coverage in reliable third party sources that has been deleted from the article, then where are the difs? Please provide substantiation. All your other accusations are irrelevant to an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • EPadmirateur , It seems you want a biography based only on Ho's writings. You were fine with my removal of negative material sourced to her research paper (like the eye buring), but you're happy to have positive things sourced to Ho. The problems with this article stem from the fact, there's no third-party reliable material to go off. So, all the editors inject their own opinions, because that's all there is: opinion. Wikipedians are left to debate what's relevant and notable about her self-claimed work. Wikipedias policy on deleting non-notable bios is actually in the best interests of the bio subject, who are most harmed by the inevitable original research that's conducted on them. It's unfortunate that this article wasn't deleted at the beginning. --Rob (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all: I would gladly seek out reliable sources to provide information about her. However, I'm nearly certain that they would be removed for trivial or contrived reasons, as was done with the simple claim of what fields she has worked in. I thought that the policy for BLP was to provide balance as per WP:BLP#Criticism and praise and to avoid "biased or malicious content about living persons". If WP wants to permit POV pushing and bullying in BLPs as you seem to want to allow here, fine. Just let us all know, and by all means delete this article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to show us the reliable sources right here. Please also show the diffs of where an editor has removed a reliable source. --Rob (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't searched for third party sources. Under the circumstances I don't much see the point. The two external sources that were removed mentioning Ho were deleted here.EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[66] is an article on a blog where they have interviewed Ho. I dunno if this contributes to notablility or not Ttguy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[67] tells us that Ho attended a meeting along with 1400 other people. Not sure this contributes to notability either. She is mentioned once in the article. Ttguy (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how reliable these sources would be viewed but they are the only two that have been added. Ho is certainly controversial and influential as these two citations show and also here. Her work is cited in Meaning of life, in Black people, in Rupert Sheldrake#The Presence of the Past, in Horizontal gene transfer. Her name is listed on the List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (original document here, page 2) and as writer on holistic science. She has 79 journal articles listed in PubMed. Those are 79 reliable third-party sources. Here are 13 articles or letters appearing in The Guardian about her or written by her. Here's a book review in New Scientist. Here's an interview, a lecture summary, a briefing to the European Parliament, etc. That's just for starters. I think there are dozens more third-party sources. What more do you want? How hard did the other editors try? --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Those are 79 reliable third-party sources". Anything written by Ho is, by definition, not a third party source. I will review the other sources as much as I can shortly. --Rob (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side comment: I think it would be a good idea of editors could go through the backlinks, and check how Ho has been used as a source in other Wikipedia articles. --Rob (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. I think there are a couple of third party sources there that can be used in this article. I would also say that her own suitably published work can be cited as WP:RS when describing her ideas, as was the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're what you're talking about. I wanted people to review the backlinks, where Ho is sometimes cited, since those should be removed or replaced by cites from recognized authorities. Ho is not a recognized authority in any field, and shouldn't be cited as such. Unless/until Ho is mentioned by a third-party, Ho doesn't belong on Wikipedia, anywhere. --Rob (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think there are plenty of third-party sources (see above). She certainly has scientific credentials (see PubMed list above). But her notability comes from her controversial stances on a number of things, which can be reliably documented in third party news reports, interviews, etc. In addition, her own papers in reliable journals and books published by reliable independent publishers can also be used as a reliable sources for her own views (see the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published). --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except (apparently) if these papers show her in a bad light (eg Burning rabbits eyes) - then these papers can not be used !!!! - right? Ttguy (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the experimental work on corneas can and should be used if it is relevant to her notability. Apparently even her AIDS denialism is not notable by the third-party source standard (I couldn't find anything), only her anti-GMO work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems to be a very interesting person, she has some very interesting ideas, a whole lot of wrong ideas and possibly she doesn't always know what she's actually talking about. In addition, she seems to be somewhat hypocritical, and may in some contexts be considered a 'ho'. I've been somewhat rude, maybe I've made some overstatements, my apologies for that, probably not all she says is rubbish, it may in fact be very interesting to analyse how this woman has come to combine wisdom and knowledge with misinterpretations and other nonsense. Anyway, it should be the task of Wikipedia to clarify the whole mystery and controversy surrounding this person. 84.194.237.100 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently at least borderline notable as a scientist. About 60 published papers in peer-reviewed biology journals, cited reasonably according to Web of Science (GS is not helpful here, the papers are back in the 70s) Her papers on theoretical evolution in Journal of theoretical biology, a mainstream journal though in my opinion willing to publish pure speculation had 76, 65, etc citations. Some of her perfectly orthodox cell biology papers in good journals had 128, 71, 70. This counts as quite respectable. Her later work is not science, nor is it published by significant scientific publishers. However, it's widely noticed. I think it's deplorable, but it's notable. DGG (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to connected sum; merge as required from the history.  Sandstein  22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-knot

edit
Anti-knot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Other editors and I discussed the problems with this article long ago, but none of us got around to AFD'ing it the first time. In summary, 1) the term "anti-knot" appears to be a neologism, not used in any of the references, and I couldn't find a suitable reference using Google Scholar. 2) the content appears to be partly bogus, partly vague/speculative. The first proof assumes what it is trying to prove. The second uses a magical "knot energy" that does exactly what is needed. It's fair to say that the property needed of this knot energy is nontrivial and most likely an open problem. The "proof" given seems to be OR synthesized from the three references. 3) the purpose of this page is to explain that "anti-knots" in fact do not exist. This is in fact a well-known basic result (as explained in knot sum), so there isn't anything more to be said about the topic. C S (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge to knot theory, or a more suitable page? A brief mention of the result should be sufficient. For a ref., perhaps: Cromwell, Peter R. (2004). Knots and Links. Cambridge University Press. p. 90. ISBN 0521548314. Theorem 4.6.1. Given a non-trivial knot K there is no 'anti-knot' K-1 such that the product K # K-1 is the trivial knot.—RJH (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could have just redirected to knot sum where the information is already there, as I said. The only problem I have with that is that "anti-knot" is a neologism. It is in Cromwell, true (the very last hit on Google Scholar, which I overlooked), but his use of it is not meant to indicate it is a standard term. So I would not want to propagate a neologism by mentioning the term in knot sum. --C S (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'm not sure that the term 'anti-knot' even needs to be mentioned. Or you could say an inverse knot, for example.—RJH (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in here worth saving. Redir/Merge. Connected sum does a much better job of explaining the non-existence of "anti-knots", and the "application" to string theory is entirely bogus (because the "strings" in string theory exist in spaces with more dimensions and much more complex toplogy than 3D Euclidean space). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Changed my vote to Redir/Merge in case that helps to demonstrate consensus. However, I don't really understand why this AfD has been re-listed, as there was already a thorough discussion and no Keep votes - don't we already have a consensus ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Connected sum asserts that anti-knots do exist in higher dimensions; that makes the polemic against knot physics largely fallacious as well as inappropriate. Take it out. If we need to link this somewhere, <span id> now permits redirects to arbitrary points in text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect? One place where I find a valid proof of the non-existence of anti-knots is Eilenberg–Mazur swindle. Since this is a valid concept, but perhaps of interest only for proving the non-existence result, it should get redirected if it's deleted. I'm not sure where. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Michael, I'm starting to get very puzzled by your comments. You don't appear to have read any of the remarks above. For example, you commented on R.E.B.'s talk page that you would have had no idea to look at Mazur swindle for a proof of the theorem. But several people (including me in my nomination) have already pointed out that the valid content is in knot sum/ connected sum, which states that the Mazur swindle gives a proof. It is also stated that knot genus gives a proof, although the details are not included. You commented about the "valid concept" of anti-knot, but I have no idea what this means. There is a theorem that no "anti-knots" exist, but nobody except Cromwell states it that way. The concept of "anti-knot" is about as "valid" a concept as the concept of natural numbers without a prime decomposition. There is, of course, a theorem that every natural number has a prime (even unique) decomposition. Nonetheless I would find it strange that if one author were to state that theorem as "No 'unbreakable' natural numbers, i.e. not having a prime decomposition, exist" , and then people were to start calling "unbreakable natural numbers" a valid concept. --C S (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has to be a valid concept if there's a theorem saying it can't exist. Certainly the concept of natural number without a prime decomposition is a valid concept. Otherwise there could be no theorem saying no such thing exists. If the concept were not valid, the theorem would have no content. The difference between that and the concept of anti-knot is that the existence of prime factorizations can be stated without introducing a concept such as the one you propose. On the other hand, the theorem saying there is no anti-knot is essentially negative: you can't state it without the concept. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the only delete !vote other than the nomination, and I would join a consensus to redirect, probably to a section of Connected sum. Michael Hardy is the only keep argument, and he hasn't actually !voted. Please close. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout (album)

edit
Breakout (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. All I'm finding are lyrics and forums and rumors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per the sources y'all have found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, following an ongoing lack of consensus, which may be tilting towards keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turaga (Bionicle)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Turaga (Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relisting per DRV: AFD 2 nom: This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. MBisanz talk 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they demonstrate the validity of our covering this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
silly? what might be silly is perhaps a comparison of an article about elements of a fiction, which can be sourced from a straightforward obvious factual description in the fiction, with an article on a foodstuff. A fiction is words, spoken or written, and they can be appropriately summarized. Try doing that with cheese. DGG (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, delete as it fails WP:N, WP:PLOT (and, yes, I know WP:NOT#PLOT is currently under discussion), lacks reliable sources, or any sources for that matter for verifiability. At most given the current information there should be a redirect to Bionicle and include a link to the Bionicle wiki in the main Bionicle article, oh wait it's there already. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's somewhere else we would redirect without deletion then to preserve the edit history and make it easy for editors to repair the article as additional sources turn up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Orangemike per CSD G4 as recreation of deleted material. WilliamH (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dickipedia

edit
AfDs for this article:
Dickipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, advertising, re-creation of deleted content. Probably speedy anyway. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe merge any useful content into 23/6 and redirect? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nom, early consensus that a statement of great inherited wealth alone is both an assertion of importance under CSD and if this has been reported in reliable sources, is notable. I suggest the content could be helpfully merged into Hetty Green but this should be dependent on editor consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks

edit
Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deleted as CSD A7, in DRV some editors may have felt the text's mention of wealth was an assertion of significance or importance. Fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked, WP:BIO was a much quicker read than the Bible :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, I still haven't a clue which WP:BIO parameter you are citing to use as a reason for either the previous speedy deletion or this deletion. I can read WP:BIO over and over and it still will not tell me which one you think it fails. I can't fix, unless you tell me what is broken. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll provide one: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1]. Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary." In the English-language Western speaking world, great wealth is considered so notable, both in our times, and in Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks' time, that there well known lists issued year after year of the wealthiest men and women, businessmen, Asian businessmen, actors and actresses, models, race car drivers. You cannot walk into a newstand or into a well-developed on-line news site without finding some list or article about wealth. "Wealth" is "worthy of notice," and Green Wilks' wealth in her time, and her means of managing it, was "unusual enough to deserve attention and to be recorded" in the archives of newspapers all over the United States. Great wealth meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia for biography. --Blechnic (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the references provided in the article indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of her notability pursuant to our general notability guideline. John254 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hetty Green (her mother) who was certainly notable. The coverage of the daughter is an insignificant amount that does not meet the general notability guideline. The references about the daughter can be moved to the mother's article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The combination of the $95 million in 1951 & the lawsuit, with the article in Time (which refers to an earlier article as well) , is sufficient. There is undoubtedly more documentation on the lawsuit to be found. Two feature articles in that magazine is sufficient, even without the LATimes DGG (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The woman is every bit as notorious in her own right as mommy dearest, well, almost. Sad little article (in length only, content's fine), needs some work, but there's no reason to delete this just because everyone on the web hasn't heard of her yet. --Blechnic (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator, meets the standard of Wikipedia notability since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." An interesting part of Americana, that was sent down the memory hole, and now back. It was speedy deleted because Gwen Gale stated "wealth [is not] an assertion of significance", despite the obituaries in the LA Times and multiple Time magazine articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Merging is left as an editorial decision.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TaskMaker

edit
TaskMaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game which I've played the hell out of in my life. Only sources are a stubby All Game Guide review and a primary source. No other third party reviews or sources found. Has been tagged for merging with Storm Impact for ages, but nothing's come of the merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comet (song)

edit
Comet (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable children's song. No chance of passing WP:MUSIC ;). Google search reveals that the song exists, but no one has ever thought to write about it before. -- Mark Chovain 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, given the only keep comments came from SPA accounts with very limited contribution histories. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Steven Brown

edit
Howard Steven Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced biographical article. I have searched for sources about this person but I have been unable to find any connection between the person's name and the foundation he reportedly founded. I previously userfied this article because it was created by User:Hsbrown00 and the subject's initials would make him H. S. Brown. As it turns out, User:Hsbrown00 claims not to be the subject, asked that this article stop being deleted (two other admins have each deleted it once), and claimed that there are sources. So I am taking this to WP:AFD now for other editors' viewpoints. Please note that the User:Hsbrown00 page has not been edited since it was userfied; thus, it is not certain that the article is a conflict of interest/autobiography. Regardless, though, it looks appropriate for deletion per WP:BIO due to lack of verification and sources. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept. I have searched for sources about this person and have been able to locate a connection between the person and the foundation on www.temple.edu, the person and Gloria Brown within the Philadelphia Dailynews database in an article published on March 20, 1998, the person and Marc Mezvinsky in a diagram page in a pdf file posted by Goldman Sachs. Although the article lacks the neccessary verification and extensive references, the person and entry seems creditable and approriate. I can update some of the references with the information I have discovered and edit the entry this evening. User:Jellystomach —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Jellystomach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The AFD should be deleted. The article just needs to be updated with resources and external sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplefeinstein (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Maplefeinstein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The article needs to be updated with references but the article itself does make claim to notability of the subject. --Maplefeinstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplefeinstein (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERCY KILLING this AFD. I suggest pursuing a rename and a rewrite, since it's very, very clear that there's no consensus to delete. (This deletion closing brought to you by the Judeoislamochristiathebuddhist Cabal, dominating the Earth for somewhere between 4001 and 4.54 billion years.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

edit
AfDs for this article:
Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Posting on behalf of another user as follows: 1)Article fails to deliver the political neutrality championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than enough reason to delete. 2) It is politically biased. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is overly-dependent on biased sources (like Uri Avnery). Article fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a year, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed. The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far too sensational. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has no balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been banned or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be cleaned, which as far as I can tell won't happen any time soon. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There are two Arbitration cases that are relevant here as well: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having read the article, I'd now say that the nominator's description is completely inaccurate. The article appears very well balanced and is an appropriate discussion of a modern debate. So ignore my "content cleanup" comment, this article is not in need of cleanup. The POV tag on it is mistaken, as they so often seem to be on contraversial subjects. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I disagree. The neutral tag had been on for several weeks with no prior edits. Today it was removed, and I put it back on. I've listed some very good reasons why the article is not neutral. Please give reasons for your findings. Also, I'll like to add that those who say keep, please review the reasons i listed why the article should be deleted. this isn't just a quality standard, there is something intellectually wrong with this article. plain and simple: it's biased, and blatantly. i dont see how you guys can shrug it off with "cleanup isn't a reason to delete". there is something more to this and i really wish some of you would accept that. pov isn't the only issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PoV is not a reason for deletion. Period. --Thetrick (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is propaganda not a reason for deletion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the article is propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it possesses qualities that could be considered propaganda. Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming. But I'm guessing you guys just brush that off in the POV pile...right? I'm going through the article right now. I've already found one source that was used incorrectly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what you should be doing instead of dragging out the debate here. --Thetrick (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing what? Shifting through sources?? Tell me, if this article is so reliable, so factual, so non-propaganda, why is it still rated in the start class? Clearly something is wrong here. Wikipedia is hosting a very flawed article, and nobody cares. It's loaded with fallacies, and on top of that, many of the sources don't even connect with the paraphrasing. What do we call that again? This is ultimately turning into my view verse your view, which is unfortunate considering the influence this awful article has on the internet. If only wikipedia wasn't so political, perhaps quality would top partisanship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone made protests against your edits on the article? No, so instead of complaining, go and edit it so it isn't POV anymore, that's how Wikipedia works. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, way to miss the point there. Didn't you just say the article was full of reliable and well-sourced material in the talk page? Nice.Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but that doesn't mean there aren't unreliable ones, That should be beyond obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your "very good reasons" that the article is not neutral have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, so they are not good reasons at all. Your reasons show no understanding of the neutral point of view policy. Please read the policy, and learn than it is appropriate for contraversial subjects to have an article on Wikipedia, so long as all perspectives of the discussion are represented. "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." That is done in this article. It is desirable for well-sourced opinions to be presented on Wikipedia, and for opposing well-sourced opinions to be presented where they exist, as this article does. This article shouldn't have a NPOV tag, let alone be up for deletion. The fact that some people would like to bury or discredit this subject does not make it any less suitable for an article, but it does explain the many failed AfDs, the incorrect tags, and the "start article" status. Contraversial subjects should be covered in full, with all sides discussed, without all the attempts to bury it in tags and meta-discussion, so that interested readers can become informed and draw their own conclusions. That it what Wikipedia is for. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Israel's self-appointed defenders on Wikipedia have been hammering away at this article for years; the resulting edit wars, often involving newbie single-purpose-accounts, have degraded its quality. Now the degraded quality is being cited as a reason for deletion. It's very tiresome. Anybody who thinks that we can't cite a veteran Israeli journalist and commentator because he's a post-Zionist leftie ought to explain why it's totally acceptable to cite lesser-known figures who are on the other side, or partisan advocacy organizations funded by the Israel government and aligned with radical Israeli nationalists. There may be good reasons to remove advocates from both sides from the article's citation, but that's another debate entirely. This looks an awful lot like somebody just trying to get rid of opinions that he doesn't like.
Edit conflict: See above comment of 06:04 GMT; he's actually trying to exclude entire ethnic groups that he doesn't like. Somebody speedy-close this debate, it's going nowhere. And ban the troll while you're at it, too. <eleland/talkedits> 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. --Thetrick (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, racial profiling. FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about Eleland. I'm honestly too tired to fight this. Clearly you guys want this more than I do. This isn't about opinions. This is about deeply flawed article that shows no signs of up. Most of you seem to agree that there is a problem, but don't really care enough about it. Perhaps because it satisfies your politics, or maybe you don't want to take the time. But this article isn't going anywhere, and you have just proved that. Thank you! And btw, I don't appreciate being called a troll. If anybody is a troll, it's you. Don't bate me next time dude. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Eleland, your user page speaks volumes. Appreciate the hate, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now Wikifan has resorted to personal attacks two times in a row, not much left to discuss here I'm afraid. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I'm responding to attacks against me. How am I attacking? Wait, I get it. You're doing this to distract from the problem. Bate me and then spin. Wow, you're all just full of fallacies to do now aren't you? Funkmonk, Eleland, I appreciate your political affiliation. I understand. But let's keep this discussion on-topic, ok?!
[68][69]. Ad hominem attacks. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok lol. I think we know this isn't going anywhere. I would like to see this discussion stay open but I'm not expecting a delete. You guys are too devoted in maintaining this article no matter how terrible it is. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, no one has contested your recent edits on the article in question, so go ahead and edit it until it pleases you, and quit wasting everyone's time. FunkMonk (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, way to double back there. Making baseless claims and then telling to be basically get out. Wikipedia at its finest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shweet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Here we go again; it seems that some editors are so determined to remove this article, that they will constantly tie us up in meta-discussions rather than get on with the task of improving Wikipedia. This is a balanced article on a notable subject; the objection is apparently to its very existence, rather than the content ("The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed"). The proposal is accompanied by racial stereotyping ("I see you belong to the Arab world wikiproject. Now I get it.") and baseless BLP smears ("Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming"). Avnery is a leading journalist and political activist in Israel, a long-standing editor of one of Israel's major magazines, he was for many years a member of the Knesset. You may not like what he has to say, but you can't simply dismiss him with a snide sneer. Is there no way to protect an article from this constant vexatious disruption? RolandR (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal to authority much? Wikipedia is not about opinion. Whether I agree with his views or not is irrelevant. It's the fact that the author uses Uri Avnery as a balanced source is alarming. You say the article is balanced, which it blatantly isn't...it wouldn't be in start class if it were otherwise. You say it's balanced because you agree with, I say it isn't because I don't agree with. Get it? I've listed specific reasons why it isn't balanced. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a voice of partisan politics. This is just another wikipedia-sanctioned stab at Israel and is not encyclopedia appropriate. Perhaps in blog, maybe a biased newspaper, but not on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little off-topic, I'm having trouble fixing the ref for the Nelson Mandel update (see SA views of Israel Apartheid). I have the source listed and it checks out, but I can't seem to fix the text correctly. Any help will be appreciated, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to last point: the memo is a myth, based on a journalistic satire. I've removed the text from the article, and explained this (with source) on the talk page. RolandR (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#1 - What is "political neutrality", and where is this a Wikipedia policy? Such a prohibition would gut pretty much any article on any controversial subject. If this was a kludgey reference to WP:NPOV
  • Are you asking what political neutrality is? I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Th article is slanted. Both sides are stated, but their is more emphasis on the opponents than the proponents. If you look at the introduction, it basically reads out why Israel is NOT an Apartheid state. But further reading is nothing but repetition. Overwhelming the reader with this ridiculous fallacies and absurd amount of sources (many of which don't connect with the source material...paraphrasing from no source is not wikipedia appropriate) 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#2 - The article is balanced by text from those who reject the analogy. Even if it wasn't, this is not a valid reason for the deletion of an article. See #1
  • This article goes beyond the analogy. It draws from mostly critics, while ignoring the many sources who disagree. We might as well have an article that says "Allegations of why Israel is not an Apartheid state. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#3 - The clean-up was reached a long time ago, just that the tag was never removed. the sections and paragraphs ans such are much more orderly and coherent than they were in the past.
  • I just spent 10 minutes browsing and found several critical errors. Most of you obviously agree with the article, so of course you don't look at the errors. And why is it still in start class? Read the talk page for more criticisms. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#4 - Article content is irrelevant to an AfD rationale. Take it up on the talk page.
#5 - See #4
#6 - A completely untrue assertion. There are numerous parts of the article that contain counter-arguments of those who reject the analogy, and why they do so.
#7 - An attempt at well-poisoning by casting aspersions on the article on the basis of who has created or edited it in the past.
#8 - The previous AfD was aborted after less than 24hrs, as there was an ongoing ArbCom case regarding editor behavior and the pointy creation of counter-allegations of... articles. The conclusion drawn that the previous AfD was a "majority delete" is a misrepresentation of the 7th discussion.
Wikipedia is very political. Many users aside from myself have expressed their disgust over this unnecessary article. It is pure speculation and is far from concrete. As I've said, it would be fair to have a "Why Israel is not an Apartheid State" because it would be in the same bounds as this one: Not neutral and not necessary. Do you agree? 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#9 - All in all, these are the same arguments tried in previous AfD and associated discussions, and they didn't work then either. The subject matter is notable and verifiable, and those are supported by reliable sources. That a controversial subject draws, well, controversy is not at all a reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated why the sources aren't reliable. And not only that, but many of the sources no longer work, some are dated, and some don't even connect with the paraphrasing. Meaning the author practically made up some of the info. Which is not surprising considering he was banned, so I'm he had a history of violating wikipedia rules. I'm not poisoning the well, I'm stating facts. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are stating, both in the initial rationale and in these piecemeal responses, is your own opinion. Not a single deletion rationale is based upon an understanding of actual Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep WP:SK #1: nominating on behalf of someone else while not advocating the nomination. I know we're not a bureaucracy, but the SK1 rule exists for a reason. (I take no position on any other issue raised by this conversation.) Townlake (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Are we going to have to do this every time someone new comes along who doesn't like the article? CJCurrie (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously something is wrong if people are having issues with the article. You can't possibly think that the article is perfectly neutral (as you guys are portraying it has) while many people say nay. It's your political relationship verse ours. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, most of the problems that people have identified with this page tend to revolve around WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than serious discussions of its encyclopedic merit. CJCurrie (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the Notability fallacy listed on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To CJ: The problem is that the very existence of the article is ridiculous and makes Wikipedia look like an anti-Israel hate site. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not appreciate your language Eleland nor your personal attacks against me. Check the history for all you want. All I did was correct a source in the citizenship section. SORRY! XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As much as I support a speedy keep, I would like to point out that today and tomorrow are a religious holiday and observant Jewish editors will not be online until sundown on Tuesday (at the earliest). I think closing this nom early would result in valid complaints that the process was faulty. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I do not believe religious concerns have a role in this discussion at all, any more than the suggestion that the discussion of an Islamic-related article should be suspended during Ramadan. We shouldn't take holiday around religious observances. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only suggesting that the discussion not be closed early so we can try to avoid a second round at WP:DRV. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

edit
'COMMENT ChrisO, I've told you, and many others, that I've been editing for over 6 months. Only recently did I register an account. Check my I.P. I would appreciate it if you would stop bringing this up. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hadn't fully appreciated that. Apologies. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of how long the nominator has been editing Wikipedia, the point that their reasons for deletion don't display any understanding of the WP:NPOV policy remains. See my discussion above. "I don't think this should have an article because I think the argument is flawed" is not a valid reason for deletion. The debate is a highly notable social phenomenon, so it should have an article wherin the merits and flaws of both sides of the debate are be presented with reliable references. That's what the article does, and that's in keeping with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Frank. A renaming is a reasonable compromise (if this ends to keep). Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would strongly support renaming this article as "Israeli apartheid analogy". Would enough people support this as a compromise? CJCurrie (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was proposed on the article's talk page several months ago when there was a general discussion of renaming the article. There was no consensus for this proposal or a number of other proposals. I personally think it's worse than the current title for the reasons I explained on the talk page at that time. I suggest that you not confuse the issue of deletion (which, unfortunately, is going to be a fairly simple issue) by bringing in a renaming proposal that has already been rejected. It can be brought up again on the article's talk page, if you really need to see the same discussion repeated. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renaming is a topic for another venue, but on the face of it I think that title is equally valid to the existing title and may somewhat pacify the people who see red whenever the word "allegation" is used in a title. It's unlikely to satisfy the "defenders of Israel" though, as they don't want an article with both "Israel" and "apartheid" together. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Defenders of Israel? What is your problem Paddy? You offer nothing to this article (as shown in the TALK and previous confrontations). Please stop with your personal attacks and hate. THANK YOU Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't contributed to the article or the talk, I wasn't even aware of its existence before I saw this deletion discussion. I'm not an interested party, I just sometimes comb through the deletion discussions making comments that I hope are based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as many editors do. I have not made any personal attacks or hateful remarks. It would be naive to think that an article that may be perceived as putting a country in a bad light would not attract attention from "defenders" of that country. That's not something specific to Israel, it's almost universal. However the title should reflect the nature of the debate. This debate specifically links Israel and the concept of apartheid. Therefore so should the title, despite the likely objections, which was my point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the article is Wikipedia's best known POV push. It's evident that two arbitration cases have not helped to clean the content up, neither have the seven AFDs. I think two years is enough to make WP:HOPELESS a suitable reason for deletion (even more so as the article is, and I quote ATA, "so blatantly biased that it's an embarassment". Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:HOPELESS is part of an essay, and highly contentious. WP:NPOV is fundamental policy, and clearly overrides it. The article appears to cop a lot of flak despite being in a good state in terms of neutral presentation, hence the AfDs etc. To remove it would be censorship to appease people who don't want a notable subject described on Wikipedia because it offends their sensibilities. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We got images of Muhammad and the Pallywood article, what exactly makes this article different from those cases? FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is the principal Wikipedia guideline used to determine whether a subject should have an article. Please read the guideline, it was written by editors like you and me and represents that current consensus on how Wikipedia should be edited. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep reading buddy, you're using notability as a fallacy. Just because it's notable does not mean it's valid, unbiased, fair, or balanced. I'm really getting tired of you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what you mean by "using notability as a fallacy", it doesn't make any sense to me. The main guideline used to determine whether a subject should have an article is WP:N. By the definition in that guideline this subject is highly notable and therefore it should have article. I believe the article is currently well balanced, but even if it wasn't that wouldn't be a reason to delete because it can be fixed. Please don't get personal with your "sick of you" comments, you're clearly fairly new to the deletion process and I'm trying to help you understand how it works. It works by taking into account arguments based on policy and guidelines. Your arguments are not, so they're going to be ineffective. There are articles about subjects I find very offensive on Wikipedia, such as Race and intelligence. I hate the argument discussed there (that race affects intelligence) but I support it having an article in Wikipedia. Notable social phenomenon such as these arguments should have articles, that's what the WP:NPOV policy says and policies are the core standards that Wikipedia is based on. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the WP:CANVAS policy and the contribs. --Thetrick (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This enervated propaganda is not an encyclopedia article. Hell, even the United Nations reverted its emetic resolution equating Zionism with racism -- we should follow their lead. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not recruiting anybody. I was making aware what was going on with this article before you shove this under the rug with a wikipedia stamp of approval. This article violates the foundation and reasoning behind wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be a voice of partisan politics. Heck, the title "Allegations of..." is completely ridiculous.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So yet again, why do you want to expand the Pallywood article[71], which has exactly the same faults as this one? Because it is pro-Israeli? FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about the Pallywood article. You're the one that seems to be obsessed with the article: So how about you take a stab at it? Don't expect my attention when you blatantly lied about my unsaid opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pointing out the double standard of nominating this article for deletion due to it being controversial while wanting to expand the the Pallywood article (which is equally controversial, but is about a pro-Israeli subject), like the link[72] I posted showed you do. I don't give a damn about the Pallywood article itself. Quit fooling around. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since when is it illegal to make aware of an important wikipedia happening such as this? It's only reasonable those editors who are most involved in this area of discussion deserve to know what's going on. Right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is clearly a dishonest argument given who you notified. Read Wikipedia:CANVAS#Votestacking. --Thetrick (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel is to notify editors who have an interest in Israel-related articles that an article is the subject of an AfD. I wrote above that I had listed this article there. Wikifan12345, further messages are considered unnecessary and inappropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments here. I recognize that many people oppose the analogy; that isn't sufficient reason to oppose the article. Note also that Frummer was canvassed by Wikifan12345 here. CJCurrie (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI did not canvaas anybody, at least not intentionally. I just wanted their OPINION, and considering they are the ones most active in this area of wiki, that's pretty REASONABLE. But thanks for the info. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep doesn't seem to claim that any of what's stated is true--at the beginning of the article, it is explained that the subject of the article is the accusations themselves. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's always going to be a hotbed of anti-Semitism and religious warring. This normally doesn't matter that much, if there's a strong, neutral, sourced basline to begin with; we can always revert back to that. But in this case, it's biased and fails to give a reasonable view of a very sensitive topic. If it can be rewritten to be utterly neutral, arguments on both sides, fully sourced - without linking to too many websites attacking the Jewish faith, that'd be nice too. But unrealisitc. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank to address concerns of nominator regarding possible confusion with human rights issues within Israel proper. There are several noteworthy accusations of apartheid in the West Bank regarding roads etc, but to say there is apartheid in Israel (minus the territories) is just absurd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the renaming, however limiting the title to West Bank is not a smart move. The article touches on several areas, including Gaza, and the remaining territories where Palestinians inhabit. Second, allegations also go into Israeli Arabs. Which I feel is most absurd, since in several of the sections of the article support the fact that there is no Apartheid inside Israel. Arabs and Jews live in the country with equal rights. Heck, there is even an Affirmative Action Plan and policies that provide opportunities not government-sanctioned for Jews. Comparing an Apartheid regime inside Israel is not only false, it's intellectual dishonest. But that's besides the point. I supporting renaming the article "Analogies of an Israeli Apartheid". That seems more fair. However, I think this argument is not appropriate in this discussion. I'm still getting familiar with wiki rules, but someone mentioned that a deletion nomination discussion has no bounds in renaming the article. That's a completely different proposal...right? Apologies for my ignorance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm against renaming this Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank; and in any case, this is not the right place for such a proposal. Many of the issues discussed in the article (citizenship, personal status, family law, marriage law, land and infrastructure and much more) clearly refer to the state of Israel itself, not to the areas occupied in 1967. The article also notes the explicit comments of several activists, arguing that there is a system analogous to apartheid within the state. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to remove these; the suggested name change would enable this, and indeed would necessitate the removal of a large part of the article. Incidentally, why is the suggestion restricted to the West Bank; what about occupied East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip? RolandR (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could also have Allegations of apartheid in the Palestinian territories if there is reference to the same kind of thing happening in Gaza (I've only read about it in the West Bank) and as far as international law is concerned, isn't East Jerusalem recognised as being part of the West Bank (as no-one recognises the Israeli annexation). As for the Golan Heights, I don't believe anything of this sort goes on there (it is not mentioned in the article at all). пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Articles like this are POV just from the way their title is worded. --Oren neu dag (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources used in the article directly discussing the topic of the article. This establishes the notability of this topic meaning that we should have an article on it. I do not agree that just because an article needs to be improved for a long time it should be deleted, we should inform the reader of the problems with the article with appropriate tags and keep trying to improve it. Davewild (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above keep reasons, the nomination is a POV as the article is accused of being. SGGH speak! 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep similarities between apartheid and the occupied territories are obvious, and well-attested in reliable sources. None of the objections given by the proposer has any validity according to Wiki policies, as demonstrated by others above. Certainly the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. NSH001 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has its problems, and it's doubtful whether a truly neutral article could ever be written about this topic - many would say that any article under the title 'Allegations of (something awful) against (somebody)...' is inherently non-neutral. However, having read the article, I'm convinced that this is a notable allegation (even though it may or may not be a totally illegitimate one; that's not for Wikipedia to decide) and therefore we should hve an article on it; and the fact that it's difficult to write a neutral article on the subject does not mean no article on the subject should ever exist. Terraxos (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I note a proposal higher up this AFD to rename the page to 'Israeli apartheid analogy'. I for one would consider that title a vast improvement. I think one of the biggest problems with this article is simply its title, which sounds non-neutral even if the article actually isn't; for various reasons, 'analogy' simply sounds more neutral than 'allegations'. Terraxos (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nothing substantial has changed since the 7th nomination resulted in a keep decision, ergo this 8th nomination should be rejected speedily. If there are issues about this article, they should not be being discussed or trying to be resolved here, but on the article's Talk page or in ongoing mediation processes. Bondegezou (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename or merge Merge or Keep only if renamed The analogy to Reasons why Barack Obama shouldn't be president is apt. A title like Criticisms of Israeli occupation or something would be NPOV, but putting the word "apartheid" in the article title itself is inflammatory. Regarding the concern that people will do a Wikipedia search for "Israel apartheid," just put in a redirect or something. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

edit
  • Weak keep This finding of fact from the arbitration committee changed my mind somewhat. I don't feel great about this (a title like this is a magnet for pov warriors of both stripes) but I suppose when a pejorative political term has become so widespread, there is no avoiding having an article about it. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as a POV fork, an inherently non-neutral subject, and a big collection of opinions that has no place on Wikipedia as a separate article. And as I have pointed out in the past, there haven't really been 7 (or is it 8?) valid AfD's on this article; they have all been corrupted in one way or another, starting with the article-creator's sockpuppet nomination of the article for deletion about one day after it was created. This one is already corrupted as well, because of all the people "voting" to keep on the basis of the past AfD's. I have no illusions that the article will be deleted, because Wikipedia's ability to deal with this kind of article is broken. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sigh; what article is it a POVFORK of? I'm getting really tired of people who make this claim with no understanding of what WP:CFORK actually says. -- Kendrick7talk 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the renaming proposals - I don't believe AfD is the place for debating article naming or renaming; that should be article's talk page as it is a discussion of content, as it is not exactly related to the keeping or deleting of an article. I will mention though for those unfamiliar with this atricle's colorful history that feel the current one is inflammatory/non-neutral/etc, that past names have been Israeli apartheid and Israeli apartheid (phrase). The current one, though still open to further refinement of course as nothing here is ever set in stone, is the product of past compromise. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think in this case, renaming is a bit of a WP:HEY criterion. The article should simply not continue to exist with the current name. I revised my !vote to make it more clear that this is my intention. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep or keep (good cases for both positions have been made above). In essence don't delete or redirect or merge.Bless sins (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's some notability, but it's too easy for it to degenerate into an attack piece. I'm not a fan of Israel, but that we forbid "Allegations of 'Blank' Apartheid" for all other nations (exempting Social apartheid in Brazil, which is not the same kind of thing) makes this seem like pointing fingers.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and rename Israeli apartheid analogy. The word "allegation" in the English language always refers to statements that could conceivably be proven true or false if all the facts were known; it never refers to contentious comparisons or subjective evaluations. It’s clear from the lede alone what the article’s proper title should be:

Those who use the analogy argue that...Several critics extend the analogy to include...Those who reject the analogy argue that...Addressing the ramifications of making this analogy 53 faculty members from Stanford University have stated: "The apartheid analogy is false and breeds conflict"; as for the analogy itself they conclude that...Some accept parts of the analogy...

Etc. etc. Misnaming this article has made it seem more deletable, not only through the general cheapening effect of a conspicuous linguistic gaffe, but also because you’d never have an article about rumors, hearsay, speculation, and so on.
But you would, of course, have an article about an analogy that has occasioned dozens of books (scholarly and popular), hundreds of articles, countless debates, and considerable, sustained attention from pundits, politicians, lobby groups, and the mainstream media.--G-Dett (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The suggested title has one issue. Apartheid is sometimes used as a description of a specific social system, per the crime of apartheid, based on South Africa's apartheid but independant of it. In that instance, which is described in the article, it's not an analogy that's taking place but a description. A change of name to "analogy" might descope the article to only discussing the subject in terms of an analogy to apartheid South Africa, not to apartheid as a general description or as an international crime, which would unnecessarily limit the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Ryan, but how much of the article is devoted to actual legal allegations? The majority of sources both pro and con refer to their subject as "the analogy"; very few – vanishingly few, if I remember correctly – refer to it as an "allegation."--G-Dett (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Israel and the United Nations section is about allegations, which is about 6KB. On the other hand, the section is also relevant to the validity of the analogy, so should still be in scope with the suggested title. Using "analogy" will soften the title, because the implication is that there is a comparison being made as opposed to a label being applied. This may be a little weaselly, as some commentors quoted appear to be applying apartheid as a label as much as an analogy. Comparing the degree or type of apartheid supposedly present in Isreal to the degree or type in South Africa is not an analogy, it's a comparison to a baseline. While the term "analogy" is used a huge amount in this article, it's only used a few times in the sources quoted and always by those who deny it. Reflecting on this, while I was originally happy either way I'm now inclined towards leaving the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To put it more succinctly, I've been looking through the writings of those who suggest that Israeli apartheid is taking place and I can't find anywhere that they describe it as an analogy. Those sources are making the argument, so if they don't call it an analogy then us calling it an analogy may be a mischaracterisation of their arguments. That softening mischaracterisation may be propogated by those who deny Israeli apartheid. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I really think you’re mistaken about this. The opening panel at last year’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” in New York City was callled “Israel and the Apartheid Analogy”; everyone who spoke on that panel was a proponent of the analogy. Saree Makdisi (Edward Said’s nephew) spoke at that conference; his paper too was titled “Israel and the Apartheid Analogy.” In Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein writes that “the apartheid analogy is a commonplace in Israeli political discourse.” In a piece on “Desmond Tutu and the Apartheid Analogy,” the journalist Philip Weiss observed that “When Jimmy Carter said Israel was practicing apartheid in the territories last year, defenders ran to the parapets to boil the oil...Still the analogy won't go away. Alas for good reason.” Critics of the analogy also call it “the apartheid analogy.” If there are no more than a half-dozen genuinely neutral words in the English language, “analogy” might well be one of them. No one except Wikipedia refers to “allegations” of Israeli apartheid, because it’s a solecism and most publications have decent copy editors. You’re right that there is one narrow instance in which “allegations” would be appropriate – when reference is made to the actual crime of apartheid as defined under international law. But such references constitute only a tiny fraction of RS-based discussion of the analogy.--G-Dett (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, you've convinced me. If "analogy" is used by the proponents, then it being a softening is not an issue. The only issue is that allegations of the the crime of apartheid should stay in scope. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is essentially meaningless. "Allegations" are appropriate in a courtroom, not an encyclopedia. Let politicians and lobbyists make their case. What other state has an article devoted specifically to allegations that are made against it? Furthermore, this is just one of numerous allegations made against Israel. Perhaps each one should have its own page? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka and the United States both do. Sceptre (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As if on cue, Tundrabuggy provides an example of what I mean when I say that "misnaming this article has made it seem more deletable."--G-Dett (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how a "hopeless" article can be brought to GA status by deletion. Infact, making it in userspace makes it far more inaccessible to users than keeping it in the article space.Bless sins (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the fact that this is now to its UTTERLY RIDICULOUS eighth AFD attempt. One doesn't get to re-run this until you get a result you like. That's abuse of process. FCYTravis (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying strictly neutral on this, but given the repeated AfD nominations and dramas that have accompanied them, I think it would be reasonable to have a moratorium on future nominations. Once a year should be enough for everybody. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drama? You mean like if someone were to move the article to his preferred title three times in 23 minutes, using his administrative powers each time, helping to set off an arbitration in which he had to be "reminded" about the proper use of his administrative powers? Oh wait, that was you. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For best results, can we please focus on the article, instead of the editors? Thanks, Elonka 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete the accounts of the editors who keep screwing with this article and dragging it out to AfD. RomaC (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & a heavy rewrite. An encyclopaedia is here to report facts, in this case the allegations NOT argue the point. To be neutral the refutations should be included but that is it. On an article as controversial as this the highest standards are needed. All text should be cited sentence by sentence, and those sentences should be summaries of the sources points. Discussion interpretation & opinion are all the was of edit wars on a topic this hot. Most articles have some latitude but with the level of interest & passion involved here we can't allow it. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I can see nominating an article for deletion one or two times, but eight times? The second time this deletion was rejected should've been clue enough that this article belongs in Wikipedia. You should not get to keep nominating until you get the result you want. --Martin Wisse (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Accusations that Israel is a type of apartheid state, and therefore guilty of the crime of apartheid have existed for decades now. I don't see any problem with having an article on the topic. -- Kendrick7talk 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the name of the article to Israel and the apartheid analogy after reading the discussion here becsuse I thought it was a neutral title and both sides would prefer it. Sorry that I jumped the gun. Strongbrow (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't particularly like the POV built into the title, but when you nominate an article for deletion for the eighth time, you need some good new reasons that weren't discussed in excrutiating detail in the previous AfDs. I don't see that here, so it really smacks of "I'll just keep trying until I get the result I want". Klausness (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the changed title, while not perfect, is an improvement. Klausness (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the article's been moved back to it's old title because I moved prematurely. Strongbrow (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is ridiculous. The argument thoroughly explains why Israel is NOT an Apartheid, but then continues to maintain that there might very well be an Apartheid. It's like someone is debating gravity. Sure it exists, but here we have two or three people who are high in the academia relm who think differently. Now there must be validity in the argument! Appealing to the authority is the #1 fallacy in this article. BAH! I'm just disgusted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you might want to read WP:CALM. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, simply presenting the "anti-" side of the debate is an interesting attempt to support an AFD of the debate itself. However, what you wrote in opening the AfD is flawed in a few respects. In particular, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza can not vote for the Knesset, even though they remain under Israel's control, one militarily the other via an embargo. So, they are indeed denied suffrage, just like the way the bantustans were treated in South Africa. The way Israel reacted to the last election, where Hamas won, demonstrates that the Palestinian National Authority is not materially different from the toy parliaments the bantustans were given in South Africa either. As our article predates those recent events, the analogy usefully predicts this sort of behavior. While the analogy breaks down somewhat in Israel proper, the government allows for Jew-only ID cards and Jew-only housing opportunities, etc. which seem to have an apartheid-like goal. -- Kendrick7talk 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content disputes are not valid reasons to delete an article. What matters is if he topic is notable, if there are sources to back up the content of the article, etc. This is clearly the case, so there are no good reasons to delete the article. The fact that many people do not agree with what is writen in this article in the sense that they'll dispute the sourced statements, e.g. by Tutu, is totally irrelevant. If we were to take this attitude on wikipedia, then we would have to remove the articles on Homeopathy, Astrology, etc. etc.. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When this article was created it was put on VFD and a large number of articles like "Allegations of French apartheid", "Allegations of Chinese apartheid", "Allegations of Norwegian apartheid" etc. etc. were created by exactly those people who wanted to delete this article. In the subsequent VFD of these articles many people voted in the opposite way. So, the behavior of everyone here needs to be scrutinized to see if they are acting in good faith. Assuming good faith should not be the default attitude here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, but some more sources would be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mixtape About Nothing

edit
The Mixtape About Nothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mixtape: Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the EW article, I'm sure more reliable sources exist or at least will exist given the album's newness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the EW article. We can all speculate that additional articles may exist in the future, but the time for an article is not until they actually do. I don't think one article, even in EW, is enough to cement notability for a mix tape that will supposedly be released soon. Erechtheus (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Weak keep. In spite of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, now that it is clear we have coverage in more than EW, this probably has a place here. Erechtheus (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable. This whole nomination is misguided; even if this did not deserve a stand-alone article, the content would need to be merged into the artist page. Chubbles (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've just restored the AfD tag to the article for the second time [74][75]. Removing the AfD tag will not resolve the issue. Discussing it here will. Thanks. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable, there's referrences to huge media outlets like Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly, as well as smaller (but very notable) independent sources like URB and The Fader. Not to mention notable actress Julia Louis Dreyfuss appeared on the album. This article is obviously many times more notable than most albums, yet alone "mixtapes". Just because wikipedians are ignorant of the obvious notability of this article doesn't change the fact that it is notable. Completely agree with ALKIVAR that this nomination was premature. So far the only objections have been from Erechtheus, claiming we need more sources, which we now do, and Iridescent, who said the same thing. But now we have more and more notable sources than would ever be needed to pass notability. All objections have been met; the article should be taken off of AfD. PyroGamer (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even Wired has run an article on this mixtape: http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/05/interview-rappe.html as did the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601752.html?hpid=topnews I think we've clearly passed the bar for notability... time to close this.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Change to redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N-Tyce

edit
N-Tyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable as an individual artist, redirect to Deadly Venoms. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I was able to find a review of one of her singles in Billboard. If there are more of these then I might argue keep rather than redirect: Flick, Larry. "Single reviews – Sure Ya Right, a single by N-Tyce", Billboard, New York: Apr 15, 1995. Vol. 107, Issue 15; p. 49 Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Unusual Close. This product was just announced; there's no relevance to WP:CRYSTAL here. Whether this article should be merged with iPhone is a different debate. As for why I'm speedily closing this (which I'll admit is highly unorthodox), I think it's very silly to have a massive AfD tag blighting an article that will soon be seeing a lot of eyes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3g iphone

edit
3g iphone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Speculation about a future product with no substantial facts, and no references. Notability not asserted. Roleplayer (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XMPlay

edit

This is another software product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE -- I am unable to locate any reliable and non-trivial third party publications about it. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Not notable, not released to radio. Malinaccier (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDance

edit
IDance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single, currently only on YouTube Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The International Scope Review

edit
The International Scope Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article is unsourced and notability has not been established. Appears to be a "walled garden" with Patrick Hunout and The Social Capital Foundation, all three unsourced and each attempting to prop up the others. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to the journal's website, the last issue appeared in 2008, so it seems to be moribund. That is in itself, of course, not a reason to delete, because a defunct journal may still have a notable history. However, according to the Web of Knowledge, only 9 articles published by the "INT SCOPE REV" have ever been cited (7 cited 1 time, 2 cited 2 times). This clearly indicates that this journal never made much or even any impact. --Crusio (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally non-notable. That a few citations to it are listed in WOS does not in fact mean it is one of the ones they index, just that other journals have been known to refer to it. they include every paper an included journal cites without checking further. Ulrich's does not even include it. Not even the Library of Congress has it, not even the British library. DGG (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm willing to be lenient on the need for reliable third-party sources for academic journals, if those journals appear frequently in the bibliographies of other articles here, on the basis that it's helpful to have an article about the journal to help verifiability of those other articles that cite it. But that doesn't seem to be the case here: the only mention of this journal on WP that I can find, outside the walled garden identified by the nominator, are in the articles on two others of its editorial board members, Pierre Bourdieu and Ronald Inglehart, both of whom are certainly notable but for whose notability this journal is peripheral. Neither Bourdieu nor Inglehart has ever published in TISR; Bourdieu is no longer alive (but is still listed by TISR as an editorial board member), and Inglehart has no mention of TISR on his web page. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Crusio, DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Capital Foundation

edit
AfDs for this article:
The Social Capital Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no evidence of notability has been provided. The article was kept despite the lack of sources in 2006 hoping that expansion would provide sourcing and satisfiy notability requirements, however, this has not happened and the article should be looked at again and evidence of notability should be required. This article, together with Patrick Hunout and The International Scope Review appear to be a "walled garden" using each to support the other. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I see no evidence of reliable secondary sources establishing notability for this foundation. Does indeed look like a walled garden... --Crusio (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. The expression "wall garden" does not mean much. There are numerous good academic contributions on their website as mentioned in 2006. Their conferences are also well-known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.235.215.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment The William Davidson Institute does have an article, but it comprises no references, and is not considered for deletion, so why lack so much objectivity Crusio? This TSCF article gives complete info to public about a serious organization. See no problem with it.
    You're right, The William Davidson Institute does have a page (I searched for "William Davidson Institute", and then one gets redirected to the UMich article; it owuld be handy if you could clearly indicate such links in your comments). I'll have a look at it later, no time now, although at first sight I indeed do not see much reason why it should have a separate article. However, please WP:AGF. I am not biased against TSCF. That does not mean, however, that it is my task to find all similar articles and propose those for deletion, too (there must be thousands of those....) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an established policy for this kind of cases. --Crusio (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sufficient reliable published third-party sources are provided to establish notability. As it is, this is close to an A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crusio and David Eppstein. Does not pass WP:N for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info Hi folks, this is TSCF. You do what you want with your articles but please take into consideration the following. As a still young Foundation, we are working to increase coverage. However, we already have several hundred international members, our conferences are appreciated as we have each time 100-150 participants from all over the world, and we have 26.000 unique visitors a year to our website. We release a line of publications for almost 10 years, and we have published some 150 international contributors, some of them famous for cross-cultural comparisons, like Geert Hofstede. We use a scientific evaluation methodology that is one of the most sophisticated currently (Crusio, not the case of CNRS!). We have had on the Board illustrious people like Pierre Bourdieu. In 2007, we rejected most of the articles on fiscal policy that had been submitted, because they included already published elements, and we want to deliver to the public original quality materials. In 2008, we should resume retrospectively our publications with original materials on active ageing. So we think that all this shows a growing reputation and recognition, and that this Wikipedia article gives to your public synthetic information they have the right to have. Now, the decision is yours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSCF (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an established fact that there is a growing interest in the activities of The Social Capital Foundation and its ideals particularly among academics. I think that the arguments presented by some for its deletion are subjective and too biased to be taken seriously. TSCF is a scientifically sound institution with a serious agenda that aims to promote peoples' lives in their communities through their main asset: Social Capital. TSCF confernce themes (see the latest theme of the upcoming conference in Malta in Sept. 2008)and the published articles in the International Scope Review testify to what I am saying. Do not delete this article.Tiziouzou15 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cubans of Brazil

edit
Cubans of Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cuban Brazilians is not a notable community in Brazil. The population is really small, the population contribution to Brazilian culture and history is nothing. This page is nothing more than an overexaggeration of Cuban Brazilians. There is hardly any Cuban Brazilians in Brazilian society. Why is there a page for an unnotalbe community? Lehoiberri (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:HEY; delete preferences mitigated by the commendable research by User:Fabrictramp. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chalk

edit
Brad Chalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two liner. Concerned has been expressed with a tag saying does not meet WP:NN guidelines. I concur, but move it here for more to see. Brusegadi (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus here is that he does not pass WP:BIO or any of its related policies/guidelines. Shereth 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hunout

edit
Patrick Hunout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

there are no reliable third party sources, so notability has not been established in accordance with WP:BIO Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a strange case. According to it's website, it seems that the journal that he is involved with (The International Scope Review) has not appeared since 2006. The Web of Knowledge lists just one article by him, cited a grand total of 1 times (searching for "Hunout", so I cannot have missed articles because of additional initials, for instance). If I search for all citaions (i.e. also to works not themselves included in WoK), I find one additional citation to his thesis (by himself in the one article included in WoK) and one to an article in The International Scope Review. Most of the entries listed on the Google search linked by Artene50 are entries in Wikis (perhaps/probably made by the subject himself?) and networking sites (certainly made by the subject himself). Many references listed in the article are from the The International Scope Review and it is not clear how independent this is of him (the fact that he is on the Board and even its founder does not necessarily mean that his articles get in without any scrutiny. Any well-managed scientific journal will scrutinize articles from its editors as carefully -if not more- than those from other contributors to avoid the impression of favoritism. I am the founding editor of a scientific journal myself, so I know what I'm talking about....). Hunout has apparently also published several books, which might be notable, but it is strange that none of those have ever been cited in WoK. In short, the only serious reference brought up till now is the one to Citizendium, and the fact that they cite an article by Hunout does not really make him notable. Unless other sources would crop up, I'd probably go for delete, but will abstain for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. His work on job evaluation is well known and has been used as source in academic programmes and courses. The Review he is involved in is very demanding and his conferences as well. The bibliography mentions several publications at third parties. So he is notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.235.215.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment Could you perhaps provide sources for the things you mention? If his works are used as text books in courses, that would establish notability, but there should be a way to verify that claim. The "Review" seems to be moribund. The current bibliography only mentions some works by himself and they don't seem to have had much if any impact. Perhaps I'm wrong, in that case, please present the evidence. --Crusio (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Crusio, unless more positive evidence to indicate notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO is found. As Crusio said, WebOfScience shows precious little in the way of the subject't work being cited by other scholars. GoogleScholar also produces very few citations[76], with top hits of 4, 3 and 1. I am not seeing evidence of passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Closer examination of the Google scholar results makes the numbers look smaller: the "top hit" of 4 citations appears to be really one citation, in a paper by Frédéric Schoenaers, repeated 4 times. In addition I tried (by Googling "hunout syllabus") but failed to find any use of his works in the classroom. The closest I found was a false hit on a sociology class close to here which unrelatedly includes a web poll of top sociologists in which some respondent (perhaps Hunout himself) has added Hunout's name to a list of larger luminaries. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Crusio, you are mixing up several things. The Review is not moribund, does not publish every year unless it has appropriate (of sufficient high quality) material. New Editorial Board for 2008-2010 shows pundit names like Inglehart. If you look at other Wikipedia articles like e.g. Amitai Etzioni bibliography it is also made of their own works. The issue is not to list a large number of publications but visibility, and visibility is indeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hunout is the President of a NGO not a pure scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As for that link in Citizendium, it got there as a copy of the Wikipedia article at the time [77]. We have removed it long since, they have not yet done so.DGG (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crusio, Nsk92, David Eppstein... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. The discussion must be fair. Saying that "Hunout added his own name" is badly intended. There is no evidence of that. He is not a pure scholar but a manager and a policymaker, and as such cannot be seen through the same criteria. Even so he published with Moscovici, who is the pope of social psychology. His next conference shows a very interesting line-up of contributors, which shows notability. Let's keep him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Uh, what? Is it even ethical for us to do that? Ford MF (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can unearth a ref of substance. BLPs need to be absolutely the best sourced articles we have and this is far from that. Ford MF (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Those critiques may have hidden thoughts haven't they? The organization Crusio belongs to does not have a single reference, and the largest expert for social capital, Robert Putnam, who is world known, has only four, and a tiny bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC) note: 2nd !vote by this user in this AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. I made a research on Google and, limiting myself to the first 10 pages, I found a considerable number of references for Hunout. Hunout was cited, mentioned, published or commented by authoritative institutions, editors, libraries, institutions, authors, sites, and blogs. He was mentioned by the World Bank, who is the authority for social capital, the area of expertise of Hunout. He was called by Oxfam International to sign along with 50 other economists a call to the G8 Ministers to end poverty, which clearly shows notability regarding social inclusion. He is mentioned in the book "L'Europe ou le grand bazar de l'immigration", by CNAM, by the French Ministry of Justice, by the International Review of Social History (Cambridge University Press). In a 2007 speech to the Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission, the speakers says "Social capital is a contested term that has been defined many ways although I like the simple version that it “...is a set of attitudes and mental dispositions that favour co-operation within society (that)… equals the spirit of community” (Patrick Hunout, Social Capital Foundation)." Hunout is quoted by Joel Alleyne in his paper on "social networks and social media" (2007). He is analysed by Answers.com, NationMaster and CapitalSocial.eu for his work related to civil society, communitarianism and social capital. He was referred to by National Bank of Brazil for his work with Ziltener on the euro and the advent of a new European Leviathan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk • contribs) note also: that ip 62.235.215.231 (registered to Belgian ISP not far from Terhulpen, Belgium) copyedited Jessika Folkerts's last comment as well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Pete, smells like socks to me. Nsk92 (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll file an RFCU (depending on outcome) after the AfD closes, if wants to start an SSP that's fine by me.c Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

There is a misunderstanding, I am the same user, voted only once, am responding to the arguments cited above. I am no expert at using this system. Let's stay by the facts, any arguments? And Nsk92, your expression isn't very encyclopedic. Jessika Folkerts

You "voted only once"? What do you call this[78] and this[79]? Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to reformulate the titles of my interventions (I also see that one user expresses a vote at the end of his/her message). But what's about the content? Jessika Folkerts —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as redirect for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtle Rock

edit
AfDs for this article:
Virtle Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page does not assert notability; google turns up 181 hits (or 22, for some reason the numbers drop off on the second and third results pages). Most google results are mirrors of wikipedia. Page has been around for 2.5 years with minimal expansion or linking. ) WLU (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't get an arrow when I click on the link! It tries to direct me to "Virtual Rock" but that doesn't help. I'm no wizard with google maps so it's possible I'm somehow screwing it up. I've no problem with the merge if it's legit and I'm just not seeing it. WLU (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that did work, thanks. It's apparently too small to be seen even at the highest resolution, but it shows up : ) Redirecting is fine with me. WLU (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

What's New Happening on Disney Channel India

edit
AfDs for this article:
What's New Happening on Disney Channel India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP is not a directory or TV listing. ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A7 by Sarah, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as an A7 company, no assertion of notability. Sarah 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baxall

edit
Baxall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert significance. Employing 150 people does not in itself imply notability, and there are no sources to back up that claim or even verify existance. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Change to redirect to spider taxonomy. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying spiders

edit
Identifying spiders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically this is the same thing as a guide to eatable mushroom identification, which I'm sure there is no place for on Wikipedia. If anywhere it'd place on Wikibooks (with expansion). — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathic doctor

edit
Naturopathic doctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV fork of Naturopathy, and a dangerous one: I did a websearch for "ND legal requirements naturopathy" and found this website which says "In a state without naturopathic licensure, anyone can call him or herself a ND regardless of the level of training, experience or competence." According to the NCCAM, [80], only 11 states in the United states actually do licence them. In other words, we are making claims that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional, something that is actually only true of a minority. This article should be deleted as a POV-fork, and/or redirected to the main article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does the degree exist? If so, could the article explain the problem of only certain states recognizing the degree? A2Kafir (and...?) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the degree exists, it may be pertinent information but some caveats must be given about the 11 US states that license naturaopathic doctors. If not delete. Artene50 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The ND degree exists and allows the practitioner to be a primary care provider in some (apparently 11) US states. However, in other states, either there is no regulation (anyone can call themselves an ND), or it is completely illegal. There is such thing as Naturopathic medical school, which grants the ND degree. In the article, these points should all be clearly stated in the lead. I don't think this is a POV fork, since the degree exists, and it is different from naturopathy in other countries. However, the article should be moved to the more appropriate Doctor of Naturopathy. (A history merge should be performed after this Afd.) Also, depending on the aggressiveness and boldness of this article's authors, there is a high potential for controversy, similar to what goes on between the traditional medicine and chiropractic camps. Some previous editors tried to insert naturopathic medical education information in with traditional medical education, which has repeatedly been rejected by the traditional medical community. I think having separate naturopathic medicine articles is appropriate and the best solution. --Scott Alter 06:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading Scott's comments, I change my vote to Keep with the caveats and changes discussed. There are genuine online references in the article. Its not a WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to get the number right, there are 15 states that license naturopathic doctors; the 14 listed in the NCAM link in Shoemaker's comment above, and Minnesota, which passed a licensing law in the past few weeks, for references see the naturopathy talk page under "Minnesota Licensure." Lamaybe (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It might be repetitive to motion to keep an article that I wrote, but I'd like to respond to the criticism that this is a dangerous POV fork. I think the first points that Shoemaker raises above are great, that anyone can call themselves an ND in unlicensed states, and that only certain states and provinces in North America license NDs. The original article also describes those points. But then Shoemaker states that the article makes claims "that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional..." I don't see that claim, or even that implication, anywhere in the article. If this is a blind spot for me, please point it out! Lastly, this doesn't seem like a fork to me; it's describing a professional degree granted by accredited institutions, and recipients of that degree are licensed to be primary care providers in 15 states and 4 provinces! It struck me as being as worthy of an article as Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Philosophy, or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, which is, of course, why I wrote it. :) Lamaybe (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I think that Shoemaker's Holiday's initial critique had merit, it seems clear that his or hers concerns have been addressed by the series of rewrites. I think also that people looking for general information on naturopathy will generally end up at Naturopathic medicine; readers who reach this page are likely looking for specific information about licensure and accreditation, and hence this article is of use and should not be merged. Eggsyntax (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - legitimate, valid and useful. Kingturtle (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with naturopathy. Duplication of content for no good reason. JFW | T@lk 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how much or little I should chime in, according to wiki etiquette, but I think I found a description of the appropriateness of this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Related_articles I also read that in most circumstances, calling a new article a POV fork is itself considered POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#What_forking_is I'm not intending to slight anyone with this comment, I'm still relatively new at contributing to wikipedia, and I just wanted to share what I read. Lamaybe (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see reasons to take it further and separate out naturopathy as a philosophy, naturopathic medicine as a profession and doctor of naturopathic medicine as an academic doctorate degree. It's also my opinion that those who disagree probably have a non-npov and/or a coi, but would probably never admit to it. --ThujaSol (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Naturopathic medicine. Whatever is not legal advice or promotion can easily be discussed there. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being an officially recognized professional degree in a number of states and provinces makes it clearly notable. Klausness (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Phil

edit
UFO Phil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fail WP:BIO.The article contains no sources and I was not able to find any reliable source coverage of the subject. The article also appears to make overstated claims, one example is the article claim that he is a "regular on the nationally syndicated radio program Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, appearing frequently as a guest and contributor." The wikipedia article on Coast to Coast AM has a section about guests which he is not mentioned, he is instead mentioned in a section about callers. BlueAzure (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, noting zero support to keep even after relisting. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ngarto Februana

edit
Ngarto Februana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An author of question notability. The primary author is User:Ngarto and thus likely has a conflict of interest. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Last-minute addition of some weak sourcing does not resolve the issues brought up in this discussion. When this becomes more than just speculation (and would not violate WP:CRYSTAL an article would likely be appropriate. Shereth 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.sport

edit
.sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of article recently speedily deleted under the same name. The problem is with the topic, not the content, and remains exactly the same.

This is not an article about a ".sport" TLD. That would be notable. This article is spam from one company, claiming to have a plan to possibly make a submission to ICANN for a .sport TLD. That is no more notable than a plan I might have myself to submit an application for a ".andy" TLD, I merely need to get round to doing the paperwork. At this stage of the process this is simply not notable, and no more than commercial spam on the behalf of a single organisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone not already familiar with it might do well to read WP:OSE Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_9&oldid=1081073443"