Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 28
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Lehman, Lee & Xu. BJTalk 23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edward Lehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was PRODded by an established user and has been the subject of some "truth telling" by an SPA. While I agree notability isn't established by this stub, I think there is material from which to develop and build an article based on the work he's done in China and the US, but I'm not certain if his body of work is significant enough for notability so bringing it here for discussion. I think it needs more eyes than PROD. Officially neutral at this point. StarM 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lehman, Lee & Xu. I'm having trouble finding anythign about the person, and coverage is more about his law firm. There's much of it that is just press release material and there apepar to be another couple of Edward Lehmans that make combing the results more difficult. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find anything of notability on the individual but some on the company so if not delet merge would be my second option. BigDuncTalk 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to the entry, he is one of the "longest-standing American expatriates in China" then I want to see some Chinese Refs mentioning his name and what he has been doing in the country. (In Chinese, even better) As of now, I can swing either way. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not fit notability standard. Many foreigners have lived in China for a couple decades, is there some source that says his stay is somehow significant? Founder of a business or law firm is not generally significant. Lastly, appearing on television whether in China or some other country a few times is hardly notable. Happy to discuss my reasons with anyone BlueStarAirlines (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC) — BlueStarAirlines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete.No clear assertion of notability - is "one of the longest-standing American expatriates in China" notable enough for an article? Even if he was the longest serving, that sounds more like a trivia statement than something encyclopedic. And there is nothing to support that claim anyway.The solution of merging to Lehman, Lee & Xu doesn't feel satisfactory, as that article also has no claims to notability, and no reliable sources on which to build notability (part sentence mentions in passing are not considered evidence of notability). I shall nominate Lehman, Lee & Xu for deletion.SilkTork *YES! 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I've updated the Martindale reference in the Lehman, Lee & Xu article which confirms notability, so Merge to Lehman, Lee & Xu. SilkTork *YES! 22:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Abstain I believe that for me to vote could potentially raise the appearance of COI issues, so I'm abstaining (in the article's current state my vote would be Merge to Lehman, Lee & Xu anyway). However I'll see if I can find some decent neutral sources that might establish notability.eionm (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanda Cornelius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced BLP that fails the WP:POLITICIAN criteria Willking1979 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Tempshill (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't pass politician notability guidelines; all the secondary sources I found was of her (non-notable) political career only. -Samuel Tan 06:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear Pascoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete hasn't played professionally, only drafted. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CanadianNine 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Played at a Division I FBS school, highest amateur level of American football: meets WP:ATHLETE. Significant media coverage [1]: meets WP:BIO. That search, coincidentally, has a feature article on the very first hit. Meets WP:BIO. This nomination is a headscratcher... Strikehold (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Played highest level of pro and amatuer football.--Giants27 T/C 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Strikehold. The mass college football deletion requests are getting out of hand. There have been more AfD's directed at college football players in the past 3 days than in the entire month of March. What's going on? As further evidence of Pascoe's indisputable notability, I got 1,500 hits in a Newsbank search on Bear Pascoe. I don't have time to link even the feature articles about him, but here is a sampling of features specifically about Pascoe: (1) "A Bulldog and a cowboy: Tight end's true passion is rodeo", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 30, 2007, (2) "FSU's Bear looking for an ambush", The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR), September 14, 2007, (3) "Bulldog Living a Rodeo Life - Bear Pascoe Leads Fresno State Lineup", Albuquerque Journal, December 18, 2008, (4) "WAC Notes: Fresno tight end Pascoe one of the best at position", Las Cruces Sun-News, July 24, 2008], (5) 60 Seconds with Fresno State's Bear Pascoe", The Fresno Bee, October 26, 2007, (6) "WAC Media Days Notebook: Pascoe among top tight ends in nation", El Paso Times, July 24, 2008, (7) "On the field, Pascoe 's no teddy Bear - Tight end's nasty streak helps him join nation's elite", The Fresno Bee, August 20, 2008, (8) "This brutish Bear embodies 'Dogs football", The Fresno Bee, September 2, 2007, (9) "Little Bear grows up - Bear Pascoe is Granite Hills High's first full-ride Division I scholarship athlete", The Fresno Bee, June 4, 2004, (10) "Pascoe 's return sparks Granite Hills", The Fresno Bee, January 27, 2004, (11) "Pascoe set to conclude Bulldog, Valley career," The Porterville Recorder, November 26, 2008, (12) "Grin and Bear it: Pascoe wants to play QB," Tulare Advance-Register, August 17, 2004. Cbl62 (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Failing WP:ATHLETE is not sufficient for deletion since it's a complementary guideline. I can't judge the sources since I don't have access to them, but they could well meet WP:GNG. That needs to be checked first. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. This is a tough call, so I'll invoke admin discretion. The incident likely goes beyond WP:NOT#NEWS, though we'll be unable to tell for sure until at least a few weeks elapse. Merging is a valid idea; however, since there are so many relevant articles, I feel it's better to keep it as a separate page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 New York City airplane scare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Extremely short article about an event which will likely not gain any more attention. Not much chance of being encyclopedic. RadioFan (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York plane scare
- I've closed the above noted AFD, it had very little chance being so underdeveloped. This particular article is a better point of discussion, being more fleshed out, with sources and the like. For transparency, it should be noted that a link to this particular AFD was made there. –xeno talk 23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with 9/11: As I commented at the talk page, this really belongs as a section of 9/11#Long-term effects called "Psychological effects". Its a notable occurrence in terms of the after-effects of the WTC attack (i.e. people's response to a low-flying plane), but not "long-lasting notable" enough for an article of its own. –xeno talk 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made an initial attempt at 9/11#Psychological effects. –xeno talk 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you xeno. Cordovao (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made an initial attempt at 9/11#Psychological effects. –xeno talk 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect title to US Airways Flight 1549, the real NYC airplane scare of 2009, so far anyway. The event the article describes now was only temporarily notable, the notability guideline addresses exactly this sort of event and it is clearly excluded. Drawn Some (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable; it was just a slow news day. Tempshill (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable Splette :) How's my driving? 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with September 11 attacks#Long-term effects and avoid using the word "scare" in the event description (not everyone was scared). "2009 New York City flyover by presidential VC-25" or similar would be less POV. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some people called the police because no one told them that this was just a photo op that was authorized by the FAA and DOD. Barely received any coverage, will likely be forgotten in a few weeks (yet alone in a few years). As the above user said, just a slow news day. Delete the other article too (the one mentioned in the top AFD). TJ Spyke 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. People will forget it within a week. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This will be notable for some time as a public relations debacle. Dismas|(talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe so. Most US presidential administrations make many PR mistakes, most of which aren't significant in the long term. I am sure this is the case with this event. Cordovao (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has an "underconstruction tag," which means you're not supposed to delete it. Also, wikipedia is an encyclopedia - people will want to read about this in the future. Also, the article already cites CBS, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, and the Wall St Journal, so it's notable. Also, see The War of the Worlds (radio) for another similar article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstood my explanation at the article's talk page. The "underconstruction tag" only informs editors about that the article is still under construction and this awareness might keep them from nominating it at AFD after the first or first few edits and encouraged them to wait what the article might look like (and if it meets notability in this case). Will post my "vote" below.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a serious misuse of the Under Construction tag, if you think it is going to act as a shield for AfD. It was a PR mix-up, the talking heads have had their say, and life goes on. There's nothing more to really say about it, and the indented use of the tag (to let other editors knows that it is about to receive an overhaul) in this case is unwarranted, as there is nothing to overhaul. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that I support deletion. As per WP:NOTNEWS we should restrict Wikipedia's coverage to events with long lasting notability. This event is not sufficiently extraordinary compared to other PR messups by many US presidential administrations in the past. Plus, as per WP:NOTNEWS again, a large amount of news coverage does not automatically confer notability. Also, the underconstruction tag says "Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag" as opposed to you shouldn't post a deletion tag. I believe the non-notability of the event justified an AFD whilst the uc tag was in place, as no matter what effort editors do to make the article the best it can be, it is still covering an event I believe to be non-notable. As for the War of the Worlds article, the fallout of that has retained long lasting notability into the present day, unlike what I believe will happen for this New York episode. Cordovao (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a serious misuse of the Under Construction tag, if you think it is going to act as a shield for AfD. It was a PR mix-up, the talking heads have had their say, and life goes on. There's nothing more to really say about it, and the indented use of the tag (to let other editors knows that it is about to receive an overhaul) in this case is unwarranted, as there is nothing to overhaul. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Linking with my thoughts above, non-notable as per WP:NOTNEWS. Cordovao (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. A one day hoopla not important enough to stand on its own, Merge a brief mention into the post-9/11 as noted above. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The incident affected a lot of people, Wikipedia is not paper, and the reactions say something significant about the on-going insecurities the US has with respect to terrorism. Merging with September 11th after-effects works too. If it's genuinely forgotten after a week, reconsider deletion then. Peter Grey (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not deny the incident affected a lot of people, but that does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not paper, but we still follow the guideline that Wikipedia should restrict its coverage to events with long lasting notability, as codified at WP:NOTNEWS. As for the event being a demonstration of terrorism insecurities, that kind of analysis is appropriate for an article relating to 9/11. This is but one of many PR messups throughout recent times, admittedly more extreme than the average, but still not of lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The duration of notability is unknown at this time. Peter Grey (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but in the same way as someone is innocent until proven guilty, for Wikipedia an event lacks historical notability until such time as it can be proven. I hold no prejudice against recreating the article if lasting notability is proven. We cannot keep the article up under the assumption it will have lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? — Matt Crypto 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but in the same way as someone is innocent until proven guilty, for Wikipedia an event lacks historical notability until such time as it can be proven. I hold no prejudice against recreating the article if lasting notability is proven. We cannot keep the article up under the assumption it will have lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The duration of notability is unknown at this time. Peter Grey (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not deny the incident affected a lot of people, but that does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not paper, but we still follow the guideline that Wikipedia should restrict its coverage to events with long lasting notability, as codified at WP:NOTNEWS. As for the event being a demonstration of terrorism insecurities, that kind of analysis is appropriate for an article relating to 9/11. This is but one of many PR messups throughout recent times, admittedly more extreme than the average, but still not of lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now and/or merge (or even better, wait). I commented already on the article's talk page (before it was nominated for deletion) so I copy and paste part of it here (with some ce): "I would like to opinion that even so it's news right now it will (in this case) overcome and override wp:crystal in no time and I rarely [actually it's the first time] say such. As for merging it into the 9/11#Long-term effects section of the main article (which I checked and considered before I commented after becoming aware of this article), I just don't see a real "fit" in there. Potential merging (or deletion) could be still discussed in a week or so if sources won't raise the notability to a higher level.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)"
- My point here: Let's not rush this AFD--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid I am somewhat confused by your explanation. May I ask how you respond to the WP:NOTNEWS argument? My apologies if you do address it above already. Cordovao (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely understand your confusion regarding wp:notnews (as it is usually one of my major concerns and reason for reversion of edits). Seems like (and I admit) it is contradicting WP rules, but sometimes you have to dismiss all policies and guidelines and yes, this is what I'm implying and urge editors to do in this single case; Not for good but for a short time span. I'll change my vote to merge or delete if nothing has changed after the timeline I've set above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response. Whilst I do see where you are coming from, WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", and I do not see how having an article on an event almost positively, in my opinion, without long-lasting notability improves Wikipedia. Cordovao (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely understand your confusion regarding wp:notnews (as it is usually one of my major concerns and reason for reversion of edits). Seems like (and I admit) it is contradicting WP rules, but sometimes you have to dismiss all policies and guidelines and yes, this is what I'm implying and urge editors to do in this single case; Not for good but for a short time span. I'll change my vote to merge or delete if nothing has changed after the timeline I've set above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you see, at present we just have opposite opinions on this although sooner or later we might find ourselves in the same "bunch" (either way). Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hopefully, someone will be able to find a better title, although I'm at a loss for suggestions. Though it is, literally, "yesterday's news" (since it happened yesterday), I think that there's enough here for historic notability, as described above. Suffice to say that no jumbo jet has flown this low near Manhattan in nearly eight years, and that lessons will be learned about poor communication. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to sound repetitive, but many governments have engaged in big PR mistakes, and I fail to see what evidence there is that this event has historical notability. To simplify, a plane flew close to Ground Zero as part of a poorly executed operation, people panicked, harsh words were said, and that seems about it. To believe this will have historical notability doesn't fit with WP:CRYSTAL. I would also like to highlight an excellent essay called WP:RECENTISM. Cordovao (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to imply that I'm guilty of "recentism" here; and I hasten to point out that WP:CRYSTAL applies to future events, not to our opinions about whether an event has historic notability. Anytime something makes the news, we make our judgment as to whether we feel that it has staying power. You don't believe that this would be historically notable, and that's cool, you're entitled to your opinion. I believe that it will be. Know what? Your opinion is not more or less valid than mine. The closing administrator will have the final say on this. Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, slow news day story. In other news, water is wet and rocks are hard. Nakon 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - today I was thinking to myself, "50-50 chance someone's written an article on this, but please let it not be so". Alas. This is what we call news. It's recentism, it's a one-day thing, no one died or was injured, disruption lasted maybe a few minutes, the matter is already closed. Nothing, as far as we can tell, will be affected: not safety procedures, not Obama's approval rating, not the economy, not the New Jersey governor's race. I don't mind this being userfied if I turn out to be wrong about lasting notability, but let's take it out of the mainspace for now. - Biruitorul Talk 02:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable Ipunknown (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Who knows if it was just a photo-op? Why was the President uninformed? Was he really uninformed? People will talk about this one for a long time, it's not an incident that will be forgotten. Erxnmedia (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, it's been confirmed by MANY MANY sources that it was a photo-op. It was approved by by both the FAA and DOD and they informed all of the local police agencies. TJ Spyke 03:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have really anything to do with the President himself. You should understand this just going thru the article and the sources as they stand right now. (And FYI, my vote was to keep it for now).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:SPECULATION - neither of us knows the last sentence ("People will talk...") to be true, but based on what we do know, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 03:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS Spikydan1 (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to September 11 attacks as stated above. 1-2 good sentences will cover it there. This is minor PR mistake with no long term effects. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to main 9/11 article until further coverage, per Fnlayson. In fact, the President has just ordered a review of this incident, and if one ever gets out or more details develop then maybe the airplane scare might deserve its own article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to main 9/11 article, maybe as a section of "long-term events"? I feel that this merits a mention somewhere, if not its own article, then as a part of the 9/11 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanManka (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & watch it grow. another example of not recognizing the sort of news that has permanent value. DGG (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does every plane flying over NY have news value now? Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a straw man. There are many, many flights that enter airspace over the NYC area every day. And, to answer your question: "No". Reliable sources cover this flight and, therefore, so do we. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources do cover the flight, but as WP:NOTNEWS addresses, reliable coverage does not equate lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTNEWS exists to prevent articles on everyday occurrences such as sporting contests and weather stories. This clearly doesn't fall under NOTNEWS. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst WP:NOTNEWS makes a specific attack against coverage of routine occurrences, it does generalize to say "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." Cordovao (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTNEWS exists to prevent articles on everyday occurrences such as sporting contests and weather stories. This clearly doesn't fall under NOTNEWS. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources do cover the flight, but as WP:NOTNEWS addresses, reliable coverage does not equate lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a straw man. There are many, many flights that enter airspace over the NYC area every day. And, to answer your question: "No". Reliable sources cover this flight and, therefore, so do we. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does every plane flying over NY have news value now? Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no one will remember this in 1 months' time. Translation: WP:NOTNEWS. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It was on NHK international news broadcast in Japanese throughout Japan. Not minor or regional news. Fg2 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS says, regardless of the extent of coverage, if an event cannot be proven as having or will have lasting notability, it is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the event itself is minor non-encyclopedic news. Its effect is encyclopedic so gather what's verifiable and sourceable and merge it to September 11 attacks#Long-term effects. The remaining article can be deleted as it's poorly named which is why 2 of these sprung up from well meaning editorsOn second thought, there is no need to compromise here, this is clearly a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS, transwiki to wikinews and delete here.--RadioFan (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I would go with a merge on this issue if it made sense to merge into any particular article. You can't merge into one particular article because this cover so many topics: the September 11 attacks and the natural uneasiness that comes with low-flying aircraft over Manhattan, and the pure stupidity from federal agencies and the executive branch of the U.S. governnent. It makes way more sense to keep the article in this spot. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An official investigation is being launched. How often does that happen? How is that not encyclopedic? Grundle2600 (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, quite often with these types of badly executed operations. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Absolutely no historical notability. "Official investigations" into one thing or another are launched every half hour, that does not make them encyclopedic. JohnCD (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that an event that happened two days ago has "absolutely no historical notability"? "'Official investigations' into one thing or another are launched every half hour, that does not make them encyclopedic." Perhaps not, but the existance of reliable sources certainly does make a subject encyclopedic. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are "reliable sources" every time a pop star sneezes, that does not make it encyclopedic. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't about a sneezing celebrity, so I don't see how your comment is relevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You said: "the existance of reliable sources certainly does make a subject encyclopedic". I disagree, and gave an instance of an unencyclopedic subject with reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't about a sneezing celebrity, so I don't see how your comment is relevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are "reliable sources" every time a pop star sneezes, that does not make it encyclopedic. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that an event that happened two days ago has "absolutely no historical notability"? "'Official investigations' into one thing or another are launched every half hour, that does not make them encyclopedic." Perhaps not, but the existance of reliable sources certainly does make a subject encyclopedic. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title to Air Force One photo op controversy. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I changed the title again, this time to Air Force One photo op scare. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it back to your first choice, as your second move made it impossible for a non-admin to revert to the original name. Please discuss any further moves on the article talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As a "controversy" it's probably very contrived, but notable none-the-less politically, especially in how the administration is appearing to mishandle its response to the incident. - BillCJ (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This PR mistake, aftermath and handling is similar in type, although I admit the flyover was a bigger-than-average PR mistake, to many PR mistakes, aftermaths and handlings that have plagued many US presidential administrations before. I do not see any evidence this will have lasting notability, and as such advocate deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - lets stop with the moves while this discussion is active.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because, as usual, everyone who wants to keep it has failed to understand what an encyclopedia does. This is why we have Wikinews. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. ~EdGl ★ 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability will be lasting. If time proves me wrong, resubmit it to AfD then. Mike R (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But what proof do you have it will have lasting notability? We cannot assume it will; the onus is on evidence to prove that and not to prove it won't have lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but what you're saying makes no sense. Do you really think that "proof that it will have lasting notability" is required? How can anyone prove what will happen in the future? Mike R (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, proof is required. WP:NOTNEWS says that events must be shown to have lasting notability; "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." We cannot prove right now so we must base a prediction based on available evidence, and I do not believe the evidence shows that the event will be historically notable. Cordovao (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but what you're saying makes no sense. Do you really think that "proof that it will have lasting notability" is required? How can anyone prove what will happen in the future? Mike R (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But what proof do you have it will have lasting notability? We cannot assume it will; the onus is on evidence to prove that and not to prove it won't have lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of reliable sources, incident was widely and internationally reported. Wikipedia should certainly cover it in some form. Per Mike R, I suggest a "wait and see" approach to see if, long term, this would be better merged into other articles. — Matt Crypto 15:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not deny plenty of reliable sources covering the event exist, and I do not deny the incident was widely reported both nationally and internationally. However, as is the precedent for most articles in this situation, they are deleted baring proof of lasting notability until such proof can arise at which time the article can be recreated. It is not usual to keep an article up on the assumption it will have lasting notability (to note, I see no proof this will have lasting notability beyond many RP mistakes), and then delete if that does not turn out to be true. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To elaborate, I'm inclined to see this is already notable enough right now, but to address your point, for a current event like this, I see very little harm in being liberal in provisionally keeping it (precedents notwithstanding). — Matt Crypto 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not deny plenty of reliable sources covering the event exist, and I do not deny the incident was widely reported both nationally and internationally. However, as is the precedent for most articles in this situation, they are deleted baring proof of lasting notability until such proof can arise at which time the article can be recreated. It is not usual to keep an article up on the assumption it will have lasting notability (to note, I see no proof this will have lasting notability beyond many RP mistakes), and then delete if that does not turn out to be true. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP. This was a major incident, creating mass chaos in NYC and covered by the international media. It deserves its own article as the coverage and emerging facts will be ongoing. Non-notable? Please, if this isn't notable I don't know what is. Coolgamer (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many chaotic incidents have occurred which were covered by the international media, many of which have not had lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "if this isn't notable I don't know what is" -- the September 11 attacks? the Universe? I could create some more examples if you'd like ;-) — Matt Crypto 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NOTNEWS. Not to the extent of the 2007 Boston bomb scare. Grsz11 18:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge somewhere or Transwiki to Wikinews WP:NOT#NEWS. It seems unlikely that this event will have independent historical notability, except in the context of Administration press relations. Put it into an article on that subject. RayTalk 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Still making news as it's investigated. Argument to delete amount to "I don't like it". ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess I do not see any evidence of people arguing for deletion on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I myself am arguing for deletion on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS which says events which have received very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources does not automatically confer notability. As per WP:NOTNEWS, proof has to be established the event has lasting notability, otherwise it is probably not appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on it. Cordovao (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence do you need that the event has lasting notability? It was a big deal and the news is still developing. If you aren't interested, don't read the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not deny it is a big deal, but so have many PR mistakes in the past that have proved not to be of lasting notability. I do not think any evidence can be found to prove or disprove lasting notability for this event at the moment, since the length of time since it has been too small to judge. However, to put it simply, a plane flew too close to Ground Zero, people panicked, harsh responses followed, apologies made, and an investigation started typical of such messups. To me, this does not spell an event of lasting notability. I wish to reiterate my lack of prejudice to recreating the article if lasting notability is shown. Plus, I do not advocate deletion because I am not interested in the article. I advocate deletion because this article is an example of WP:NOTNEWS. Cordovao (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." So unless the huge coverage of airforce one and two fighter jets flying around ground zero causing panic and numerous 9-11 calls amounts to routine news coverage, you're misapplying a policy. Your argument boils down to: " To me, this does not spell an event of lasting notability," which is another way of saying "I don't like it." It's gotten lots of coverage and it's still in the news. The investigations and recriminations are ongoing. Flying airforce one around to take picture five days after Earth Day was wasteful and thoughtless, it caused panic and fear among tens or hundreds of thousands of people, but you're not interested. So I suggest again, don't read the article. It meets all the inclusion guidelines and is clearly a notable event that should be included. Your logic of deleting things in case they turn out not to be notable also has it backwards. Think about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS also says "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". And, I do not see how me arguing the event will probably not have lasting notability is the same as me saying I don't like it. Plus, I do not see how I have my logic backwards when I say that an event must be shown to be of lasting notability before it should have an article, instead of keeping an article on the presumption it will have lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the September 11 attacks as others have said. This is more related with 9/11 then it is with anything else especially as it deals with the long term psychological traumatic side effects of the attack. Brothejr (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Don't merge, it is already longer than WP:WEIGHT would allow within the 9/11 article itself, and can be expanded as the fallout over it continues (which is still ongoing and will likely result in staff firings). Event meets every general notability guideline criteria; received significant, reliable, widespread coverage. This wasn't due to a "slow news day", this was a massive debacle. It isn't a one-off news story, either, as many news sources are repeatedly going back to cover the events that are unfolding as a result (Caldera may be sacked, for instance). Long articles in Washington Post (1), Washington Post (2), Washington Post (3), U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times (1), New York Times (2), Fox News (1), Fox News (2), Chicago Tribune (1), Chicago Tribune (2), Chicago Tribune (3), Boston Globe (1), Boston Globe (2), Associated Press (1). Shorter articles in Kansas City Star, Chicago Tribune (4), Chicago Tribune (5), Chicago Tribune (6), Birmingham Star, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), CBS News, ABC News, Associated Press (2), etc. Google News has this from the past week. WP:NOTNEWS says: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." That is surely not the case in this instance. Strikehold (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the article being too large to merge, if a decision is reached to merge only a part of it will be as per the WP:WEIGHT guideline you specified. As for meeting the general notability guidelines I do agree the event has. However, WP:NOTNEWS was designed for such events. Apart from saying "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", it also says "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". The event should be of lasting notability, and I do not believe there is conclusive proof that will happen. Plus, as for "many news sources are repeatedly going back to cover the events", the event did only happen a short time ago. Having said all of this, if Caldera is sacked over this, I will immediately withdraw all my delete arguments and argue for a keep, as I think such a removal makes the event historically notable. Until such time I do not believe the probability of staff firings is enough to establish historical notability, as such a response is typical of many PR mistakes. Cordovao (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely my point: I never said the article was too large to merge, I was simply saying that a lot of relevant information will be lost if it is merged. And yes, it should be of lasting effect, but what is the basis for saying whether an event has lasting significance? I think one of the best metrics is how much news coverage it receives at the time. As you can clearly see above, it has had an enormous amount, and it is continuing. Someone else said delete, but then brought up 2007 Boston bomb scare; I fail to see how this is less significant than that. Strikehold (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many articles have been deleted despite posessing lots of relevant information, such as the article on Alexandros Grigoropoulos. He also received lots of media attention, but was still considered a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. As for how the flyover is less significant than the bomb scare, a poorly planned and executed flyover is much less notable than a city bomb scare. Cordovao (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Grigoropoulos was a WP:BLP1E issue -- which doesn't apply in this case. This wasn't just "a poorly planned and executed flyover", it appeared distinctly to be another 9/11-style attack and caused widespread panic in the largest city of the United States. The "bomb" scare caused a far lesser degree of panic, and the devices had already been used in a bunch of other cities with no one thinking anything of them -- there's simply no way that the Boston incident remotely compares to this. Strikehold (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-to-the-side comment Am I the only way who think it's going to be a long 5 days of an AFD for this one? :) Cordovao (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't be any longer or more tedious than for Joe the Plumber, or with any greater number of name changes. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh boy. I'm glad I wasn't a party to the main AFD for that article. Cordovao (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't AfDs 7 days now? If so, it will definitely be a long 5 days :)
- My guess is, this incident will be forgotten in 5 days... Seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a news media archive. Splette :) How's my driving? 06:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - easily satisfies WP:N (thousands of sources, major mentions, etc.) so the only question is WP:NOT#NEWS. We truly don't know whether any recent thing will have lasting notability, and it is too early to be sure, so we are in the same position as any article involving a recent event. Looking over the details this is the sort of incident that tends to have lasting notability. The indications are that it is the intersection of a number of different subjects (the presidency, the air force, 9/11, New York, the war on terror), has gathered broad commentary from a lot of sources, and news coverage has increased rather than decreased from each day to the next. It is not a frivolous random, tabloid-ish event of the sort normally covered by not#news. Plus it does inform the reader to know about it. This is a judgment call, but all in all it looks more likely than not to be notable. If that proves wrong we can always delete it later. This is a brand new article about an emerging event. It should have been given a few days to mature. As it stands, the article and the event will mature so that by the end of the AfD process we ought to have a better idea. Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional keep: While I don't think that this event is as significant as others do, I think it may be a bit premature to guess how notable it really is. It has been a few days, but the news franchises are still discussing it, so it may possiby have more notability than some editors would assume at the first and second glances. My suggestion is to wait a month or so, and if this hasn't developed into something more significant (there are rumbling that some officials might get fired for this), then we can can it. Should the consensus be against waiting, I'd like my vote to alter to a delete, because it currently doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Neither notable nor news. Article not encyclopedic and given the trivial nature of the event never will be. Maybe, one paragraph fits in with an article dealing with the after-effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in that it's interesting some New Yorkers are still apprehensive about planes above Manhattan but it does not merit an article on its own. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not news, as above. Averell (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Not news or particularly notable most of worlds media has moved on. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Transwiki to WikiNews - WP is not a newspaper. LadyofShalott 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Post 9/11. Also, someone should add a small mention of this event to Timeline beyond October following the September 11 attacks. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into an article (Post 9/11) that includes and attracts conspiracies and since it's creation in early 2006 never made it to a decent entry? Nay, I'd say.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Clean-keeper" complains that an article isn't clean. Wow, the irony, it burns! How about: SOFIXIT? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:sofixit? On which article should I start and how much would you be willing to pay me for my work? :) And BTW, I'm not complaining.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the "timeline article has nothing to do with it at all.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That Post 9/11 isn't a "decent entry" shouldn't be a barrier to a merge; the article can always be improved. Cordovao (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right but the first part of my comment you refer to is.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why doe the timeline article have nothing to do with it? That article is specifically about the repercussions and effects of 9/11 post October 2001. The reason we're even discussing this flyover is because of 9/11. Without 9/11, this story wouldn't have even made it onto Wikinews, let alone Wikipedia. So I fail to see why the timeline has nothing to do with it at all. It's a story about a direct effect of 9/11, and it is from the relevant time-frame of the timeline too. When someone makes a point of "I think X", you can't just rebut by going "I don't think X", you have to give specific reasons why you don't think X. You haven't done this here. To my timeline suggestion, you just tell me it has nothing to do with this story. Why? Give reasons. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave my opinion as did you and I didn't "rebut" anything. Want my reasons? Give your reasons I'd say.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I've already given my reasons why a mention of this event should be in Timeline beyond October following the September 11 attacks. This event is directly related to the September 11 attacks, which should be obvious to anyone who knows what this event is. And this event also occurred sometime in April 2009, while the timeline article is specifically for those events which are directly related to the attacks, and occurred sometime after October 2001. April 2009 is after October 2001. Now, I've spelled it out so even a child could understand, so why do you oppose a mention of this event in the article Timeline beyond October following the September 11 attacks? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS; no lasting notability (i.e. the media have already stopped talking about it). I don't think there's anything here worth merging either, but wouldn't object to a line or two being added to Boeing VC-25. Robofish (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the media has not stopped talking about this. These stories are within the last 24 hours: The Ledger; New York Daily News, The Hartford Courant, Newark Star-Ledger, Fox Business News, Newark Star-Ledger, New York Post, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal (1), Wall Street Journal (2), Fox News, NewsMax, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer. Strikehold (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone contends that the media will never talk about this event again. However, the coverage will most likely decline very quickly, from what I can tell. As of right now the possible big repercussions that were being floated around don't seem to be in the works, hence contributing further to my impression the event won't have historical notability. Cordovao (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected. Changed to Keep: this story is more notable than I realised. No prejudice against reconsidering it for deletion at a later date, though. Robofish (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies notability many times over due to massive, including international coverage as demonstrated above. WP:NOTNEWS is referred to a lot in the discussion but "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." is not the case in this instance. Hobartimus (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:NOTNEWS also says the more general "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". I can't see conclusive evidence this event will be historically notable. Cordovao (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is an impossible metric to use. No one can ever prove that, and it is a subjective matter of opinion, anyway. Who says that the "2009 May Day protests", currently on the front page, or the other scores of protests articles that are created contemporaneously have any lasting signifigance? It is clearly better to use the general notability guidelines, which this passes easily. Strikehold (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says it passes that criteria? The consensus of the editors, that's what.
- Regardless, if you have a problem with NOTNEWS, part of official Wikipedia policy, then take it up at the its talk page. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't patronize me. Cordovao said he cannot see "conclusive evidence", so I asked him how it would ever be possible to provide that -- it isn't. NOTNEWS does not require conclusive evidence, it simply says historical signifigance is "considered". Strikehold (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I misinterpreted you comment to mean that NOTNEWS was an impossible metric, not the idea of "conclusive evidence", which I didn't pick up on when I read Cordovao's comment. And if it looked like I was being patronizing, I'm sorry, that wasn't deliberate. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree we cannot prove or disprove that the event has historical notability within such a small time after the event. All we can do is estimate based on available evidence, and due to the fact that this is one of many big PR mistakes which have plagued many US presidential administrations, and which doesn't seem to be having any big consequences (ventures that Caldera would be fired do not seem to be coming true), I believe the event will not have historical notability and should be deleted. If evidence proves otherwise at a later date, I will be the first to support re-creating the article. And I don't think worldwide violent protests and a botched flyover can be compared. As for "It is clearly better to use the general notability guidelines, which this passes easily", then why have WP:NOTNEWS at all? If we allowed every story on a recent event based on the general notability guidelines, most articles on recent events that got deleted would still be up. The event does pass the general notability guidelines, but WP:NOTNEWS is there to provide exceptions. Cordovao (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we have NOTNEWS to help prevent articles on "routine news stories"; as it states, historical significance is considered in the determination of what is routine news. Strikehold (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree we cannot prove or disprove that the event has historical notability within such a small time after the event. All we can do is estimate based on available evidence, and due to the fact that this is one of many big PR mistakes which have plagued many US presidential administrations, and which doesn't seem to be having any big consequences (ventures that Caldera would be fired do not seem to be coming true), I believe the event will not have historical notability and should be deleted. If evidence proves otherwise at a later date, I will be the first to support re-creating the article. And I don't think worldwide violent protests and a botched flyover can be compared. As for "It is clearly better to use the general notability guidelines, which this passes easily", then why have WP:NOTNEWS at all? If we allowed every story on a recent event based on the general notability guidelines, most articles on recent events that got deleted would still be up. The event does pass the general notability guidelines, but WP:NOTNEWS is there to provide exceptions. Cordovao (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is about WP:NOTNEWS anymore but rather about relevance and notability to determent if this incident deserves it's own article or not and if the latter would be the outcome of this AFD, part of it should be merged into the main article (as it already has been done).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think that is a pretty good way of thinking about this. I agree the event should be mentioned somewhere, like Post 9/11, but I don't agree it is notable enough for its own article. Cordovao (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is about WP:NOTNEWS anymore but rather about relevance and notability to determent if this incident deserves it's own article or not and if the latter would be the outcome of this AFD, part of it should be merged into the main article (as it already has been done).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice If notability is established later, recreate. It's probably already in Wikinews (if not, why not?). If someone gets sacked, record it on his/her page. If they haven't got a page, don't bother. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:NOT#NEWS obviously. If anything, write a paragraph about it and put it in the September 11 attacks article. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS is policy. The event can be briefly mentioned in other articles. APK straight up now tell me 06:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree that this should be mentioned in other articles as others have suggested. That said, this event has garnered an immense amount of media attention and analysis, which has been added to this article. It's not hard to imagine people talking about "The day Air Force One flew low over Manhattan" for years to come. There will undoubtedly be people as time goes on that will want to read about the details of this blunder (people involved, reasons, public statements, reaction, etc.). That level of detail shouldn't be added to already-long articles like 9/11, Air Force One, Barak Obama, etc. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this was a very strange, well publicized event, with ramifications beyond what a few sentences can cover in an article about the September 11th attacks. For example, reports have stated that New York police were told that an airplane would fly low over New York city but that telling anyone about it would expose them to federal sanctions. This seems like an excess of secrecy to rival the use of the Official Secrets Act to prohibit Londoners from disclosing the existence of the British Telecom Communications Tower. We should keep a place where editors can continue documenting aspects of this event. Mike Serfas (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems that most people want to delete this for political reasons. I saw a documentary on the History channel that said the Air Force maintains the two planes in the presidential fleet, but only the secret service can authorize their flight - there is more to this story and I'll be interested to see what the official investigation turns up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, what political reasons? (all I see is citing WP:NOTNEWS) ~EdGl ★ 18:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure "political reasons" is in the back of 1 or 2 people's minds but the overwhelming majority of deleters have made it so plainfully, and painfully, obvious that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. When the official investigation is finished, and if it includes anything notable and anything that can stand up to our guidelines for inclusion, I'll be the first to yell "keep" if it comes to Afd again. Aside from that, please assume a little good faith. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, what political reasons? (all I see is citing WP:NOTNEWS) ~EdGl ★ 18:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but there is so much trivial shit on wikipedia that I find it odd for there to be such an outcry to quickly delete something like this. If the investigation finds something then it'll likely be relegated to some small news blurb - this article will never be re-created, but we'll instead keep the sexual histories of every single obscure anime character because, well, that is notable and important. People can justify anything, it isn't like most people will come out and say why they want this deleted, but again, the outcry over something so recent and still developing is telling in my eyes. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL is there for a reason and we can't just let an article sit here hoping notability flies in on a magic carpet. :] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but there is so much trivial shit on wikipedia that I find it odd for there to be such an outcry to quickly delete something like this. If the investigation finds something then it'll likely be relegated to some small news blurb - this article will never be re-created, but we'll instead keep the sexual histories of every single obscure anime character because, well, that is notable and important. People can justify anything, it isn't like most people will come out and say why they want this deleted, but again, the outcry over something so recent and still developing is telling in my eyes. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Political reasons? Thank you. I needed a good laugh today. I happen to disagree with the majority of Obama's political positions. My friends and neighbors (all of them are hardcore
socialistsprogressivesliberals) here in D.C. will find it amusing. APK straight up now tell me 18:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Political reasons? Thank you. I needed a good laugh today. I happen to disagree with the majority of Obama's political positions. My friends and neighbors (all of them are hardcore
- But it is notable now - its potential for further notability is simply a side note. Look at how we still have articles like the Summer_of_the_Shark, but this event is somehow less notable? Give me a break. The only difference is that this is political and so people are voting, either conciously or unconciously, based on party lines. People seem to apply rules and have different standards when they have political/religious motivations (practically the same thing in my mind). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess WP:AGF is no longer a guideline. APK straight up now tell me 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can quote the wikigospel all you want or you can engage in a thoughtful debate - that's your choice. The fact remains that we have articles like the Summer of the Shark going strong for over 8 years without apparent dissent, but with this article we have an outpour of censor-fury. And so I ask myself why? Hell, the fact that so many people, on both sides, are commenting on this page is evidence that it is indeed notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo 3:16 (KJV, of course) - "Assume good faith as much as possible." APK straight up now tell me 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that the King Jimbo Version? haha ~EdGl ★ 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo 3:16 (KJV, of course) - "Assume good faith as much as possible." APK straight up now tell me 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX is not a good argument. If you don't like the article Summer of the Shark, then nominate it for deletion, rather than making baseless accusations that everyone on here wanting to delete this article is doing so for "political reasons". What evidence do you have that any of us are biased? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if I like the article or not. I just believe we should be very careful when censoring material since people may have different motivations for wanting to erase something from history. If you don't like it then don't read it. I can easily imagine a New Yorker telling a younger relative about this in the future and them coming to wikipedia to learn about it only to find that there is zero information on it. I can imagine few things more fascist than people deciding certain information is "inappropriate." TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The flaw with the not#news argument is that its based on a judgment call. This subject is more complex than a routine news report on a "slow news day" about a fly over. Just yesterday The Guardian from the U.K publish another story indicating that significant coverage on RS is not an issue, [2]. If you ask me, I choose the argument for inclusion based on general notability over a judgment call of some wikipedians. --Jmundo 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's been accepted that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is a fallacy. In this case, we're seeing the exact opposite argument, where other stuff doesn't exist. That's just as fallacious as the converse. bibliomaniac15 23:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is making the argument "Other stuff doesn't exist"? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per not news (as others). If it really gets notable later (which i doubt), then the article can be recreated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Now if this is a notable event in 6 months, then I'll reconsider. Are those in favor or keeping going to accept that every stupid event that shows up on the news is notable? That is the path that we will be going down if we keep this. Maybe the real question is, is this encyclopedic? I don't believe that it is or that a case has been made in this discussion that it is. I see no reason to compound the stupidity of the event by declaring that action as encyclopedic. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, now we have to wait 6 months before creating an article about a news event? How about we let the article stay, and then in 6 months, if it is no longer notable, you nominate it again for deletion. If you are correct, then in 6 months, you should be able to WP:PROD it. :) Based on the lack of consensus, this doesn't appear to be a clear-cut WP:NOTNEWS situation. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but you're not thinking like a deletionist. If your edit contains one word or idea they don't like, it's their prerogative to revert it entirely. It's your responsibility to beg them to argue, to spend ten times longer proving your case than it took you to research the edit, and to negotiate with Your Boss The Deletionist how much to include. Likewise if an article is appropriate, it's your responsibility to prove to them that this is the case in lengthy discussions. And if a policy doesn't actually call for deletion, it's your responsibility to point that out, over and over again, because the deletionists would revert any attempt you made to make the policy clearer, and all your fine arguments about it just end up in an unread archive. And by the way, if anyone actually reads this NOTNEWS policy, they'd see that it clearly states that breaking news should not be treated differently from other information. The only "not" in it is about "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". Which of those is this? Wnt (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete above comment ;) Seriously though, was that rant necessary? ~EdGl ★ 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but you're not thinking like a deletionist. If your edit contains one word or idea they don't like, it's their prerogative to revert it entirely. It's your responsibility to beg them to argue, to spend ten times longer proving your case than it took you to research the edit, and to negotiate with Your Boss The Deletionist how much to include. Likewise if an article is appropriate, it's your responsibility to prove to them that this is the case in lengthy discussions. And if a policy doesn't actually call for deletion, it's your responsibility to point that out, over and over again, because the deletionists would revert any attempt you made to make the policy clearer, and all your fine arguments about it just end up in an unread archive. And by the way, if anyone actually reads this NOTNEWS policy, they'd see that it clearly states that breaking news should not be treated differently from other information. The only "not" in it is about "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". Which of those is this? Wnt (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, now we have to wait 6 months before creating an article about a news event? How about we let the article stay, and then in 6 months, if it is no longer notable, you nominate it again for deletion. If you are correct, then in 6 months, you should be able to WP:PROD it. :) Based on the lack of consensus, this doesn't appear to be a clear-cut WP:NOTNEWS situation. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my problem with all of this WP: CRAP - most people are too stupid to read beyond the title of it and actually implement the policy as it is written. I imagine that the people voting to delete and quoting "NOTTHENEWS" haven't actually read what that policy actually says. People misquote wikipedia policy more than they apply it properly - most proper applications are probably accidents that coicide with their own preconceptions. I love the website but really hate the community. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about, from WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events... not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." and, from WP:News articles (yes, it's an essay, but still worth considering): "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my problem with all of this WP: CRAP - most people are too stupid to read beyond the title of it and actually implement the policy as it is written. I imagine that the people voting to delete and quoting "NOTTHENEWS" haven't actually read what that policy actually says. People misquote wikipedia policy more than they apply it properly - most proper applications are probably accidents that coicide with their own preconceptions. I love the website but really hate the community. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for proving my point - people can extract small segments as "proof" that their position is correct - whether or not this intellectual dishonesty is intentional or not I cannot say. Did you willfully or ignorantly leave off the next sentence that explains it is talking about routine news like sports announcements? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That next sentence has already been "extracted" above. It gives examples of some things that don't have historical notability but it's not a complete list. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for proving my point - people can extract small segments as "proof" that their position is correct - whether or not this intellectual dishonesty is intentional or not I cannot say. Did you willfully or ignorantly leave off the next sentence that explains it is talking about routine news like sports announcements? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent> Well here's another extraction you missed from the article you quoted the first sentence of:
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).
Are you going to argue that this event meets none of the criteria that are actually listed in the article? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The impact was big enough that Wikipedia ought to have an article on it. Blackeagle (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it highly unusual for a debate about a proposed article deletion to last this long without reaching a consensus? Grundle2600 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By "reaching a consensus" do you mean "being closed by an admin"? If so, then I would point out that the length of time for an AFD to run has recently been raised from 5 to 7 days... Nevertheless, the "harder" decisions (i.e. those that require more deliberation) often sit around open for a bit longer than that, while admins look at it and possibly decide to pass the buck. =) –xeno talk 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for explaining that the normal time has been raised from 5 to 7 days, and that it can take even longer. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Additional citations are still being added. Notability was already well established and substantial coverage from reliable sources continues to accumulate. But those who don't like the article can maybe try again in 6 months. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a non-noble incident, merge with 9/11, wikipedia is not news. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pischalauski Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete no indication of notability, we don't even know where in Belarus this castle is or anything about it except - take it on faith, no refs - that it exists. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkeep. This source states that this castle is on the country's list of historical monuments, even though it says nothing about its location. Google Earth returned no results. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. There are plenty of references, they're just not on the internet in English. Somebody look in Belorussian and Russian, it's beyond my abilities to do so. It is a registered state architectural monument and for the U.S. and U.K. at least, all such are considered notable. Granted it is a crappy stub but it shouldn't have been nominated for deletion without an attempt to find sources. Here's a little info and it includes a reference: [3]. Drawn Some (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment here is the name in either Russian or Belorussian, don't ask how I figured it out. Пищаловский замок You can do a Google Image Search to confirm what it looks like and it is mentioned in a couple of thousand pages. Surely some of them are valid references in addition to the many architecture books other than the one on the page I gave before that it is surely in. Drawn Some (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm getting somewhere. It's within Minsk. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those who have Google Earth please look in Minsk, Belarus, for a rectangular building with four circular towers at the corners. If the picture for Minsk has been updated recently, one of these four towers has collapsed last year due to neglect of its maintenance. A picture I found here suggests that it is close to downtown. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IИ SФVIЗT ЬЗLДЯЦS, CДSTLЗ FIИDS YФЦ. 53°53′56″N 27°32′52″E / 53.89889°N 27.54778°E / 53.89889; 27.54778 -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per being on the list of historical monuments and the info Blanchard found above StarM 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ample evidence of notability has been found. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be spelled Pishchalauski as well as Pischalauski. There are 5 pics in "Category:Pishchalauski castle" at Commons. I added one of those pics to the article. How do you add a Commons category link to an article? Perhaps someone could demonstrate. doncram (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it. It's a simple {{commonscat}} under the infobox. What I'm not sure of is why it added two categories, one of which (unfortunately to top one) is empty. Anyway, that's the extent of my knowledge on this topic. Lvklock (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Per information supplied by Blanchard. Cbl62 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, National monuments are notable no matter where they're from. This one also played a role in the life of a notable writer. - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you all for expanding this respect to ya all. Sorry it wasn't fuller to start with but I created some stubs to make the Belarus-struct-stub independent from Europe ones which I believed were notable. Sorry but I find it absolutely hilarious that this has been nominated for deletion by Carlos as "no indication of notability". The irony of that LOL. Of course Carlos himself is a fine example of creating notable articles with his perma stubs on hamlets on Category:Cities, towns and villages in Azerbaijan with no information whatsoever of course ALL indicate the major significance of the place. Chuckle chuckle. Give me one good reason why Kemrakuch or any of the other 5000+ shouldn't be placed here too!
- Keep See http://www.radzima.org/pub/pomnik.php?lang=by&nazva_id=mememens24 if you could read Belarusian. Castle is located in center of Minsk. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway if this article is to be expanded fuly I'd imagine more sources exist in Belarusian or Russian than in English. Thanks for your help anyway people. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per comments above. Lvklock (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above - many reliable sources are available. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Robert D'Oyly. BJTalk 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ealdgyth of Wallingford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable individual. Her father was notable, as was her husband, but nothing is given about her other than her name. Article is also unsourced. roleplayer 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Robert D'Oyly. We probably should keep the link from Ealdgyth, whatever happens. Tevildo (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per above; do not delete because the search term is plausable and she has some notability, see [4] and [5]. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 29 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David Salinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not relevant, probably advertisment. The only reference is a page probably written by the subject of the article. The article states "he has written two books that are used in colleges throughout the world", but Amazon knows only one of these books, and it's out of print. Chrisahn (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each google I tried brought up only two top matches. One was to this Wiki article and the other was to a copy of this Wiki article here [6]. I did find the IAT book allegedly for sale here [7], but searching the sites listed to right here[8] shows as the nom stated that the book is out of print and unavailable. There are not even any reviews of the book. One book and no reviews for even that book does not meet WP:NOTE standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MephYazata (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTABILITY. Dlabtot (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn bio. Tempshill (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MehpYazata. لennavecia 04:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I suspect that the IP that submitted this at AfC had COI issues. Looks to be more of an advertisement than anything else. No third party sources. Enigmamsg 05:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Al Terzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to fail WP:BIO. No mention in independent reliable sources. tempodivalse [☎] 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Don't the Emmy awards confer notability? "Received a notable award or honor" is in the general biography criteria, but then again he shared them with what I assume were several others, so I'm not sure. Graymornings(talk) 03:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although not mentioned in article (it's mostly sourced from his publicity material) he played a key role in a widely publicized sexual harassment/age discrimination lawsuit involving a TV station he worked at. [9] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to WFSB. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N as not enough significant coverage is attributed to him. Putting evidence together that isn't explicity stated is original research, and that information is more appropriate to the station than this article. ThemFromSpace 05:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Appears to be a regional Emmy, not a full-blown one. I don't view those as inherently conferring notability even to a sole recipient (not that they're not useful in helping to establish notability). Bongomatic 01:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, delete. Graymornings(talk) 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Al Terzi was a television news anchor for years. He is very widely known by anyone who lived in Connecticut during that time. I was looking him up on a lark when I saw this afd. I'm a little surprised. I think this would otherwise be a requested article. Clearly notable. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Misadventures of Benjamin Bartholomew Piff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete no references, no indication that this book or series of books is notable. WP:BOOK. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It lacks encyclopedic content. It states the obvious then says who created it. More is needed to support an entire article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Akilah Lacey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Drafted for a proposed football league that was suppose to begin in 2007. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE; no coverage in reliable sources to prove he passes WP:N. Grsz11 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating for the same reason:
- John Riley Kirk
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both ...
- Akilah Lacey - Seems to fail WP:BIO: despite good deal of media coverage, all I see are brief mentions (mostly "caught pass for XX yards" type stuff), nothing qualifying as significant coverage. Closest I found is this article in the The Idaho Statesman, where he gets a couple paragraphs, but the article focuses on a teammate. Fails the additional criteria of WP:ATHLETE on grounds of playing college football at Idaho State, which is Division I FCS, therefore not highest amateur level; and never played in professional league either as far as I can tell. The AAFL has apparently been delayed again, until 2010.[10]
- John Riley Kirk - Fails WP:BIO, I literally, found nothing on this guy in news sources, not even a brief mention. Team Texas bio link doesn't work. Strikehold (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both The league was supposed to be and hasn't happened yet so this is an easy delete. You might want to nuke the roster templates as well.--Giants27 T/C 12:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Long Island Ping Pong League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This league appears to be a hoax. I've done several searches for sources and have been unable to verify its existence. This league is in the United States, a country that has a large presence on the Internet, so the lack of sources on the topic indicates that this league, and its related tournaments, are hoaxes. Cunard (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the following related articles because they are tournaments that are part of this league:
- Leshan Grand Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Daxiang Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2009 Daxiang Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- LPL Circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- LPL Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am also nominating the following category:
Cunard (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - no references, I'm not finding anything to indicate they exist. Only G hits are to these wikipedia articles. Thankfully the nav boxes at the bottom haven't actually been created yet.--RadioFan (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. I would understand if it were a matter of the league not maintaining a web presence of its own, but here, there is not even a blog entry. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Per RadioFan and only refs given were a non-working link and to the related WP articles. Tiderolls 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, I too just wasted a few minutes checking this. Give the creator a strong warning and block them if there is an attempt at re-creation. WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just gave the author of these articles a level 3 warning for removing AfD tags and blanking this page. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted this comment, not realizing the creator legitimately wanted to be heard (he had, for one edit, attributed his own comment to Cunard (talk · contribs)):
- Keep - League of AMATEUR players. Association is not major, but verifiable by referenced sites. Some articles are mid-construction, refs coming soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joreiley (talk • contribs) .
- -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Please do not revert updates to articles which contain references. Furthermore, via wikipedia and an under-construction website, this league is gaining web presence. This is no hoax, the league is legitimate. Although the league originated in 2007, it's journey onto the internet began but a few days ago. Along with the wiki entry comes a website, in which all LPL entries are being referenced toward. Thank you. -Joreiley—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joreiley (talk • contribs) .
- Please don't vote more than once. Your opinion is already expressed :) . flaminglawyer 01:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment either reliable sources exist or they don't and right now there is no evidence that any exist. The only reference on any of these articles is to a half created personal website, not exactly a reliable source. If not a hoax, its at least an attempt to promote something that doesn't meet notability guidlines via Wikipedia. If this league does exist and does get the kind of significant coverage required of all wikipedia articles at some point in the future then articles can be created then.--RadioFan (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's a bunch of kids playing ping pong in their basements, and calling it a "league". NawlinWiki (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. No proof of existence, let alone notability. Probable hoax, but even if not, fails the general notability guideline. --Rrburke(talk) 13:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - at best, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - According the article's history, articles are being updated continuously by its creator-- i say keep it, the main site speaks for itself, the article just needs some fine-tuning (obv. refs) . Nodsfan (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC) — Nodsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment frequent updates or not, the concern that this is a hoax still has not been resolved.--RadioFan (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Road to Nowhere (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NALBUMS and searching finds no reliable sources in which there is any substantial coverage of the EP. Timmeh! 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: after doing some searching, I cannot find a single source (reliable or otherwise) to prove this release's existence. It is likely just the collection of bonus tracks from Scream Aim Fire leaked on p2p sites under the name Road to Nowhere EP. It would not be the first time I have seen something like this on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Snow. This is a clear case of MADEUP StarM 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lunch guys cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not for phrases made up one day. This newly-invented term fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The source provided [11] doesn't even mention the term. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE! I am simply documenting a phrase used by well over 100 people and growing quickly in popularity! All phrases were made up at some time or another. Come to Maplewood and you will hear all sorts of people using this phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unincrediblehulk (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Well over 100 people" using a slang term isn't even close to making it notable, especially when that figure cannot be verified by people living a continent away. More likely, those "well over 100 people" all go to the same school. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a non-notable neologism and/or something made up in one day. No sources to show notability or even verify it exists. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn neologism. Should be speedied IMO. Tempshill (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NEO & WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- POWER8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete nothing to indicate that this processor is notable. Fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article is about something to be made public in the future, still under development, not announced, and I can't find references. Drawn Some (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. The article is pure speculation, IBM has made no announcement regarding a POWER8 microprocessor. Rilak (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeopardy! recurring categories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article contains information that is not particularly notable and appears to be a list of some (not all) categories that appear at no specific interval on the program. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take Articles that should be deleted for $600, Alex.
- It's one of the three reasons why Jeopardy! recurring categories should be deleted.
- What is original research?
- Correct. Lack of reliable third-party sources and poorly-defined list are the others. Go again.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what is not an appropriate topic for a wikipedia article? In other words, delete. StarM 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is a list of trivia and sourced entirely using one website. If it's not there yet, we can link the site in the main Jeopardy! article, but this wouldn't be maintainable if kept. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivia. And hey, I resisted the urge to phrase my answer in the form of a question! -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Korn's 9th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable unnamed and unreleased album per WP:CRYSTAL BigDuncTalk 21:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop! Hammer time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Either the title or a solid release date needs to be known for an article to be viable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , STOP!.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant content into band article. Consider redirect. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smash it with a hammer. MuZemike 17:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- History of video game companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is not a "history of video game companies". It is a list of six video game publishers, along with some developers they have worked with and/or acquired. It is not, and cannot be, comprehensive. There are already other Wikipedia lists of video game publishers and companies. This is not a history article, and it cannot ever be a "history of video game companies" - what companies would it be? All of them? Tempshill (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant, esp. given History of video games. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant to List of video game companies and History of video games, and largely unsourced too. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is not a history article, it's a half-fast spinout of the list articles as mentioned above. History articles need stuff like prose and summary style; this page has neither. MuZemike 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even on the history of video game companies and, as said before, redundant. --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 11:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no history there and you would have to make a list of every video game company there ever was to make such a history and would be far to big for an "Encyclopedia" or it would be an encyclopedia in its own right --Rageypeep (talk) 17:58, 3 May 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. The keep opinions are of a more fundamental kind, not really adressing the individual article. The delete opinions give more weight to the fact that this interpretation has received attention from one author in one paper, which hasn't been commented upon or reused by anyone else since, indicating that it is not important or noteworthy, but the mathematical equivalent of trivialities. In the end, the numbers and the arguments lean more to deletion than to no consensus, but it is obviously not the most clear cut decision (no wonder it was one of only two AfD's still open for this day :-) ). Fram (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mathematical topic of dubious value or purpose; the language used in the article gives the feeling that this is ad-hoc number play. No indication of notability in the sense of non-trivial independent discussion in a WP:RS; the cited papers have very low (or non-existent) citation counts. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The first reference (Bruss 1982) is never cited, according to MatSciNet and ISI. The second reference (Massey and Whitt 1993) is hardly relevant (Look yourself). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup and Merge into Taylor series or possibly some other page. I agree with Oli Filth's comments that the language in the article is highly problematic. It is POV and in an expository style not really appropriate for an encyclopedia--and I think its use of the terms like "the only natural approximation" or "contradiction-free" are highly problematic because it does not clearly outline and justify the assumptions behind this reasoning. All that said, as a statistician and mathematician, I personally find this topic very interesting/relevant and would like to have it kept. However, if there is only a single article with few citations, then I think the topic is clearly not notable enough to have its own page. Could we get it into a single paragraph and put it on a subsection of the Taylor series page? That page currently has nothing about random variables and I do think a brief mention of this interpretation would enrich that topic by showing how it relates to others. The one article may not be cited much but I think the topic is inherently interesting because of how it relates to other topics. Cazort (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note - this material was originally moved out of the Taylor series article (see this diff) per Talk:Taylor series#Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series. See also Talk:Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and definitely do not merge. It is important that a key mathematical article like Taylor series be moderate in length and easily comprehensible from start to finish. It certainly should not devote paragraphs to never-cited ideas that even other mathematicians like myself and Boris struggled to understand. Now Boris has shown (though the page originator disputes this) that all that is happening is that the integral of a function equals its expectation wrt the uniform distribution. So it is not really a connection to random variables except to the definition of expectation. McKay (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing out that this has been discussed before. I went back and read the original discussions, and they have convinced me that the length of this article is entirely unnecessary to communicate the information. But I repeat my impression that I find this way of looking at things highly interesting. Deep? Maybe not. Different ways of looking at things are the very foundation of mathematics and I think wikipedia has the responsibility to represent even fringe views. I'd say if the idea has a single source in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal, even if it has not been cited much or at all, it belongs somewhere on wikipedia, even if it does not warrant its own page. If it does not belong on Taylor series then I would like to ask the question: where does it belong? Cazort (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your words suggest that you understand what it is all about and see value in it. Can you explain it, here or on the article talk page? McKay (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It belongs to mathematical curiosities. Create such a page if you like, with a section in the following spirit. (1) We imagine a random function f (without specifying its probability law), and want to condition it on given f(0), f '(0), ..., f(n)(0). (2) Using the mean value theorem we introduce random variables v1, ..., vn. (3) We assume heuristically that these random variables are independent and uniform on (0,1). (4) Then the expected value of f(h) appears to be the Taylor formula!
- The curiosity is this: the brave heuristic assumption about these random variables leads to the "right" answer in spite of the fact that we do not know, for which probability laws (in the space of functions) it holds (if at all). The curiosity is explained by the observation that the assumed distribution of these random variables corresponds in fact to an integral proof of Taylor formula, translated into probabilistic language by interpreting integrals as expectations. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your words suggest that you understand what it is all about and see value in it. Can you explain it, here or on the article talk page? McKay (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This reads too much like a textbook. It also needs a significant lead section so that people who aren't math-savvy (such as myself) can understand what the topic is about. I feel like I'd need to read the entire Taylor series article to begin to grasp what they're trying to get across here. Matt (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wonder if this is a case of mistaking a badly written article for a bad article. To be continued.... Michael Hardy (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I've read it carefully. Definitely it could be expressed better. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The part where it says "plus an error term" seems to be an error. If the v is the right value, then no error term should be needed. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I've read it carefully. Definitely it could be expressed better. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject, a probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series is notable, because the Taylor series itself is notable, and so a probabilistic interpretation of it is also notable. Even if the proper article should say that there is no reasonable probabilistic interpretation of a Taylor series, and explain why the subject is still notable. Once it is seen that the subject is notable this whole discussion is reduced to a debate over what the correct content of the article should be and a deletion debate is not the proper way to resolve a content dispute.
- Note I have seen a number of objections to the current content of the article. To the special interest user contributing, on the subjects that interest them, the best approach is to offer gentle and helpful suggestions to slowly whip the article into shape with out overwhelming the expert author with to much all at once. All these style and content objections are irrelevant, to a deletion discussion. The key question is if the topic is notable, which it is! Nobody has questioned this up until this point.
- Note I don't think anybody has really tried to politely work with the expert authors to improve the compliance to style guide lines which should have been the first approach to dealing with any content issues.
- Note Deleting articles tends to really discourage the authors of the articles being deleted, because it makes them feel like all their work was a waist of time. This collateral damage, over time causes the project to have fewer and fewer valuable experts, and more and more style guide experts, who can't write these articles by themselves. I would suggest that unless we can achieve unanimous consensus with every body including the authors who worked hard to create the article then it should most definitely be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.171.210 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assertion that this subject is notable because the Taylor series is notable is flawed; see WP:INHERIT. All tangential topics to the Taylor series don't automatically have notability; they are only considered notable if they meet all the standard requirements. So far, the biggest problem is that no independent non-trivial coverage has been demonstrated; this has already been pointed out to the author of the material, but nothing has been forthcoming. And yes, this has been questioned; both above and on the article's talk page. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe that the proponent is a valuable expert while the opponents are style guide experts, please look more closely. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have me at somewhat of an advantage, as I am new to this debate, and if I have made an error I am sorry, I have not read all of the discussion, but at first glance that was my first concern.76.191.171.210 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as great details article!The main subject Taylor series is notable, I don't think that anybody can dispute that, however the Taylor series article is already just a tad long, however, since this article explains details of Taylor's theorem its burden to prove notability is much less. I had a chance to review more of the discussion on the subject, and it looks more and more like this deletion discussion is a tactic in a content dispute. Not being an expert in the subject I am not really qualified to comment on the proper contents of the article but it looks like to me that at the present juncture keeping the article on purely technical grounds, because the deletion discussion is an inappropriate parliamentary being used against an unsuspecting expert contributor, in order to bewilder them into submission when discussion has failed to achieve consensus. Not fully understanding the present article and not an expert on the subject I am not sure how qualified I am to comment. But I do have some sources where Taylor series expansions are used in statistical thermodynamic type arguments? This article is more about general math, where as these sources are of an application nature, but surely the relation between Taylor series and probability is something that has been thought about at some place and at some time, and so it should have some good sources. Just because we have not found them yet, does not mean that they do not exist. I can't really imagine that anybody could come up with an argument that sources can not be found. But since it is a pretty esoteric topic, maybe the problem is just that getting the proper man power will take more time. Deleting the promising article takes away this possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.171.210 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- You seem to have largely repeated yourself. As I said above, the notability requirements are exactly the same as for any other article. If sources don't exist, then the topic is (almost by definition) non-notable. If appropriate sources appear in the future, then there is no reason that the article can't be re-created. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, I know of a number of good sources about the relation between Taylor series and probability (and I can show them if you like), but they are completely irrelevant to this article! They use Taylor formula when computing expectations, which is far not the same as using expectation in order to establish Taylor formula. Be more specific, please. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument for keeping The relevant guide line for keeping should be Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details, as this article provides additional details on the subject of the Taylor series with a probabilistic interpretation. Seems to me that just about any notable topic has a statistical interpretation. For example you can't say you don't need an article on statistical mechanics, because you already have an article on mechanics. I want to completely bow out of the discussion on what the final contents of the article should be, because I don't really feel qualified on the subject, but looking at the comments by the original writer of the content, he seems to make some notable points, and he does cite a source. His arguments may or may not be in factual error, and I take no position on this, however, clearly the topic itself seems notable. If there are other sources that differ with the authors source, then they should be included as well. Even the people proposing deletion have mentioned other possible content on the subject of the probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series. I am sure if I dug out my old engineering statistics book, I would find a Taylor series in there some place, so can we all agree that Taylor series have probabilistic interpretations? If my text book has a different interpretation well, then we are back to a content dispute. Seems like the content dispute was pretty close, running around two to one, and all that would be needed would be just a hand full of people to come in on the other side.76.191.171.210 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be under a misapprehension about what "notability" means in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policy; please see WP:Notability. It doesn't mean "it sounds quite interesting", which is what it seems you think it means! Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument for keeping Deleting an article deletes the edit history. I don't see anything so terrible about this articled that we would need to delete its edit history and its discussion page which is what deleting an article does. There have been some good arguments on both sides, and there is no reason to purge these from article space.76.191.171.210 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument for keeping The relevant guide line for keeping should be Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details, as this article provides additional details on the subject of the Taylor series with a probabilistic interpretation. Seems to me that just about any notable topic has a statistical interpretation. For example you can't say you don't need an article on statistical mechanics, because you already have an article on mechanics. I want to completely bow out of the discussion on what the final contents of the article should be, because I don't really feel qualified on the subject, but looking at the comments by the original writer of the content, he seems to make some notable points, and he does cite a source. His arguments may or may not be in factual error, and I take no position on this, however, clearly the topic itself seems notable. If there are other sources that differ with the authors source, then they should be included as well. Even the people proposing deletion have mentioned other possible content on the subject of the probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series. I am sure if I dug out my old engineering statistics book, I would find a Taylor series in there some place, so can we all agree that Taylor series have probabilistic interpretations? If my text book has a different interpretation well, then we are back to a content dispute. Seems like the content dispute was pretty close, running around two to one, and all that would be needed would be just a hand full of people to come in on the other side.76.191.171.210 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - verifiable math functions and theorems are always notable. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what caveat of WP:N is that the case? Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 22:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add: can you make a concise statement of the theorem you wish to save? McKay (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again the relevant guide line is:Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details, Taylor series is notable, this article is a sub article of that article providing more detail on a specific notable sub topic, in this case the probabilistic interpretation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.171.210 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If indeed verifiable math functions and theorems are always notable, then this parody is also notable: Probabilistic interpretation of arc length. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the most useful results in mathematics are seemingly trivial. I don't think that the triviality of a result implies that the result is irrelevant or uninteresting. Nearly all results in mathematics are trivial if you break them into small enough steps or look at them from the most natural perspective. Cazort (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And another parody: Probabilistic interpretation of Cauchy's integral formula. Should I continue? You see, there are a lot of integrals in mathematics; and every integral can be interpreted probabilistically, as an expected value. Are they all notable? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep even with the examples just mentioned, if they have been discussed, they are probably notable. Butthe casewould be very much stronger if it is discussed in a general textbook, not just two specialized research articles. This is the sort of information that should be in an encyclopediaDGG (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to forgive me, but I still really don't see why! This was some maths (possibly of questionable validity or relevance, but I'm no expert) that some guy dreamed up 25 years ago and got a single paper published in a relatively minor journal, and then added the information to Wikipedia last year. In between, literally nothing else has been mentioned on the subject (as far as any of us has found); the second paper is apparently unrelated (see Boris' comments above). I just can't see how that qualifies as anything close to notability. By that token, one would be able to justify an article about every single journal paper ever written! Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 08:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that this sort of reasoning would lead to an article being written about every journal paper ever written--a key feature here is accessibility. The overwhelming majority of academic articles, especially in mathematics, are so specialized that it would be difficult to make them into mathematics articles accessible to any sort of general audience (even of mathematically-literate people). I see no problem with making an article about any journal article when it is possible to do so in an article accessible to a general audience; these cases are quite rare. Cazort (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to forgive me, but I still really don't see why! This was some maths (possibly of questionable validity or relevance, but I'm no expert) that some guy dreamed up 25 years ago and got a single paper published in a relatively minor journal, and then added the information to Wikipedia last year. In between, literally nothing else has been mentioned on the subject (as far as any of us has found); the second paper is apparently unrelated (see Boris' comments above). I just can't see how that qualifies as anything close to notability. By that token, one would be able to justify an article about every single journal paper ever written! Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 08:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an alternative proposal, if you like. We can create a page "Probabilistic interpretation of various integrals" and merge the given page thereto. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject is not sufficiently notable. Yes, I have read the various arguments for and claims of notability given above, but none of them convince me. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Notable in the context of Wikipedia is a binary state. The level of notability then determines where in the information pyramid the content should go. Since the issue is to create a sub article or not this principle clearly applies:Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content! The question that will be resolved by this AFD vote is if the content belongs in the main article or in its own sub article. Using the notability guidelines to manipulate content is not an appropriate way to conduct a content dispute. In this case, the level of notability of this particular sub-topic of the notable topic, Taylor series, merits a details article for the very reason that it is less notable. If it were very notable it might belong in the main article, but since it is a topic of limited interest to a smaller audience, it merits its own sub article so as to keep the main article from becoming overly long. The content should be linked to with the proper further or details tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.171.210 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You seem to be arguing that a sub-topic that is too trivial to merit a mention in the main article therefore merits its own article purely because of its triviality. Well, I'll give that argument a 9.9 for novelty and creativity, but a solid 0 for logical consistency. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Notable in the context of Wikipedia is a binary state. The level of notability then determines where in the information pyramid the content should go. Since the issue is to create a sub article or not this principle clearly applies:Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content! The question that will be resolved by this AFD vote is if the content belongs in the main article or in its own sub article. Using the notability guidelines to manipulate content is not an appropriate way to conduct a content dispute. In this case, the level of notability of this particular sub-topic of the notable topic, Taylor series, merits a details article for the very reason that it is less notable. If it were very notable it might belong in the main article, but since it is a topic of limited interest to a smaller audience, it merits its own sub article so as to keep the main article from becoming overly long. The content should be linked to with the proper further or details tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.171.210 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, No, what I mean is, this this is a detail. So instead of overloading the main article mention it, and them make a link to the sub article that explains it in greater detail. This is not something that I just thought up myself, they have several tags just for such structures. Template:Details, and Template:Further being two templates for just such a purpose. I believe that this would be the accepted practice for a situation such as this, the advantage being that it keeps the main article shorter and clearer, and those interested in the higher level of detail can simply follow the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.171.210 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep since Wikipedia's coverage is quite broad and can afford to be. I don't agree that "verifiable math theorems are always notable", but in some cases the fact that the question addressed by the article seems notable should count for something. Possible Boris Tsirelson's proposal for a combined page could be where this belongs. I don't think this will lead us to a Wikipedia article for every journal paper. The mathematical idea here is simple and can be simply expressed. (I'm not sure this won't amount to a simple probabilistic proof of Taylor's theorem when looked at in the right way, but I haven't thought about that yet......) Michael Hardy (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of seeming like I'm jumping on every comment, I'll reply! As someone said earlier, this is almost certainly no more than curious numerology; if the question it addressed were indeed notable, someone else in the academic world would have referenced it. As such, this is literally one step away from Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, that step being the single paper published in an obscure journal. IMHO, it's really not our duty to provide an exposition for such things (otherwise what's the point of WP:N?). On a related note, given the lack of sources, any attempt by us to rationalise the maths into a coherent and valid form would probably be original research. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's reasonable to say that if it's notable, the academic world would have written more papers about it. If they'd written lots of papers, that would probably indicate notability, but I don't think the converse is true. Sometimes (in mathematics at least) they sit there for a long time before the academic world gets excited about it. For example, Gian-Carlo Rota profitably took up some ideas published in the 19th century and further developed them, applying methods of functional analysis and other techniques that hadn't been around in the 19th century. I think Bernd Sturmfels may in recent years have done similar things, applying old results in algebraic geometry to new findings in molecular biology. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that recognition can take decades or centuries in academia, but in most deletion debates that I've seen, speculation that a topic may be widely noted in the future is generally not an argument for retention. Whilst I realise that the definition of notability taken from WP:N is (verbatim) "worthy of notice", that taken on its own is rather subjective; normally the objective criteria of independent coverage and so forth are what counts, which this article clearly fails on. From a purely subjective point of view, I don't believe this topic is "worthy of notice" just because it happens to tangentially address the eminently notable Taylor series;
it seems to either be a trivial result, or one that has been presented erroneously (see the discussions on the talk page).as it's really just a roundabout way of generating the sequence using nested integrals; expectation and the Taylor series has nothing to do with it. I can't think of any other metric by which we can judge notability. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 23:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that recognition can take decades or centuries in academia, but in most deletion debates that I've seen, speculation that a topic may be widely noted in the future is generally not an argument for retention. Whilst I realise that the definition of notability taken from WP:N is (verbatim) "worthy of notice", that taken on its own is rather subjective; normally the objective criteria of independent coverage and so forth are what counts, which this article clearly fails on. From a purely subjective point of view, I don't believe this topic is "worthy of notice" just because it happens to tangentially address the eminently notable Taylor series;
- I don't think it's reasonable to say that if it's notable, the academic world would have written more papers about it. If they'd written lots of papers, that would probably indicate notability, but I don't think the converse is true. Sometimes (in mathematics at least) they sit there for a long time before the academic world gets excited about it. For example, Gian-Carlo Rota profitably took up some ideas published in the 19th century and further developed them, applying methods of functional analysis and other techniques that hadn't been around in the 19th century. I think Bernd Sturmfels may in recent years have done similar things, applying old results in algebraic geometry to new findings in molecular biology. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of seeming like I'm jumping on every comment, I'll reply! As someone said earlier, this is almost certainly no more than curious numerology; if the question it addressed were indeed notable, someone else in the academic world would have referenced it. As such, this is literally one step away from Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, that step being the single paper published in an obscure journal. IMHO, it's really not our duty to provide an exposition for such things (otherwise what's the point of WP:N?). On a related note, given the lack of sources, any attempt by us to rationalise the maths into a coherent and valid form would probably be original research. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I see that my rearrangement of the article emphasizes the proposition that makes it look as if what is says is only that the expected value of the nth random variable in a certain sequence is 1/n!. The "discussion" (as I labeled it) below that is not as clear. I think this whole thing may amount to a good idea, but I'm not sure, and certainly it's easy not to see that. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the "discussion" section really says anything meaningful. It expresses f(a+h) as a power series with unknown coefficients, but these coefficients are deterministic, not random as the text currently suggests. It then proceeds to take the expectation of this deterministic quantity, but obviously E(f(a+h)) = f(a+h), so it's not really a surprise that the power series is its Taylor series expansion! Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 12:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your grasp of the obvious is firm today. As I said, what that section says isn't expressed very clearly. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether you're implying that my use of "obvious" is misplaced, or arrogant! Isn't it fair to say that it's "obvious" that the expected value of a deterministic quantity is itself? You may well be correct that the section doesn't express itself very clearly, but how do you propose we fix that without effectively slipping into original research? Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For those who hope for successful research (using random functions): please see the probabilistic hypothesis is counterfactual. This is just another failure of the infamous principle of indifference. "Evidently we require not mere absence of knowledge of reasons favoring one alternative over another, but knowledge of the absence of such reasons." W C Kneale, Probability and Induction (1949) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good textbook helps, and nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a textbook. Similarly, a good startup farm helps, and nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a farm for risky startup research projects, brainstorming etc. (or is it?) Success first. Article afterwards. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boris, it now appears to me that you're probably one of those people who think that probability theory is simply a discipline within mathematics rather than a science that (like physics) must rely heavily upon mathematics. That puts in in very good company, but it's wrong. The external link you gave quite stupidly misses the point (and that puts it in good company). Really, I begin to suspect no adequate exposition of this point has ever been written, and maybe I should do that. You may be right that this article is not yet worth keeping in its present form. If it's deleted and I later manage to bring it into such form that people who miss the point that you're missing can understand it, I'll revise it and then restore its edit history. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are quite right about me. I do think so, and do not hide it: User:Tsirel#Probability theory is pure mathematics. And I agree that you (and many others) may disagree; moreover, I know that my view is somewhat extravagant here. On the other hand, I do not understand why people that think differently like this "achievement" by FTB. It does not strengthen their (your) position. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't have in mind that probability theory is "applied mathematics"; rather, I meant what I said: probability theory should be considered a science outside of mathematics that, by its nature, must rely heavily on mathematics. Geometry is pure mathematics, but the geometry of physical space is not mathematics; it is physics. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be interesting in itself, but if it is so, then what? I mean, what implications about the given article follow? And especially, what to do (then) with my counterfactuality argument? It is not that we are not sure they are uniform. Much worse: we are sure they are not! Be it physics, engineering or even sociology, this situation is still unacceptable, is it? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If one regards ƒ as random, then this shows that the conditional probability that v1 > 1/2 given that the second and third derivatives of ƒ are positive, is 1. It's not clear what it says about the marginal probability, nor about independence.
- See my answer on the talk page. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If one regards ƒ as random, then this shows that the conditional probability that v1 > 1/2 given that the second and third derivatives of ƒ are positive, is 1. It's not clear what it says about the marginal probability, nor about independence.
- I'm in agreement with Michael Hardy here...the article is in a pretty sorry state...but I am still convinced that the topic is worth including...whether as an article of its own or as a subsection of another page, I am open for discussion. I stick by my original recommendation of cleaning up and merging into Taylor series...if you trace the history of this debate back onto the talk pages, you will find the whole debate started after a small tidbit was included on that page. Cazort (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but neither you nor anyone else here or on the article page has actually identified what the point of the article is. Look, if there is something of any value here, someone should surely be able to formulate a non-trivial theorem that is captures a significant fact that is discovered here. Right? What theorem? McKay (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be interesting in itself, but if it is so, then what? I mean, what implications about the given article follow? And especially, what to do (then) with my counterfactuality argument? It is not that we are not sure they are uniform. Much worse: we are sure they are not! Be it physics, engineering or even sociology, this situation is still unacceptable, is it? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boris, it now appears to me that you're probably one of those people who think that probability theory is simply a discipline within mathematics rather than a science that (like physics) must rely heavily upon mathematics. That puts in in very good company, but it's wrong. The external link you gave quite stupidly misses the point (and that puts it in good company). Really, I begin to suspect no adequate exposition of this point has ever been written, and maybe I should do that. You may be right that this article is not yet worth keeping in its present form. If it's deleted and I later manage to bring it into such form that people who miss the point that you're missing can understand it, I'll revise it and then restore its edit history. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether you're implying that my use of "obvious" is misplaced, or arrogant! Isn't it fair to say that it's "obvious" that the expected value of a deterministic quantity is itself? You may well be correct that the section doesn't express itself very clearly, but how do you propose we fix that without effectively slipping into original research? Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your grasp of the obvious is firm today. As I said, what that section says isn't expressed very clearly. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the "discussion" section really says anything meaningful. It expresses f(a+h) as a power series with unknown coefficients, but these coefficients are deterministic, not random as the text currently suggests. It then proceeds to take the expectation of this deterministic quantity, but obviously E(f(a+h)) = f(a+h), so it's not really a surprise that the power series is its Taylor series expansion! Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 12:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Paper is cited by 22 other papers per Google Scholar [12]. Several are self-cites by the same authors and most are behind paywalls so I can't check the cites for relevance. The result is neat; I'd tend to suggest weak keep or merge, per Michael Hardy. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding this! This seems to refute the assertions made above that this paper has been ignored. Cazort (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NO, NO, NO! These are NOT references to Bruss! These are refs to Massey! I have nothing against the Massey paper; it is good, and yes, it IS cited. However, it is irrelevant to "Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series". Please be more attentive. And by the way, does anyone wish to comment my "parodies" and my "counterfactual"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, apologies, I see this...and yes I think the other article is not really relevant to the page, it seemed to be only used to like, source a single sentence that is only tangential to the topic. Cazort (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NO, NO, NO! These are NOT references to Bruss! These are refs to Massey! I have nothing against the Massey paper; it is good, and yes, it IS cited. However, it is irrelevant to "Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series". Please be more attentive. And by the way, does anyone wish to comment my "parodies" and my "counterfactual"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding this! This seems to refute the assertions made above that this paper has been ignored. Cazort (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Following the example of the author (FTB) of the article, I am changing my mind. Now I prefer to keep the article! Indeed, the critical remarks made to it are quite instructive. No wonder that the author prefers them to disappear (even if together with the article). And I prefer them to stay available. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boris, don't be silly :). McKay (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brendan, do not forget that most of men are not mathematicians, and are more or less irritated by mathematics. Let them; it is natural. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boris, don't be silly :). McKay (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, weak delete BUT restore if someone manages to rewrite the article so that it's clear. In its present form, the article can never be understood by those who think that all probability problems are mathematics problems, and those parts of its mathematical content that are clearly expressed are not tied together to make the whole point clear. I'll probably have more to say about this elsewhere. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hopelessly unencyclopedic. We discuss concepts, not applications. — BQZip01 — talk 06:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Radu Hervian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Autobiography which in itself is problematic. But more importantly, fails WP:BIO: there's no indication that Mr Hervian was the subject of significant coverage and there is therefore little hope to build a properly sourced article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn bio. Tempshill (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find a single usable source for this article. Cazort (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clyda Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Issue still remains from the last AFD. Subject's notability can not be verified by reliable sources and article is entirely original research by creator of article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the last AfD, I said this:
Comment I've now extensively wikilinked this (and copy-edited a bit, too), but it remains without sources. Can we call off the AfD for a set period, to give the principal editor time to connect the facts to the kind of reliable sources described here -----> WP:RS? If we could, could you, Gavcrimson?David in DC (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Instead of taking up that suggestion, the principal author loudly withdrew from Wikipedia, offended that his original research was being questioned on this article and on a number of others. No one else has provided Reliable Sources either. It's time to put a fork in this turkey of an article, it's done. David in DC (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO BigDuncTalk 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The closest to a reliable source I can find is an IMDB mention of her: [13] but that isn't exactly the most reliable source, and even if it were it could only be used to verify her accting in a few films, and her name and birthdate. That's not enough for a real article--and the current article, as nice as it reads, could be completely original research, for all we know. Cazort (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as the article is not original reaearch. I was able to source her background and filmology. However, when I began to source her notability all I found (naturally) were porn sites acclaiming her breasts as a 1970s porn icon. Sorry. I do not wish to continue. Perhaps an expert in the firld? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I found almost all of the sources either unreliable or have trivial coverage about her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to significant roles in numerous films (per WP:ENTERTAINER) is the claim to notability here and is easily verified. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I found almost all of the sources either unreliable or have trivial coverage about her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted per CSD A7 by JIP. Non-admin closure. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Selegine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Stub article for a fictional drug; unclear notability and no sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced, non-notable. --EEMIV (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails Wikipedia's notability policy. Diana LeCrois (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Tempshill (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only unreferenced and unnotable, it doesn't even explain what this stuff does in the context of the movie. I'm inclined to say speedy on account of nocontext. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (and SNOW this) – per Dennisthe2. TheAE talk/sign 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, sources? If I upload a screenshot, you hosers are going to just delete that because on wikipedia, fair-use isn't "good enough" these days. But, the source is the movie itself - obviously - where the text of the drug's name appears. Either way, the movie TOTALLY SUCKED and you can bet your ass I'm not trying to get anyone to waste their life watching it, my only concern is that I felt the movie somewhat slandered Selegiline by way of having an EXTREMELY similar name. Zaphraud (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use Template:Cite video to use the movie as a source. A screenshot is not required. However, this does not address the issue of notability. 164.38.32.28 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the anon user said. That said, too, your attitude is not helping your case. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- the edit summary for the initial version of the article indicates that it was only created so that Google would pick up on it...so I dare say this borders on WP:SOAP. Matt (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emailicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod removed, thus listed here. Made up word/neologism Passportguy (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as something made up yesterday and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Tempshill (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Major case of madeupitis. This is something that belongs in the Urban Dictionary, not in Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable and made up. BigDuncTalk 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy G11 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Barret Capital Management Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable company, fails WP:ORG. No substantial coverage in independent, third-party sources. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, plus it's an advert. Tempshill (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G11. It seems the sole purpose of the article is to advertise the company. so tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remote control software application (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Personal essay/research report; fails WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOR. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This definitely reads like an essay. Matt (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Reads like a school essay that had to be so many pages or words long, and is therefore padded with uninformative text: Human development has always been linked to the continual development and use of new tools such as personal computers and robots. These tools extend human capabilities and make up for our natural limitations. Computers and robots now enhance our lives. Professor, take note. When you use page and word counts as proxy measurements of time and effort, and the student naturally seeks to comply with the demand with minimal effort, this is what you're really teaching. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I don't see the value of two articles on the same subject, which is the main point of WP:ONEEVENT, but as there is strong consensus for keeping the Harry Roberts article, and some degree of escalating drama in this AfD, I withdraw my nomination and back away quietly! SilkTork *YES! 21:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Harry Roberts (murderer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested redirect. This standalone article should be deleted and redirected to Shepherd's_Bush_Murders#Harry_Roberts as per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E. SilkTork *YES! 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think AfD is the appropriate choice for resolving this conflict. It's pretty clear that the article will not be deleted. The debate is really about the wisdom of merging the content into Shepherd's Bush Murders. But at the very least, the article will become a redirect and the content which, on the face of it, seems pretty well documented will not disappear but simply be transferred to the main article. As for the debate on the merge, I don't have a strong opinion but I'd like to note that, for instance, the section Trial and appeals is interesting in its own right but would be completely tangential in the Shepherd's Bush Murders article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikip makes a strong case below so if anyone's counting: Keep. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Very notable person, well referenced article. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E are the same section of a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. WP:ONEEVENT is one of the most misquoted rules in AfDs.
Per WP:ONEEVENT:
Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them...If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate.
This individual was the center of this event, a substantial part of this event. Ikip (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Speedy Keep AfD is not the place for content disputes this person is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion. BigDuncTalk 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable for all the wrong reasons. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely keep, as it meets notability requirements, and provides a lot of information on the subject.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is more extensive and better referenced than the section mentioned. If any of the information is included there, the original author needs to be credited, thus deleting the attached edit history would fly against policy. Try WP:MRFD. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious strong keep Poorly researched nomination, clearly done in bad faith given this, this and this, where the nominator contemptuously merges content and amend a redirect and disambiguation page before this discussion has even begun! Perhaps the nominator should follow his own ignorant and condescending advice here and acquaint himself with the guidelines (sic) before commenting. Unlike the nominator who just claims he fails a guideline and a policy without explaining why he does, I can explain why he doesn't, as I have actually acquainted myself. First off WP:ONEEVENT. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Does Harry Roberts remain low profile? No, quite the opposite, he's one of Britain's most high profile prisoners with news coverage ongoing for the last nine years over his fight to be freed well after serving his thirty year recommended sentence. Amongst many other books, he appeared in a chapter of Killers: Britain's Deadliest Murderers Tell Their Stories by Kate Kray in 2002 telling his story (which seems to be a re-hash of the chapter from Lifers by the same author published in 1997), and there's over 50 pages of it. Hardly low profile is it? Just like this newspaper interview in 2004 obviously makes him low profile. All this news coverage is hardly low profile is it? So there's proof that he's not only covered in the context of a particular event, other aspects of his life have been covered by reliable sources and he isn't low profile, so how is a separate biography "unlikely to be warranted" when Harry Roberts is demonstrably high profile. "Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event" His recent coverage is based on his fight to be released as he's one of Britain's longest serving prisoners, so it doesn't give undue weight to the event. It is about events stemming from the original event, but not one event. In fact if the nominator had looked for book sources or read the interview linked above (amongst many other sources) he would have realised that the article can be expanded much more to cover the life of Roberts before, during, and after 1966 to make it a more well rounded biography. "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." It's definitely a significant event ("one of the most high-profile crimes of the 1960s") and Roberts had the most substantial role in it, as evidenced by the amount of information available about him compared to Witney and Duddy. "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." He's still receiving coverage over forty years after the event, that would seem to be pretty persistent to me and anyone else with a clue. Now for WP:BIO1E, which needs less refuting as it's largely a re-hash of WP:ONEEVENT anyway. "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." See above mostly. Harry Roberts is not notable for just a single event, so he can't be covered for just one event. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Did Harry Roberts have a large role in the event? Emphatically yes. "as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Are there reliable sources that devote significant attention to the indivudual's role? Emphatically yes. Harry Roberts is notable for his participation in the original event, him being Britain's most wanted man and on the run for three months, his place in popular culture, him being one of Britain's longest serving prisoners and for his ongoing fight to be released from prison. To say he's only notable for one event is just incorrect, and his coverage in reliable sources over forty years after the event show that to be the case. When this article is expanded to cover Roberts early life, the manhunt and his ongoing fight to be released it will be bigger than the article about the event itself, so would be a prime candidate for forking back out to a separate article anyway! 2 lines of K303 11:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, idiotic nomination by an illinformal/POV (delete as applicible) editor.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Best not to attack the editor per WP:NPA. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we speak in English please? As per WP:DON'TSPEAKINCODE,SPEAKINENGLISH! Oh, my opinion - Obvious, Strong Speedy Keep - this is a very notable person, so they deserve a Wiki article! Simple. I also agree with the comments made above, and above that, about the editor/their intentions. Btline (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I'll resist the temptation to say "per WP:SNOWHOLE" (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Snow Hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An utterly non-notable hole in the Earth. And I'm being quite literal in that description. CalendarWatcher (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There appear to have been two scientific journal articles written about it, as crazy as that sounds. That makes this a phenomenon satisfying WP:N, well distinguished from other holes in the Earth of its sort. RayTalk 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per RayAyang. Notable subject, already well referenced. Ikip (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the journals make it notable, though it needs citations. --neon white talk 20:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 21:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not convinced that the two citations are 100% genuine; the 1819 article [14] (pp 337-345 , not 331-332 as cited) just has one sentence about the hole (on p 349) as part of a general survey of the geology of the area (the article is entitled "Sketch of the Minerology and Geology of the Vicinity of Williams' College", not as cited), and, although Prof Dewey did contribute an article to the AJS in 1822 ([15]), it's about a completely different area. The modern citations are just points on a map, with no evidence of independent notability. Tevildo (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- My apologies, the 1822 reference is genuine - [16] . Dewey says "in a few years they will doubtless be known only as the places in which snow used to be preserved through the year." Well, 186 years - more than a few, by any definition - have come and gone. Is the hole still notable? I'm not sure,
and am therefore revising my opinion to Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Comment. I've found the primary article ([17]) - [1822] 4: 331-332, which explains the error in the original citation. I'm still not sure that a hole becomes notable because a politician found it interesting the best part of 200 years ago, but - we have sources to prove it, at least. Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A summary of the situation. Dewey mentioned the hole in passing in a longer geological article, Dearborn knew of the hole and wrote a letter to the AJS on the subject, the AJS published the letter because it was written by _Dearborn_, Dewey replied with a brief factual correction. Call me perverse, but I'm going back to Weak Delete. This is, really, a trivial matter that has been preserved due to the fame of one of the participants, rather than a genuinely notable phenomenon. Tevildo (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, the 1822 reference is genuine - [16] . Dewey says "in a few years they will doubtless be known only as the places in which snow used to be preserved through the year." Well, 186 years - more than a few, by any definition - have come and gone. Is the hole still notable? I'm not sure,
- Weak Keep It's a hole, that has snow in it. Even though it goes through the summer months, it's really not that notable in a encyclopedic stand point. Renaissancee (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - As per RayAyang and Ikip. Notable. Needs to be kept.--Sky Attacker (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Directory listing for a state-level politician. Not the slightest indication of the reason for a biography, nor a single source attesting to anything at all other than membership in a provincial legislative body. WP:DIRECTORY applies here. CalendarWatcher (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN, first level subnational office. RayTalk 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Longstanding policy is that state legislators are per se notable. Kestenbaum (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As shown above, politicians of the level Tim Gay is at are notable enough for a article. --CF90 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Duly-elected members of a national, state or provincial legislature are notable. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:POLITICIAN as a verifiable member of the Nebraska Legislature. Enigmamsg 05:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Megawatershed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable term for normal hydrologic process. Appears to be advertising copy, though I tried to clean that up. Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Update: The article has been moved to EarthWater Global the name of the company promoting the neologism. They appear to still be fairly non-notable as a company. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment -- I'm sorry, I moved this article at just the same time as Rocksandanddirt was submitting the AfD. It is now at EarthWater Global, the company that coined the term "megawatershed". This deletion debate should look into the notability of this company. It is possible that they are notable as providers of access to groundwater in developing countries, in which case an articel abotu the company may well pass WP:ORG. But I didn't check, so I'm not voting. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick look didn't provide any reliable sources on the company. (Google news had only a couple of items related to one of their officers being appointed to the board of another company). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be unhappy to lose all reference to it, since this is one of the areas notoriously underrepresented on Wikipedia. If we don't keep it as a standalone article, there should at least be an entry under water industry or similar. We do not have an article on "water development" which appears to be the term for companies building wells in the third world. This may be an entire industry Wikipedia has been overlooking. Of course we shouldn't make this about this specific company, but we should take the opportunity to review our coverage of their field of activity. --dab (𒁳) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- related articles appear to be water crisis and peak water. Also note Category:Water management authorities. But where do we cover companies that are involved in combatting the water crisis? Note Living Water International, a "faith-based" organization in the same field. This is going to be one major issue in the 21st century, and we'd better start scraping together information on it now. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- there are a number of articles on groundwater resource management, and water resources of (various locations), perhaps we need to think about how to coordinate all these things. My problem with this is the advertisement of the non-notable company regarding something that's not a real industry term. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yep, the article was flawed in its presentation, and "EarthWater" may not be notable enough for a standalone article. But it may be notable enough for a paragraph in a wider discussion of water development. I just noted the well-hidden and under-developed water management article, and in view of all the above, I would tend to vote split, put the hydrogeological parts treated under "megawatershed" under aquifer and the company info under water management. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- there are a number of articles on groundwater resource management, and water resources of (various locations), perhaps we need to think about how to coordinate all these things. My problem with this is the advertisement of the non-notable company regarding something that's not a real industry term. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spamvertising, lack of notability for an article on its own. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertising, not notable. I don't see anything that could be salvaged for a merge/split/splitmerge. If it is notable within the context of other articles it would probably be better to start from scratch. Best, Verbal chat 14:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable advertising proto-neologism (under original title) and company advertising blurb (under new title). No encyclopaedic content. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:04, 30 April 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 - player is not yet notable. Recreate when and if notability is established. Frank | talk 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Akishige Kaneda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE because the athlete has never played in a fully-pro league Jogurney (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom is flawed. His team is in the J League, which is fully professional (see [[18]] for further details on japanese football system). --C S (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaneda has never appeared in a league match (he has made the substitute's bench as the back-up goalkeeper but has zero minutes of playing time). The article could be re-created at some point in the future if he gets playing time in a fully-pro league or if sources are found which satisfy WP:N. As of today, that is not the case and there is no flaw in the nomination. Jogurney (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as aboveDelete - as below -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]Delete- nom is not flawed. Nom states "the athlete has never played in a fully-pro league" and that is true, he may be on the books of a J League team but he has never played a competitive match for them (see the stats in his infobox) and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE until such time as he does -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I apologize if that's what the nominator meant. But it is still wrong. He has been subbed in on various occasions. See the official J League appearance record for 2009 [19], which is linked from the article. The infobox is out of date. Incidentally, nominating for deletion the article on a new, young player (19 years old), because he simply hasn't appeared in a pro game yet, even though most likely he will in just a few months (which is what happened), seems overly deletionist. --C S (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He was never subbed into a match. Please check the link and you will see he has zero minutes playing time. Jogurney (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Sorry I missed the play time column the first time. It does look like he has 0 minutes. Comment above struck. --C S (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't open that link, but I'll take your word for it that he has in fact played and change my !vote to
keep-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Change back to delete in view of revised info -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't open that link, but I'll take your word for it that he has in fact played and change my !vote to
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The J-League site confirms that he has only been an unused substitute so far, and until he makes his first professional appearance he fails WP:ATHLETE. He would never be notable then. This article can easily be recreated if and when he makes his debut. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Merge not out of the question. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
In-universe, original research, unsourced, insanely long list of every alter ego Calvin has ever had. Indiscriminate as well. No attempts to improve since last AFD, which was kept without any real solid rationale besides WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, and other crap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dismissing the arguments put forth in the original AfD discussion as "crap" is bad form. I have no problems with the original AfD's conclusion. Improvements to the article via editing would be more welcome than simply erasing it. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing but primary sources to be found for this. I have all the C&H books, but I've found no secondary sources that discuss Spaceman Spiff et al. in any detail. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to main article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is the best thing to do, I guess. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a WP:SS spinout because merging would create two problems 1) C&H is FA, and this material, while certainly meriting inclusion, isn't up to those standards, and 2) C&H is already bordering on too long of an article. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News sourcing for:
- Spaceman Spiff
- Google Books and Google Scholar have plenty on Spiff, too.
- Stupendous Man
- Tracer Bullet
- Even Captain Napalm who admittedly only made three apparances, has coverage. While there's some overlap, the quality of the references (e.g., Washington Post) shouldn't be ignored.
- Spaceman Spiff
- In short, WP:BEFORE shows that there exists plenty of reliable secondary sourcing for these specific aspects of an unquestionably notable (Again, it's FA) work of fiction. Granted, there are redundancies and primary sources embedded in the Google specialty search results, but there's plenty here with which to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These Google hits are all about Calvin and Hobbes. If I can find Google hits for Calvin's tousled hair, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have a freestanding article on such. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, that's an apples to oranges comparison: you did a Google web search. The news search which corresponds to the ones I linked above shows nothing. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These Google hits are all about Calvin and Hobbes. If I can find Google hits for Calvin's tousled hair, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have a freestanding article on such. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News sourcing for:
weakKeep per Jclemens. The sources are fairly weak individually, but there are a lot of them. I think there's enough to show notability. Which is odd, because I came here thinking this would be an obvious delete given the title. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC). ---Updated to keep due to current state of article, which is outstanding and reasonably well sourced! Hobit (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note that this is a summary style article. That is, it could all be included in Calvin and Hobbes, so notability really isn't an issue. It's a subset of a notable article, and as such inherits its notability. What we DO have is a plethora of independent, reliable sources speaking to verifiability and cultural impact of these differing imaginings of Calvin. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SUMMARY is not an argument for inherited notability. An article on Calvin's shoes would similarly fail WP:NOTE. Sourced information on "cultural impact of these differing imaginings of Calvin" would be welcome in the parent article—not that this article has any to contribute. / edg ☺ [Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]] 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an argument for inherited notability, but one that doesn't have consensous thus I didn't make that argument. I believe the massive number of weak sources are enough to build an article out of and meet WP:N in the process. I also suspect there is a published article somewhere the covers this in a peer-reviewed journal. It's just the kind of thing that folks would use as a starting point for a conversation about, say, imaginary behavior. Hobit (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SUMMARY is not an argument for inherited notability. An article on Calvin's shoes would similarly fail WP:NOTE. Sourced information on "cultural impact of these differing imaginings of Calvin" would be welcome in the parent article—not that this article has any to contribute. / edg ☺ [Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]] 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is a summary style article. That is, it could all be included in Calvin and Hobbes, so notability really isn't an issue. It's a subset of a notable article, and as such inherits its notability. What we DO have is a plethora of independent, reliable sources speaking to verifiability and cultural impact of these differing imaginings of Calvin. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Jclemens. Edward321 (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I came here thinking this would be an obvious delete given the title, but oddly it is entirely fancruft comprising WP:OR and joke recaps. Sole third-party sources are a joke made by Berke Breathed and an "in pop culture" mention on South Park—insufficient notability for a freestanding article. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources linked to above by Jclemens are actually very good RSs (Washington Post, solid books, etc.) but I didn't feel any of them went into significant detail here. But there are certainly many many third party sources. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these Google hits (that you call "sources") are about the subject; mostly they are about Watterson, or announcements for new anthologies. The Washington Post article being hyped here is entirely about Watterson, making only passing mention of Calvin's alter egos in one sentence. This is Wikipuffery. None of these hits make a case for this article, per WP:GNG. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So if you think that this is a non-notable spinout, aren't you really advocating merger, rather than deletion? AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I am obviously arguing for deletion. Calvin and Hobbes already has a section for Calvin's roles. Packing it with unsourced fancruft and WP:PLOT detail would not improve that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)No words in your mouth--hence the "?" at the end of the sentence. I just wanted you to clarify your position, which you have done splendidly: WP:ITSCRUFT. You might also want to review WP:SS--the section you reference is the parent section of this article, the part from which J. Delanoy originally copied it per the first AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a number of brief mentions (a sentence or two) on a number of the characters in there. Certainly the article was about something else, that's why they are brief mentions, but there are sources here. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I am obviously arguing for deletion. Calvin and Hobbes already has a section for Calvin's roles. Packing it with unsourced fancruft and WP:PLOT detail would not improve that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources linked to above by Jclemens are actually very good RSs (Washington Post, solid books, etc.) but I didn't feel any of them went into significant detail here. But there are certainly many many third party sources. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if sufficient sources can be found, or Merge to Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) (which should not be merged with the main article). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I still believe there are sufficient sources around to justify a separate article for this as a separate article, but failing that, I like this merge target better than Calvin and Hobbes. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally concur. Amended my !vote to keep/merge. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I still believe there are sufficient sources around to justify a separate article for this as a separate article, but failing that, I like this merge target better than Calvin and Hobbes. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references seem valid enough, it mentioned in many sources. Plus it is a valid article, a key aspect of a work of notable fiction, which has enough information on its own to validate its existence as a separate article. Dream Focus 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Keep - Enough. You (the nom in ALL this Articles AFD's) CANNOT keep nominating something you do not like until it is gone. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- that's unfair. This is only the second time. If it gets nominated a third time, then you'll have a case. DGG (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Appolagies offered. My feeling is that it seems like an IDONTLIKEIT nomination alledging ILIKEIT consensus at the previous AFD, where consensus seemed clear to me. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- that's unfair. This is only the second time. If it gets nominated a third time, then you'll have a case. DGG (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nom mentions all relevant points. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Well the version I read is a keep. I don't know what the version 10# Hammer saw when he nominated this article, but this one has only three alter-egos of Calvin & a discussion of other imaginary personae he adopted over the life of the comic. However, three items do not truly make for a list, so I am ambivalent about this one. -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though mentioned in passing by many reliable sources, there is no substantive coverage with which to make an article. I can only guess that the content here is original research since most of it's not referenced. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd really rather the entire thing be deleted, rather than the parts that are sourced (as you acknowledge above) merged somewhere? Also, isn't the implication that everything must be either sourced or original research a false dichotomy? Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The way NOR is invoked by Kraftlos often appears in Wikipedia discussions, & it always annoys me. Providing a summary of a plot or a character is not original research, & in any case a reader can always verify the truth of the statements by reading the relevant parts of the work. Concern for original research should begin when someone starts to talk about matters which require interpretation of the material without using the judgment of an expert, e.g. "Spaceman Spiff is based on...", "Watterman reintroduced to Spaceman Spiff because...", "Spacemen Spiff represents to Calvin..." All such instances of that in this list are clearly based on the opinions of verifiable sources. My concern with this article, to repeat myself, is not with the content, but whether this list is the best way to present the content. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've gone through and added a lot of references to the primary sources and removed the statements which seemed ORish or had {{fact}} tags. If anyone is unsatisfied by the current state of the article, please feel free to add more tags to the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep after Jclemens additions. Ikip (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy redirect That's what we do with duplicate articles. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How Sweet it Is (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Duplicate of an already existing article How Sweet It Is!, which uses the proper title. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:42, 28 April 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. Keep "votes" do not address the NOT#NEWS issue. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"There was a minor structural collapse on a construction site. There were no fatalities but two people were injured." Yes, it's sourced – but this is not a noteworthy event. Things like this happen all the time; the only reason this ever received coverage in the first place was that Hazel Blears had an office in the building and was evacuated. – iridescent 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Event is not notable; see also WP:NOTNEWS --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ThaddeusB. Timmeh! 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Admittedly I may have some COI regarding this, being a structural engineer (but in no way connected to this incident). I would disagree that this sort of thing 'happens all the time'. Building collapses nearly always get lots of press attention, precisely because of their rarity. The incident received extensive news coverage at the time (nationally and internationally), and I have found a further source from the Time afer the incident [20], indicating some sort of ongoing coverage from a reputable source. I have found further information, though in more specialist sources, ([21], [22]). As well as being an item of 'news', the article is also interesting due to the factors involved in the collapse, namely: work being carried out without approval; it was quite remarkable that no one was killed; using cheap immigrant labour; carrying out work without proper expert advice; inability to prosecute the developer etc. There is enough information out there to improve the article, but I am still unsure as to whether it would meet the notability requirements. To me as an engineer it is certainly notable, but I can understand why others would deem it not. Quantpole (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if rewritten. Per Quantpole, but the extra information in his comment is what would make the article more interesting/notable. We need after-the-fact information on the nature and cause of the collapse, and the information on unauthorized work, and inability to prosecute.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Notability of a "two storey" building or of its collapse is not inherited from famous buildings nearby. Edison (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I sent a message to somebody on Flickr and convinced them to let us use a photograph. The license was changed to CC-BY. I've added the photograph to the article. Edward (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The event is not notable enough to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a news archive. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Diana LeCrois (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki - Move to Wikinews. Edward (talk) 16:40, 1 May 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. Frank | talk 16:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dina Haddadin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was speedy deleted 3 or 4 times and recreated. An admin. declined the last speedy request. This is a young artist with little notability at this time. freshacconci talktalk 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. More of a resumé of a young artist. Edison (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Google Search hits for "Dina Haddadin" architect. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The references tell us nothing. For example French Embassy? What? When? Who? I'm not seeing any notability. And Vejvančický, sums it up with the google hits. Artypants, Babble 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom--resume, with no proof of real notability. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Birdman (rapper). Cirt (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Written On Her (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable future release fails WP:CRYSTAL. I have set the article up in the user space of the article creator and explained on their talk page. BigDuncTalk 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as future single, no sources. Will likely get undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah a redirect was already reverted by the article creator. BigDuncTalk 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Redirected again to Birdman (rapper). Treat un-redirection as vandalism. GlassCobra 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If in future the single becomes notable how would a new editor be able to create a new entry if it is a redirect or am I missing something glaringly obvious? BigDuncTalk 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's a valid point -- what would you all like to do then, delete it and have it be re-created when it's notable? The creator has already reverted the redirect, as we've seen, and his/her account is fairly new IIRC. If we delete the page, it can be recreated by anyone, and I suspect it would be. What if we leave it as a redirect, then work with the creator in gathering sources once it's released, and then undo it? GlassCobra 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible that the creator of the article might not edit again their last edit being the revert of the redirect. As I said above it is now userfied here for the editor if they wish but if another editor trys to add the article they willl be unable so I would tend to delete instead of redirect to allow other users to add if and when it becomes notable. BigDuncTalk 16:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's a valid point -- what would you all like to do then, delete it and have it be re-created when it's notable? The creator has already reverted the redirect, as we've seen, and his/her account is fairly new IIRC. If we delete the page, it can be recreated by anyone, and I suspect it would be. What if we leave it as a redirect, then work with the creator in gathering sources once it's released, and then undo it? GlassCobra 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Baggio Husidić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is about a non-notable soccer player with no professional appearances and no notable achievements during his college career, and therefore fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE, as well as the notability guidelines at WP:FOOTYN JonBroxton (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - lack of professional game, although it would appear (Generation Adidas) that he's classed as a professional and likely to get a game at some point so the article will just need creating then (but, yes, WP:CRYSTAL, I know...) Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I believe this player was previously deleted under his proper name, Adis Husidić (which is given in the article infobox). Whether this is the same person or not is largely irrelevant as he hasn't met the notabilty criteria for athletes for now. This article can easily be recreated if and when he makes his first team debut. Bettia it's a puppet! 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and re-create if and when he plays in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 12:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Subject now meets WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evan Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is about a non-notable soccer player with no professional appearances and no notable achievements during his college career, and therefore fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE, as well as the notability guidelines at WP:FOOTYN JonBroxton (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as aboveKeep - as below Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- REQUEST REMOVAL OF AFD Brown made his debut for Seattle Sounders FC tonight in the US Open Cup - http://www.soundersfc.com/Matchday/Matches/2009/Season/US-Open-Cup.aspx - and I would therefore like to officially request that this AfD be removed, as he now passed WP:ATHLETE --JonBroxton (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Engineering Institute of Canada Fellows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This list is going, if used "correctly" to become rather silly. The article says "Over the years, the numbers of elected Fellows have varied from a few to fifty or more. Current practice is to elect up to twenty Fellows annually."
While some of the Fellows are doubtless notable, this is one of the few lists that would be better managed as a mixture of Category plus decent attribution of their Fellowship in their own article. I usually argue for coexistence of list and category, but this is not one of those times.
As it stands it is tending towards an unwieldy list and an indiscriminate collection of information. WP is not a directory of Fellows of this doubtless august body Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Fellowship of a group such as this probably indicates notability. However, the Engineering Institute of Canada is not the Canadian Academy of Engineering, the national academy for engineering in Canada. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep probably does constitute notability, so a mostly red linked list like this is very appropriate to show the articles needed. As there is a bio sketch on their site for each of them, this should be possible. We obviously need an article on the Institute. And we need a category for the members. The number of fellows is comparable or smaller than the number in the actual national academy. We need both a list and category there also. I note that the overwhelming majority of members of the (US) National Academy of Engineering do not have articles either. DGG (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As above, the Institute is notable, and we should have an article on it as well (or maybe move this there to get things started?) The list of members is long, but not so long as to be completely unwieldy (only 30k). This is not an indiscriminate grouping, but rather a specific listing of prominent professionals. Cool3 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I believe (and may be corrected) that all previous !votes have not recognised that Current practice is to elect up to twenty Fellows annually. This means that each table row ought to have 20 or so entries. Currently this article does not. Now, having 20 or so entries per row would be unwieldy, and would also become very much a directory. That the institute may be notable is not at all the same thing as the list of Fellows being notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Edit It seems to be notable but i do think it needs some editing done to it. Cheers Kyle1278 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The (original) Rolling Stones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article about a band that claims to have coined the name "Rolling Stones" before the more famous band used it. No third-party references to support that claim, and this band has no claim to notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't seem to have been a notable band then or now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND T-95 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I found this "original+rolling+stones"&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA352,M1 about a British group that registered its name in 1957, I found nothing in Google books about Kitson "Kit" Keen, nor about a connection between Mick Morris and a group called the Stones, nor anything that supports the claims on the websites linked within the article. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Psst! Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … and your search string was "original rolling stones", I notice. The band's name was, it is claimed, "The Rolling Stones". No "original". Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's one of the few search strings that turned up anything, and it was something different than what's on this page. I also searched under "Mick Morris" and stones, "Mick Morris" and rolling, and "Kitson Keen", "Kit Keen", etc. I would love to find something else besides Mick Morris's website that supports this. Needless to say, a lot has been written about the Rolling Stones and I can't find anything else online to corroborate what's on mickmorris.com. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jack Castle album sleeve notes check out. As does the "Kent Gigs guide". They are both cited in the article. Have a look at them. (They are both part of the same outfit, however, note. Also observe that there is a distinct possibility that their information on this subject originates solely with Mick Morris, and that they aren't independent sources.) Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's one of the few search strings that turned up anything, and it was something different than what's on this page. I also searched under "Mick Morris" and stones, "Mick Morris" and rolling, and "Kitson Keen", "Kit Keen", etc. I would love to find something else besides Mick Morris's website that supports this. Needless to say, a lot has been written about the Rolling Stones and I can't find anything else online to corroborate what's on mickmorris.com. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mandsford. There are no sources to verify what Mick Morris' website said. Searches for various key terms and the members' names turned up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind me responding to some of the points made - and I hope I'm doing it in the right place this time! As I said before, I'm very new to all this and find it quite mind boggling!
First regarding 'notability', my contention is not that the band is notable but that because of the name, the article itself is. As regards Jack Castle, there is a connection but not the one being suggested. Mick Morris and Jack Castle were both members of another British band, Mirkwood, in the 1970s. In the sleeve notes to his recent album, Jack is recalling an earlier time when on several occasions he was present in the audience at performances by the Dover-based Rolling Stones. On this subject, it may be worth mentioning that the 'Mirkwood' album has been re-released for international distribution several times betwen 1992 and 2007 and that there references are made to Mick Morris' membership of both bands in the accompanying booklets, sleeve and liner notes. The record companies referred to are 10th Planet Records, Amber Soundroom, Thor's Hammer and Red Admiral. Whilst writing, I would appreciate it if someone could advise me as to whether the correspondence from Southern Television executives confirming the band's TV appearances would be considered a reliable source or indeed photographic evidence from the show. Mainmiguel (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The band must be notable itself. If it is interesting in a members past it should just be mentioned in that article. The band clearly does not meet WP:Band--Sabrebd (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to public image of Sarah Palin. BJTalk 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parodies of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article appears to be a POV fork of public image of Sarah Palin. It offers little information that has not been better presented elsewhere and only serves to cast the subject in a degrading light. Perhaps a merge would also be an option.Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. First, the article cites surveys of parodies of Palin ("Palin Parodies Flood the Web", Washington Times [sic], "The Palin Parodists", Newsweek): WP has not developed the concept of parodies of Palin by "OS" but instead acknowledges others' observations that, fairly or unfairly, she has generated an unusual amount of parody. Thus this article has a real subject matter.
This article a content fork? While parodies are clearly related to public image, they're only one part of it at best and they're arguably not part of but merely complementary to it. So in principle, no. And in practice? It's odd to claim this is a POV fork, as the public image article says very little indeed about parodies -- as is proper, for it must present stuff about opinion polls, crowd sizes and so forth.
"Degrading" is an absurdly strong term to apply to article's concise descriptions. As for what's described, "degrading" doesn't start to describe the anodyne content of the mass-market stuff (Tina Fey, etc) described in the article; and as for the narrowcast material, while Benincasa (for example) has made no secret of her dislike of Palin, even here "degrading" seems a great exaggeration.
The nominator of this AfD has, over the
monthsweeks, doggedly opposed a number of the ingredients of the article, and weeks ago was muttering about taking it to AfD; see Talk:Parodies of Sarah Palin, where you can read these objections and the counterarguments made to them: fairly strong counterarguments, I believe, though as one of the counterarguers I'm hardly the best judge. -- Hoary (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC) one word amended Hoary (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By some elements, Hoary no doubt means the pornographic "parody" which he absolutely refuses to let me remove from this article, which, yes, I feel is degrading and unnecessary. Bonewah (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not at all what I mean, and the "no doubt" within it is stunning. Bonewah hardly represents what has been going on. I have expressed a personal desire to get rid of the porn stuff (although for reasons other than Bonewah's), I've expressed no more than grudging acceptance of others' arguments to keep it, Bonewah has raised objections to two other discrete sections of this article (and agreed with an objection to a fourth discrete section), I have agreed with one of his objections and removed that section. Or the same in diffs: Bonewah objects to description of the porn flick, Bonewah amplifies the objection. After strong arguments for its retention by Evb-wiki (not me), far from absolutely refusing to let Bonewah remove it, I say I think it should go. After considering what Evb-wiki writes, I reluctantly agree that it should stay. (There's much more about the porn, a large percentage of it by Bonewah. See the talk page if interested.) Bonewah agrees with another editor's objection to the poster at the top, Bonewah demands a reason for the inclusion of a section about a This Modern World strip, Bonewah objects to something from Doonesbury, I agree with Bonewah's objections to the Doonesbury section and (since nobody has defended it) announce that I have removed it. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm looking at this article against Public image of Sarah Palin, and I'm leaning on the side of proper content fork. I don't think this was created to highlight one POV, or remove it; it's a {{seealso}} in the "public image" article. Hell, one could argue, to non-Alaskans, that the parodies are the most notable aspect of her. I don't know... but I think that this is a proper above-board spinout Sceptre (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sceptre. Its inclusion into Public image of Sarah Palin would make that article too big, and the split looks fine per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong
DeleteMerge WP:BLP and WP:ATP both come to mind. Wikipedia articles should not be a list of "everything that makes you think this person is stupid or ridiculous." Parodies are by definition things that make a person look bad, and collecting them solely on one page creates a page that only serves to contain negative material about the subject. I quote directly from the BLP policy: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating" commentary about people, however notable. The speedy deletion of Criticism of Barack Obama set a precedent that even legitimate criticism of a notable figure should not be collected on a one-sided page. Parodies certainly deserve less consideration. RayTalk 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I should point out that parody is not always negative; take for example, the numerous "abridged series" on YouTube. While they do poke fun at the source material, they poke fun for comedy, not poke fun to attack. Conversely, criticism is 99.99% of the time, outside of the arts, negative. Comparing parody and criticism is like comparing apples and oranges. To apply my argument to this article: the Sara Benincasa vlogs. Obersvational comedy, not an attack. Hence why I'm !voting against my usual vote: because this is an acceptable spinout article. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I pointed out in an earlier discussion that criticism need not always be negative, and you replied that it is overwhelmingly so. My impression is that parodies tend negative far more than criticism does, and criticism in a separate spinout page is already deemed unacceptable. RayTalk 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On balance, parodies actually tend to average out in opinion. Where you'll get scathing parodies, you'll also get affectionate parodies. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that, but I think we've pretty much put our positions out there. Let's let other editors have a say. One thing you can be sure of: if this article is kept, given the state of political tensions, a "Parodies of Barack Obama" page will go up. RayTalk 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on how many parodies there are: a small amount compared to his public image as a whole can be dealt with in the public image, but when the parodies are the most notable thing about the public image (as is the case with Palin, arguably), then it may be time to think about spinning out. Simple. Sceptre (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the argument that the most notable thing about Palin's public image are pardodies to be absurd, especially considering how short the parodies article actually is. Seriously, does anyone really think that a "parodies of Barack Obama" article that featured a porn flick would be acceptable? I dont, and I dont see why Palin is any different. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone not from the US, most of the stuff I knew about Palin was that stuff she did was a bit funny and was thusly parodied. Still, tell me when Who's Ridin' Biden? comes out. Sceptre (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the argument that the most notable thing about Palin's public image are pardodies to be absurd, especially considering how short the parodies article actually is. Seriously, does anyone really think that a "parodies of Barack Obama" article that featured a porn flick would be acceptable? I dont, and I dont see why Palin is any different. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nothing against the idea of a "Parodies of Barack Obama" article. If there were reliable sources for a porn film that played off his image and that had convincing claims to be [an attempt at] a parody, I wouldn't express objections to the inclusion in that article of a description of the film. (Inwardly, I'd object, for the same reasons that I objected to the inclusion of this flick in the Palin parody article: see its talk page.) I'd argue against a "Criticism of Sarah Palin" article: if criticism is mere moaning or silly talk about her accent, choice of clothes, accent, then it's unremarkable and can be skipped (unless perhaps this "criticism" itself becomes discussed by RS); if on the other hand it's substantive (and sourced, etc etc), it should be summarized as appropriate and be integrated within the most appropriate article, probably the main article about her. (Likewise "Praise for [politician]".) -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on how many parodies there are: a small amount compared to his public image as a whole can be dealt with in the public image, but when the parodies are the most notable thing about the public image (as is the case with Palin, arguably), then it may be time to think about spinning out. Simple. Sceptre (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that, but I think we've pretty much put our positions out there. Let's let other editors have a say. One thing you can be sure of: if this article is kept, given the state of political tensions, a "Parodies of Barack Obama" page will go up. RayTalk 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On balance, parodies actually tend to average out in opinion. Where you'll get scathing parodies, you'll also get affectionate parodies. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I pointed out in an earlier discussion that criticism need not always be negative, and you replied that it is overwhelmingly so. My impression is that parodies tend negative far more than criticism does, and criticism in a separate spinout page is already deemed unacceptable. RayTalk 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that parody is not always negative; take for example, the numerous "abridged series" on YouTube. While they do poke fun at the source material, they poke fun for comedy, not poke fun to attack. Conversely, criticism is 99.99% of the time, outside of the arts, negative. Comparing parody and criticism is like comparing apples and oranges. To apply my argument to this article: the Sara Benincasa vlogs. Obersvational comedy, not an attack. Hence why I'm !voting against my usual vote: because this is an acceptable spinout article. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 17:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect back to Public image of Sarah Palin where it belongs. As RayAYang says, the precedent is clear. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Back into public image of Sarah Palin, since her public image was heavily redefined by the parodists (more than any other VP candidate in recent history). Pastor Theo (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the main reason not to merge would be to keep the relatively serious discussions in the main article free of this sort of material. But in general we do not do this, because it is intrinsically a POV fork. There are a few cases where we do need to quietly do such forks, because of either the extent of material or other factors. I don't think this is exceptional enough. It might become so, if she should again be a serious candidate for a similar national office, or receive a Nobel Peace Prize, or something of the sort. We can wait till then. If we do divide, it should be on medium, not literary form--it's a more objective criterion. DGG (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The satirical image of Sarah Palin is now quite different from the real image of Sarah Palin and has itself become a notable topic of public discourse, e.g. with discussion about the quality of different parodies of her. Cs32en 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Cs32en that the parodic Palin has taken on a life of its own, a life that is unlikely to fade anytime soon since Palin is being touted as a potential Presidential candidate in 2012. I'd like to see this article stress more strongly the phenomenon of Palin as the target of parody (not simply the parodies themselves), othwerwise I see no problem with such a well-researched article on such an obviously notable subject. Pinkville (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if one accepts that parodies of Palin is a notable topic, that does not necessarily mean that there should be a separate article on the subject. As Ray said above, criticisms of X person can be notable but still not be acceptable for their own article. Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The parodic Palin has taken on a life of its own, and for that reason, a separate article is called for. Pinkville (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't understand this argument. The parodic version of anybody takes on a certain life of its own after a while (I've read that Peter Lorre did a really amusing imitation of Peter Lorre imitators); but that is irrelevant to the forking issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The parodic version of anybody takes on a certain life of its own after a while. Well, I can't agree with that. Regardless, did Peter Lorre's "routines" receive critical notice? Did they have an impact beyond his own living room (and a passing mention in a film history book)? If so, maybe they should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The parodic Palin is a significant phenomenon, the phenomenon itself has received significant notice, and the prospects are for more of the same. It seems to me it's a subject in its own right, not merely and only an element of her public image. Pinkville (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't understand this argument. The parodic version of anybody takes on a certain life of its own after a while (I've read that Peter Lorre did a really amusing imitation of Peter Lorre imitators); but that is irrelevant to the forking issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The parodic Palin has taken on a life of its own, and for that reason, a separate article is called for. Pinkville (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if one accepts that parodies of Palin is a notable topic, that does not necessarily mean that there should be a separate article on the subject. As Ray said above, criticisms of X person can be notable but still not be acceptable for their own article. Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cs32en & Pinkville & especially Sceptre. This is a proper NPOV content fork. Parody is distinct clearly from image. For the record, this article was merged with "public image" at least once before [23] [24] but the parodies were promptly deleted form "public image" [25] after being whittled down as insignificant. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect back to Public image of Sarah Palin where it belongs. As OrangeMike correctly points outs the precedent is pretty is clear. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmt - I think the assertion of precedent here is misplaced. Wikipedia is not a court of common law. The fact that similar articles exist or don't exist is largely irrelevant. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We may not be governed by common law, be we are governed by common sense, which tells me that if other very similar articles are considered to be POV forks, then this article is likely to be a POV fork as well. At a minimum, the same thinking should apply, which tells me that the title of the article encourages a certain POV in almost exactly the same way 'criticisms of' encourages POV. Bonewah (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed the same thinking should apply. For whatever reason the WP treatment of Palin is often compared with that of Obama. I'm sure that there are parodies of Obama but they don't yet seem to have gained wide attention. Certainly I am not aware of any attempt so far to create an article Parodies of Barack Obama. I'm sure that during his presidency there will be parodies of Obama that are written up in the newspapers, etc; when this happens -- when reliable sources emerge for the new subject of parodies of Obama or a parody-Obama -- then anyone who cares to create Parodies of Barack Obama in accordance with WP policies should be welcome to do so. Veep candidates are rather often parodied during their campaigns and if this is hardly mentioned in the WP articles on most of them I'd put this down to WP's "recentism". ¶ (When we go further back, WP's political bios become bizarre: Pitt was (like his great rival Fox) vigorously satirized within the popular print culture of which James Gillray is the best-known exponent, yet the section of the Pitt article about pop culture completely ignores this despite having enough space for the description of recent minor films.) ¶ "Criticism" is a rather different matter. The word can cover anything ranging from jibes by AM radio blowhards to reasoned books by Nobel prize-winners; the former do not strike me as encyclopedic until they are discussed in the mainstream press, whereas the latter may well merit inclusion in the main article or relevant sub-article ("Economic policies of the Clinton administration" or whatever). Anyway an encyclopedia article should evaluate the achievements (or lack thereof) of a president or veep, and I believe that, of course via RS, it should also describe the appeal (or lack thereof) of a candidate for president or veep. No supplementary article on criticism (or praise) of the person should be necessary. ¶ All of this is what my own "common sense" tells me; our common senses may of course differ. -- Hoary (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really think this type of entry is a good idea, then what about this [26]? I would argue that it should get exactly the same attention and be given the same weight as "Who's Nailin Palin" since it is the sequel produced by the same company,starring the same actors, and dealing with the same subject. Personally, I don't think any of the "parodies of", "public image of", "criticisms of", etc. articles are anything more than POV forks. However, if these are going to be created then the rules should apply equally to all public figures. Either remove the "Parodies of Sarah Palin" or create a "Parodies of Barack Obama" using the identical sources that mention both the "Who's Nailin Palin" video and the "Obama's Nailin Palin" videos. Wperdue (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Again this conflation of parodies and criticism, and now with public image thrown in for good measure. I believe I separated parodies from criticism in the message to which you purport to resopond. What was wrong with this part of my argument? ¶ So, the Palin porn flick, yet again. (This has never been of interest to me, and I rather resent having to think of it yet again.) It is briefly summarized in the article not because it is notable in any normal sense of the word but because it appears to be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense: it made the news. Is Obama is Nailin' Palin "notable", and can it be written up from RS? If so, then anybody interested is welcome to create the article. I'm not interested, but I'm no less interested than I am in the first flick. ¶ You think Parodies of Sarah Palin should have the counterpart Parodies of Barack Obama? Then go ahead and create it. Offhand, I can't think of anything to put in it aside from (perhaps) Flynt's aid to male masturbation to which you linked, but I may very well be underinformed about Obama parodies (for one thing, I'm not in the US). ¶ A lot of these objections to an article on "Parodies of Sarah Palin" seem to me to blame some bias within/of Wikipedia for the uneven distribution of parody (loosely defined). The simple fact is that Palin attracted it far more conspicuously (and, I'd guess, attracted far more of it) than did any other US politician during the last election cycle. Palin herself implicitly acknowledged its significance when she commented on and gamely participated in the SNL treatment. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really think this type of entry is a good idea, then what about this [26]? I would argue that it should get exactly the same attention and be given the same weight as "Who's Nailin Palin" since it is the sequel produced by the same company,starring the same actors, and dealing with the same subject. Personally, I don't think any of the "parodies of", "public image of", "criticisms of", etc. articles are anything more than POV forks. However, if these are going to be created then the rules should apply equally to all public figures. Either remove the "Parodies of Sarah Palin" or create a "Parodies of Barack Obama" using the identical sources that mention both the "Who's Nailin Palin" video and the "Obama's Nailin Palin" videos. Wperdue (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Yes indeed the same thinking should apply. For whatever reason the WP treatment of Palin is often compared with that of Obama. I'm sure that there are parodies of Obama but they don't yet seem to have gained wide attention. Certainly I am not aware of any attempt so far to create an article Parodies of Barack Obama. I'm sure that during his presidency there will be parodies of Obama that are written up in the newspapers, etc; when this happens -- when reliable sources emerge for the new subject of parodies of Obama or a parody-Obama -- then anyone who cares to create Parodies of Barack Obama in accordance with WP policies should be welcome to do so. Veep candidates are rather often parodied during their campaigns and if this is hardly mentioned in the WP articles on most of them I'd put this down to WP's "recentism". ¶ (When we go further back, WP's political bios become bizarre: Pitt was (like his great rival Fox) vigorously satirized within the popular print culture of which James Gillray is the best-known exponent, yet the section of the Pitt article about pop culture completely ignores this despite having enough space for the description of recent minor films.) ¶ "Criticism" is a rather different matter. The word can cover anything ranging from jibes by AM radio blowhards to reasoned books by Nobel prize-winners; the former do not strike me as encyclopedic until they are discussed in the mainstream press, whereas the latter may well merit inclusion in the main article or relevant sub-article ("Economic policies of the Clinton administration" or whatever). Anyway an encyclopedia article should evaluate the achievements (or lack thereof) of a president or veep, and I believe that, of course via RS, it should also describe the appeal (or lack thereof) of a candidate for president or veep. No supplementary article on criticism (or praise) of the person should be necessary. ¶ All of this is what my own "common sense" tells me; our common senses may of course differ. -- Hoary (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We may not be governed by common law, be we are governed by common sense, which tells me that if other very similar articles are considered to be POV forks, then this article is likely to be a POV fork as well. At a minimum, the same thinking should apply, which tells me that the title of the article encourages a certain POV in almost exactly the same way 'criticisms of' encourages POV. Bonewah (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmt - I think the assertion of precedent here is misplaced. Wikipedia is not a court of common law. The fact that similar articles exist or don't exist is largely irrelevant. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. The extent to which Ms. Palin has been parodied is notable, but whether it's intentional or not, pulling all of these parodies out into a stand alone article has the effect of creating a POV fork. Merging this back into the public image article will make it easier to not only maintain balance, but to maintain the appearance of balance. EastTN (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmt - If "maintaining balance, or maintaining the appearance of balance," means removing all mention of the notable parodies (as it has apparently meant in the past), I am firmly against it. However, if the article is to be merged and the contents maintained in a contextual balance, I only weakly oppose the merger. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never suggested that we remove "all mention of the notable parodies." What I do support is the proposal to merge them back in with the main article on the public image of Sarah Palin. I'm a firm believer that the best way to maintain balance is to keep things in context - and the context for these parodies is the broader public image of this candidate. EastTN (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmt - If "maintaining balance, or maintaining the appearance of balance," means removing all mention of the notable parodies (as it has apparently meant in the past), I am firmly against it. However, if the article is to be merged and the contents maintained in a contextual balance, I only weakly oppose the merger. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple reliable sources covering the specific topic-- parodies of Sarah Palin. Hoary cites some above: (Palin Parodies Flood the Web, The Palin Parodists, Newsweek) Blazingly "Notable" in Wikispeak. So, Where's the beef? Dekkappai (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here, as stated at the outset of this discussion, is POV fork, not notability. Bonewah (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, if the topic of the article actually is notable, wouldn't it be a POV merge not to fork it out? Cs32en 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. If a subject is obviously notable, and the article is sourced, and as substantial as this one... Assuming all good faith, POV would seem to be the reason for requesting its deletion or merge. There's the beef. Dekkappai (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to be pedantic, parodies in general of Palin have been the subject of secondary sources. Criticisms of people generally are not the subject of secondary sources. Sceptre (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we assume that POV is the only good faith motivation for suggesting a merge? The concern that has been expressed is that this article creates a de facto POV fork. Those of us who've expressed that concern may be mistaken, but it doesn't follow that we're trying to push a POV - especially since those who support a merge generally haven't suggested that anything be deleted. EastTN (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that everyone who wants the article to be merged is arguing from a POV perspective. However, it's possible that some editors would assume that only a fork, not a merge, can be motivated by POV, thus discounting the arguments in favor of a fork as motivated by POV. Cs32en 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we assume that POV is the only good faith motivation for suggesting a merge? The concern that has been expressed is that this article creates a de facto POV fork. Those of us who've expressed that concern may be mistaken, but it doesn't follow that we're trying to push a POV - especially since those who support a merge generally haven't suggested that anything be deleted. EastTN (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to be pedantic, parodies in general of Palin have been the subject of secondary sources. Criticisms of people generally are not the subject of secondary sources. Sceptre (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. If a subject is obviously notable, and the article is sourced, and as substantial as this one... Assuming all good faith, POV would seem to be the reason for requesting its deletion or merge. There's the beef. Dekkappai (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, if the topic of the article actually is notable, wouldn't it be a POV merge not to fork it out? Cs32en 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Jeopardy!. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeopardy! Brain Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a stub article with information that can easily be incorporated into the Jeopardy! audition process article. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Keep if it can be merged into this article, why is it on AfD? T-95 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as permastub, doesn't even bother a merge since there's hardly anything to merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The page that is suggested to merge with has a section on the Bus already, and I just added the picture of the bus.--Iner22 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect Why is this at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DarkScript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It's a mIRC script with no apparent notability. Google search for DarkScript does not come up with anything helpful to the cause (there's a lot of results for the words "Dark Script" mixed up in them, but nothing significant about the script itself). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - As no context or spam self promotion non notable.16x9 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per 16x9. Renaissancee (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article lacks content, references, or any claim to notability. Dialectric (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeopardy! broadcast history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article contains non-encyclopedic information, random snippets of trivia (including winning scores on premiere episodes) and reads like a book report. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Huge trivia dump, any relevant information should already be summarized in the Jeopardy! article. This is not at all like the Pyramid franchise, which doesn't summarize nearly as easily due to its myriad (which is almost an anagram of pyramid) versions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Though it needs cleanup, it's really just a split of the show's history from the already lengthy main Jeopardy! article. At the very least merge the section on the original 1964-1975 show into Jeopardy!#Other versions (and perhaps reorganize this into a "History" section), as there appears to be little to no information about the original show in the main article, unlike the various 1970's versions of the show. BryanG (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - At worst, the relevant, sourced content should be merged into the main Jeopardy! article. But given the length of that article, this separate article is appropriate (although, as BryanG says, it ought to be cleaned up, but that is no reason to delete). Rlendog (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Reads very much like a fansite. Hosts, announcers and networks are already listed in the main article's infobox. No need to reference background/history in a separate article as it's already discussed in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sottolacqua (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 May 2009
- Note to closing admin: this user is the nominator, see [27]. Note to Sottolacqua: it's generally considered bad form to add bolded !votes to an AfD you began, it's implicit that you want the article deleted as the nominator. Additional comments are fine, of course. BryanG (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and reverse merge (that is, split out) content from the main Jeopardy! article to this one. The Jeopardy! article is alredy tagged as being too long, and there's no reason that a long-running show like Jeopardy! shouldn't have such an article, which is very akin to the "Current TV show season N+1" genre of articles. No reason it shouldn't be cleaned up and/or sourced. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 3 May 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. The consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Andreas Arestidou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
prod declined as article had previously been deleted via same method. Footballer who has not yet played a professional match so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails broader WP:N guideline. Recreate article only if he plays in a professional match. Stu.W UK (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 00:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN as lack of a game between two fully professional clubs in league fixture -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, as he hasn't participated in any professional game. Cheers. I'mperator 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eurocontact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Corporation. Although Google returns over 100,000 hits, many results are not germane to the topic. Cheers. 13:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I'mperator 13:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it has been twice before, speedily. Fails WP:CORP. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Eurocontact delivers food processing equipment and machines to Poland's biggest supermarkets. Looks like a non-consumer business serving a very limited customer base to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If it is so important, why doesn't it have an article on Polish Wikipedia? Seems dubious... Plus its full of WP:PEACOCK: "Slawomir Kosmalski, a famous polish engineer"... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alistair Day-Stirrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE. Lithuanian national cricket side is not notable. No evidence of particular notability outside of this, to show passing WP:BIO. Dweller (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A gsearch failed to find notable mention (I added the mentions I found to the talk page, but they are all of the "mentioned in passing" type, in my opinion). --Alvestrand (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Lithuanian national side is not a member of the ICC so has never played any official internationals. Either way, no reliable sources are provided, indeed there are no sources provided at all. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete provided that the claim 'he helped bring cricket to Lithuania' proves unfounded, and thus he is not notable even as an ambassador of the game, then I would say delete. SGGH ping! 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - just non notable Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 April 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. Frank | talk 16:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Justin Rascati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE, af2 is semi-proffesional Delete Secret account 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE:
- fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. Nope. af2 isn't professional at all.
- competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. Didn't even make it, as He had a tryout with the Chicago Bears of the National Football League (NFL) and the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football League (CFL), but neither team chose to sign him. (from the article). Cheers. I'mperator 13:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete af2 not fully professional.--Giants27 T/C 19:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, due to not meeting WP:BIO, not due to not meeting WP:ATHLETE. WP:ATHLETE is an additional (more lenient) criteria, which decreases notability standards. Strikehold (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, based on same grounds stated by Strikehold. I find no non-trivial coverage for Rascati after doing both a Newsbank and a google news search. Cbl62 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 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. The only "keep" opinion to address the article (instead of procedural arguments), while a valid opinion, was not sufficient (in strength of argument or in numbers for those who prefer a votecount) against the consensus of other editors about this article. Fram (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyprus–Kenya relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
another laughable combination from the obsessive creator. only 2 minor agreements between the 2 nations [28]. Google news search doesn't show much either [29] LibStar (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly yourself. If the centralised discussion produces any guidelines (it may not) with sufficient detail to affect borderline cases such as this one (very unlikely), then these guidelines will be based on the results of this discussion and similar discussions. (I am putting this above GeorgeLouis' admonishment because obviously it applies to my response as well. I am still using this language, because it's better than openly assuming bad faith, which is what I am really inclined to do seeing this nonsense in dozens of AfDs.) --Hans Adler (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't be silly" is really a rude way to address a fellow editor. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I agree these AfDs should be put on hold until the outcome of that discussion. With almost 200 countries on the planet there is a potential number of almost 20,000 articles of this sort. There is no need to bring 17,500 of them through here. Let there be a decision made about which ones should be included and go from there. This is similar to which roads should be included. These articles are not actively harmful in the meantime like a lot of these articles for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suggest putting this AfD on "hold" until the decision comes out...Cheers, I'mperator 13:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have any of you three actually looked at this article? What exactly do you expect to gain by putting this "on hold"? Do you suppose that the decision in that little discussion is going to be "delete all" or "keep all"? The fact is that it has been nominated, and nobody so far has cited anything significant about a relationship between the Mediterranean island of Cyprus and the central African nation of Kenya. Delaying the inevitable will not make it less inevitable. Mandsford (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as yet another random bilateral pairing failing to assert notability. - Biruitorul Talk 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Random pairing, non-notable cruft. Dahn (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. A very small number of editors discussing the notability does not make all AFDs automatic "Keeps" while the debate the issue. Considerable harm is done every day unencyclopedic articles are left on Wikipedia, because their presence just encourages more such trivial pairings: "Recipes with spinach and eggplant" "Movies with actor X and actor Y" "People from country X who live in country Y". "Baseball games where X pitched to Y." Edison (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would point out that there have been some meetings between the two 4-day visit by President Moi to Cyprus in 2001 but that more recently, there hasn't been much progress as of 2008 great expectations. Interestingly, it appears that a number of British soldiers served in both Cyprus and Kenya during the uprisings in both former colonies during the 1950s and 1960s; as with Panama and Iraq, however, one can be a veteran of special ops in both places without there having been any relation between the two nations. Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources discuss this alleged relationship in any non-trivial depth. As to the "hold of" people; i largel agree with Hans. AfD is the place to evaluate the merits of inclusion, and we have guidelines and policies to help us already, most importantly verifiability and GGN.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Keep per Reinoutr. Traditionally, no efforts have been made to find sources before the AfDs, in violation of WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Ikip (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- my original nomination has performed a google news search so WP:BEFORE has been applied. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Efforts have been made in this case and still come up short. Sources, please, if you think this is worth keeping. - Biruitorul Talk 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Cyprus has a high commission in Nairobi. = Embassy -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Already recorded in the embassy lists. Barring significant mention in independent sources, we must delete. - Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. BJTalk 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Luxembourg–Vietnam relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
another random combination, no resident embassies. statements like this show the vagueness of relations http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/nr040807104143/nr040807105001/ns080312090247 LibStar (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly yourself. If the centralised discussion produces any guidelines (it may not) with sufficient detail to affect borderline cases such as this one (very unlikely), then these guidelines will be based on the results of this discussion and similar discussions. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no third-party sources to indicate any notability whatsoever. - Biruitorul Talk 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with fire Another article on nothing whatsoever. Dahn (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The material in the ref given by the nominator shows notability,--Im referring to all the items listed there, not jsutthe headline. DGG (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, that's great. Maybe now I can finally start a website about my cat, and use it as a source on a wikipedia about my cat. Sure, it will be a primary source, but it will be enough to attest its own notability. Right? Also, I'll make sure to mention the effectiveness of the multi-faceted cooperation between my cat and another cat, so nobody could say it lacks content "beyond the headline". Dahn (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the test that I am applying to these articles is that there are significant bilateral relations, which are important to the two countries, and which can be reliably sourced. This is the case. Here, Vietnam calls on Luxembourg to support its ties with EU and is backing Luxembourg’s candidacy for the post of non-permanent member at the UN Security Council. Here, prior to a state visit, Vietnam is referred to as one of the ten key countries in Luxembourg’s development cooperation program. Here, they are bolstering trade links. Luxembourg provides significant aid to Vietnam, here. The countries have agreed a legal framework to facilitate business ties, here. Vietnam has become Luxembourg’s largest aid recipient, here. Smile a While (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Smile a While's sources meet the general notability guidelines. This is not just a puff relationship (although all relationships have some puff). A variety of interactions documented in reliable sources shows a significant relationship. Cool3 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly enough references from various sources. Bastin 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Keep per above. Ikip (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This relationship is of so little value to the states involved that they don't bother to maintain an ambassador in each other's capitals. None of the sources provided rise above the trivial, and none of the independent ones discuss this relationship as a thing in itself. Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Most of the refs are sourced to the Vietnamese government, which does not appear to satisfy the "independent" part of "reliable and independent sources" needed to satisfy notability. Where are reliable third party sources writing about this "relationship?" Edison (talk) 06:24, 5 May 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. Frank | talk 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Severe asthmatic cystic respiratory fibromyalgia distress disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research, unsourced. Brianga (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to have been written someone looking for medical information. It admits that it doesn't describe a real disease, and the whole thing is original research and highly unencyclopedic. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:OR. Deor (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not to be too pedantic, but the criterion is WP:NOT#OR rather than WP:OR itself - but the article fails it, whatever its abbreviation. Tevildo (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be too pedantic, but WP:OR (that is, Wikipedia:No original research) is the official WP policy page on the matter. Deor (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this page will be orphaned soon.Point 1 for Delete: With a name like Severe asthmatic cystic respiratory fibromyalgia distress disorder it isn't going to be visited by anyone, making it orphaned. Point 2: This page is just a medical book explanation. Point 3: Who notable enough to be on Wikipedia has had it? Point 4: Is it actually a notable disorder in its own right? Yes, I know this is a long one, but it doesn't really tick any boxes. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Re-read it, and it just looks like a diary entry made into an article, and the disorder doesn't actually exist. "He has condition X". That means it will never be ready to put on this encyclopaedia anyway. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - made up one day, "not yet" recognized by science. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Alternatively, redirect to Münchausen syndrome by proxy. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as totally and avowedly unencyclopedic unsourced essay. Possibly SNOW. DGG (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. WP:SNOW anyone? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I see no reason to think it's a hoax, but it's absolutely unsourced original research, suitable for a blog or discussion forum maybe, but not for an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rock and roll bed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
challenged prod. Unencyclopedic neologism RadioFan (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article constitutes nothing but a term that isn't even commonly used by people. Cheers. I'mperator 13:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A what? A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Toss in a mild bit of WP:Advert and some salt and you can make a stew. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 18:20, 1 May 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 boldly closed and redirected (merge anything usable) - this article has little chance of survival, being so undeveloped: in other words, it's not a fair fight. Redirect to 2009 New York City airplane scare, (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York City airplane scare). –xeno talk 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 New York plane scare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Extremely short article about an event which will likely not gain any more attention. Not much chance of being encyclopedic. RadioFan (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the nominator's reasoning. Cordovao (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references. Possible hoax. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it was reported nationally so it's not a hoax. However, it's not something that is going to receive any more attention and is not encyclopedic.--RadioFan (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly not a notable event -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - this has no "historical notability". JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Heights(Want to talk?) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2009 New York City airplane scare. — Matt Crypto 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York City airplane scare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jasodhara global media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable media company. No sources and specific information. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Article says that it is a subsidiary of a larger conglomerate: Jasodhara Global Media is part of the Jasodhara Group founded in 1983. The subject might be covered in an article about the group, if the parent corporation itself is notable; no opinion there yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Part of a WP:Walled garden with Jasodhara and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Pradhan, all of which are spammy promo pages for non-notable company and its owner. MuffledThud (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP. Ironic that this global media company doesn't seem to have even a homepage, or any web presence outside wikipedia. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abecedare (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedians, I appreciate the need for more references to make an article better. However, confining references to the web only definitely shows lack of foresight and wisdom. India is a country that is still far from being webbed substantially to trace every references on it. A true encyclopaedia must reflect facts that can be traced from all sources i.e, print sources, web sources, people and culture etc PiyushsaoPiyushsao —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 5 May 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. Frank | talk 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- بلوک7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy declined, thus fails COMPANY. No third party sources in this article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you consider apartment buildings to be part of WP:COMPANY? I could agree to a speedy delete claim based on lack of cotent or context, but I'm not sure how this one applies. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are no external links and few Google search terms. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete you're not going to get much searching on the title (just means "Block 7"), but it's part of a Tehran apartment complex which itself appears non-notable (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). cab (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is English not Arabic Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ditto Stifle. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stifle and cab. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stifle and cab. Renaissancee (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per cab and Stifle. (yes, breaking the sameness). Tavix | Talk 00:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tavix, please behave and fall in line, or I'm changing my vote and then there will be no snow. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Stifle and cab per. :P Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable --Taranet (talk) 16:09, 30 April 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. Frank | talk 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghv3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely unsourced rumour about upcoming Madonna album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Yintaɳ 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete enough said. C.U.T.K.D T | C 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After figuring out what the author was trying to say (there is some atrocious spelling there), I worked out that it fails Wp:CRYSTAL and Wp:RS (if it was said on Twitter, it must be true ;)). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails all applicable policies -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a bloody Crystal ball. 'nough said. Cheers. I'mperator 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cate mackenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Several issues: Article appears to be purely promotional in nature and therefore would seem to breach WP:SPAM (Note that previous incarnations under different titles were deleted for being direct copyvio from subject's own site). Article offers no references to support assertions of notability and coverage, and therefore would seem to breach WP:V. Article subject does not appear to meet BIO criteria for notability under WP:CREATIVE or other BIO notability guidelines (no asserted significant works, secondary coverage, etc. Google News search returns nothing. Google search only returns what appear to be primary/self-promotional sources). Also, while it's possibly not strictly relevant to AfD question, is possibly worth noting that submitting editor also is possibly a SPA with apparent COI issues. Guliolopez (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as unnotable subject and protect against re-creation. . .Rcawsey (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Probably not eligible for an A7 as there's an assertion of notability, but there's no evidence of actual notability. Tevildo (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google news are not an academic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilnovy (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing notable that can be verified Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Per A7: Subject might exist but there is no indication whatsoever to indicate any inclusion-worthiness. SoWhy 10:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Sach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Suspected hoax, in any case doesn't pass the general notability guideline (notability is not inherited). Since his father met his current wife in 2002-2003, that would make the subject 6 years old at best. Would have speedied but hoaxes are excluded. MLauba (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Obvious hoaxes can be speedied under G3, and people with no real assertion of importance under A7. I think, based on nominator's research, either criterion can apply. RayTalk 09:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Speedy - obvious hoax, user contribs are telltale. MLauba (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Frank | talk 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pakistanis in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is already an article for Pakistani diaspora, which is what this falls under. The information could also be placed under the broader topics of the current U.S. occupation in the region, or the effects of sectarian violence there. It doesn't support its own article. NMChico24 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pakistani diaspora, as there currently aren't enough sources to support a full-scale article. No prejudice against breaking it out into a separate article when enough information materializes. RayTalk 09:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as nominator is not suggesting deletion but rather a merge, and because with the two countries right next to each other, there is going to be some disaspora. I see nothing wrong with the article as it is a stub with the potential to grow. Tavix | Talk 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now cites multiple on-topic sources, more available offline (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). cab (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable topic, article has been improved. PirateSmackK (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable topic. Why are so many dozens of ethnic groups articles (including very notable ones) being proposed for deletion? Badagnani (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seems to be a lot of Pakistani people in Afghanistan, so that makes it a notable enough topic. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 19:38, 28 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doughman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable local event. ghits:[30]—NMChico24 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N and also appears to be a spamvertisement. ThemFromSpace 08:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Local news event, not enough real coverage to constitute notability. Very spammy, too. RayTalk 09:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 09:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are millions of these kinds of events happening everywhere. Simply NN. C.U.T.K.D T | C 10:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maílín Ó Maol Chonaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
ProD contested because "historical figure". As far as I can tell from the article and Google, he is some high-level clerk whose name can be found on one important document as the scribe. He has not done anything important, we know nothing about him, he has not played any role in history except writing down an agreement between two notable people. Google:[31], GOogle books[32], GOogle scholar[33]. Fails WP:BIO by a very wide margin. Fram (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. RayTalk 09:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 09:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability - just because he lived a long time ago, we know his name and he played a meagre part in something historic. Unless... there's more to him not yet presented here, of course. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. BJTalk 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Denmark–New Zealand relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. very limited relationship. NZ government says There is a small Danish community in this country, descended from a group of early settlers who came out to clear thick North Island bush in the middle years of last century!!! LibStar (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - other than vague hints the two countries know about each other, there's no evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - high-level visits, bilateral agreements, both are allies of the United States. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) There has been scientific cooperation on environmental research. [34][35] Bearian (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I've added more information and cites. This can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you didn't use primary sources (which in this case breaches WP:GNG) and found sources dealing with the relationship itself, rather than random bits of information you consider to demonstrate its notability. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establish a guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. Luckily a group has started to do that at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations includinga task force specifically to address these issues. Hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out a more appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever sources are used here either breach WP:GNG (primary sources) or WP:SYNTH, using random trivia to construct the appearance of notability where none has been confirmed by reliable secondary sources. - Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid my assessment of this article's potential compared to yours varies enough that we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a subject that is plenty notable and a good faith effort to add sourcing. I have little doubt that plenty more is available. Newspapers, books and journals are chock full of information just like this. The rest remains regular editing. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever sources are used here either breach WP:GNG (primary sources) or WP:SYNTH, using random trivia to construct the appearance of notability where none has been confirmed by reliable secondary sources. - Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establish a guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. Luckily a group has started to do that at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations includinga task force specifically to address these issues. Hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out a more appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is plenty of sourced content on the relationship between these two nations, thus passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability does not exist in a vacuum. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So notability can never be satisfied without sources. You can't just mechanically create 20,000 stubs and hope for someone to establish notability later by seeking reliable source coverage. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOHARM for why that's an invalid argument. - Biruitorul Talk 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The relationships mentioned in the article seem to be not particularly notable, and the sources are largely primary, bordering on original research. Gigs (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no original research in this article as far as I can see. The text is all based on sources which are not Wikipedia editors. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suggest you review WP:GNG, which mandates independent and in-depth coverage of the subject, both of which are lacking here. - Biruitorul Talk 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what that has to do with the claim there is WP:OR in this article, but I'm very familiar with WP:GNG, thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, may I ask how it is that links 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12 manage to fail the "independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG, and how come links 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 fail its "significant coverage" requirement? For someone endorsing an article where at least 11 out of the 12 sources used fail the GNG (it's only that I can't access link 8, but I assume that too fails), you don't seem "very familiar" with them. - Biruitorul Talk 02:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of them are original research. That's what this thread is about. That's the claim I was responding to. Since you seemed to have trouble comprehending that, here is the response again in bold. "There is no original research in this article as far as I can see. The text is all based on sources which are not Wikipedia editors." Unless you'd like to affirm Gig's claim that there is original research in this article, you're going completely off topic to my response and simply repeating your reasons you want this article deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rather tendentious, refusing to answer my points because they're in the "wrong place", but OK, I've reposted them below. - Biruitorul Talk 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - links 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12 fail the "independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG, and links 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 fail its "significant coverage" requirement. I can't access link 8, but I assume that too fails. So we're very far from having an article that even comes close to meeting the GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 02:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- following the considerable improvements by Bearian and avenue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, except that none of the sources are both independent of the subject or provide significant coverage, as required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The relationship between any nation is notable, and if you checked for entries in the newspaper from those countries, you'd surely find plenty of mention. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, precedent establishes pretty clearly that not all bilateral relations are notable, and the burden of proof is on "keep" voters to adduce reliable sources backing their claims, not to make some unfalsifiable appeal regarding the possible existence of sources that may never see the light of day. - Biruitorul Talk 05:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no precedent in wikipedia. That's now how it works. And there are plenty of sources listed in that article, plus the content itself, which indicates it is clearly notable. Dream Focus 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In theory, each new discussion is a clean slate, but for how things really work, see WP:OUTCOMES. Numerous past outcomes have established bilateral relations not to be notable, and if you want to change that, you have a lot of minds to convince. And again, no matter how many times you say the subject is "clearly notable", failing the inclusion of sources in conformity with WP:GNG, it's still not notable. - Biruitorul Talk 05:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no precedent in wikipedia. That's now how it works. And there are plenty of sources listed in that article, plus the content itself, which indicates it is clearly notable. Dream Focus 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, precedent establishes pretty clearly that not all bilateral relations are notable, and the burden of proof is on "keep" voters to adduce reliable sources backing their claims, not to make some unfalsifiable appeal regarding the possible existence of sources that may never see the light of day. - Biruitorul Talk 05:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Along with others, I've found a few independent sources dealing with the topic tangentially or in passing, but I don't believe we have anything that really meets the notability guidelines. -- Avenue (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - article now seems even further improved, with 12 sources to help establish noteability. (sorry for voting twice) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the user has already voted once. - Biruitorul Talk 18:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Embassy in Canberra. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which isn't in New Zealand, and the existence of which is already documented at Diplomatic missions of Denmark. - Biruitorul Talk 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While we are at this, someone should start the article on Latvia-Australia relations. Highly notable, even though presentation is only by a Honorary Consul. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which isn't in New Zealand, and the existence of which is already documented at Diplomatic missions of Denmark. - Biruitorul Talk 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Delete no reliable independent sources discuss this relationship in any depth beyond the trivial. THe article at the moment almost entirely consists of primary sources, and the fact that the second graph is already grasping with "the two have a bilateral agreement on double taxation" indicates the low level of notability here. Generally, when two countries not at war don't have full embassies, it's a sign of a minor, non-notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments above. Ikip (talk) 02:16, 5 May 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 and redirect to Eve Online#Ships. While the opinions are firmly divided by votecount, those wanting to keep the article only have suppositions that sources may be available. However, the article already had an AfD closed as no consensus, and since not one reliable independent source has been added (the one that looks reliable is in fact a blog post), and many of the sources given below are not about EVE Online at all, or not about the spaceships (e.g. "Synthetic Worlds", which is available through Google Books). This means that the delete opinions have more weight since the keep opinions have failed to substantiate their positive (the deletes can't prove a negative, of course). Fram (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spaceships of Eve Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article has been nominated for deletion before and failed to reach consensus. I feel that despite the improvements made, this article is a blatant violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. The article's topic has absolutely no notability in the real world--the contents are only notable within EVE, and primarily of interest to the game's player base. Other, better articles about the spaceships of EVE Online exist on EVE related wikis, and I don't see why we can't have the main article just direct readers to one of those if they have further interest in the topic. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While lists of items etc., are generally to be avoided, per WP:GAMECRUFT point number 6: Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game. Since piloting the ships is basically the mainstay of the game, then as such an article featuring brief notes about the relative ship types should be perfectly acceptable, unlike before which was heavily over-detailed. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 09:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not essential to understanding the game. All the reader needs to know is that there are a variety of different ship sizes, plus t1, t2, and t3. That can be handled in the main article, with a link here for a more detailed explanation. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's the potential for a compromise here. The list could be summarized and merged to the main Eve Online article. This article is short enough (~10k) that it wouldn't really lead to any devastating size issues, especially if it's tightened up a little. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not essential to understanding the game. All the reader needs to know is that there are a variety of different ship sizes, plus t1, t2, and t3. That can be handled in the main article, with a link here for a more detailed explanation. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This reads like a game guide, and has no notability independent of the game itself. If the ships of Eve Online had real world significance outside the game, things might be different. RayTalk 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or merge to Eve Online as compromise: Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, and moreover this entire article lacks WP:THIRDPARTY sources as required by WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:N. I couldn't so much as find the sources. However, it's pretty short, and there might be support that we cover it somewhere. At the main Eve Online article, there would be fewer policy problems with keeping this content. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Millions of people play this game, so any key aspect about it, is valid for an article. If there is enough information to warrant a side article from the main article Eve Online then it should be done. Dream Focus
- So at the risk of flagrantly violating WP:OTHER I'll note that there is no separate article on World of Warcraft classes. Incidentally only about 350k play--I should know, I'm one of them. Again, EVE wiki handles this better than we can or should. All readers need to know from us is that there are a variety of ship sizes and types, and we can give them the link to EVE wiki for more detailed info. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of a subject doesn't automatically justify that of all things it constitutes. If there is insufficient reliably-sourced information, as with this article, then by all means it should be merged with its parent article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. If people want to know every detail on the game, they can find it elsewhere. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Dream and TheChrisD. Ikip (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Would those arguing for keep be happy with a selective merge? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is going to be a merge, it's a full one or nothing. A selective merge removes the whole point of merging. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...How? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be pretty easy to correct it if any information were lost. Merging is not the same as deletion, and you'd always have access to the history in order to make it right. This list is short enough that it would fit pretty well into the main article, or the gameplay of Eve Online article. Randomran (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13,784 bytes is how long it is now. It wouldn't fit. And yes, it is the same as deletion, since no one is likely find their way to the page with the redirect once nothing links to it to begin with, and read the history. There is no reason why it shouldn't have its own page. It is a key part of a notable work of fiction. Dream Focus 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not someone can find their way to the history is of little relevance, and is a technical problem rather than a problem relevant to the inclusion of the content. If the content attribution is there, the attribution is given, and any concern with the difficulty in accessing such credit should be raised elsewhere. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes absolutely no sense at all. Its deleted, plain and simple. There are no links to it. The only way someone would find it would be to search for its title, and then they'd get redirected instantly to another location. A merge is the same as a delete. There is no possible way you are going to copy all that information over to another article, and I find it unlikely even a brief mention of it could be added in somehow. So if you want to delete it, say delete, not merge, because there is no difference here. Dream Focus 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, when a user is redirected to an article, a link appears under the article's title linking to the redirect page. From there, the redirect page's history can be viewed. As for the page's merging, even the smallest amount of content copied over would require the source page to be redirected instead of deleted, for copyright reasons. As I stated, the article has little sourced content, not none. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes absolutely no sense at all. Its deleted, plain and simple. There are no links to it. The only way someone would find it would be to search for its title, and then they'd get redirected instantly to another location. A merge is the same as a delete. There is no possible way you are going to copy all that information over to another article, and I find it unlikely even a brief mention of it could be added in somehow. So if you want to delete it, say delete, not merge, because there is no difference here. Dream Focus 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not someone can find their way to the history is of little relevance, and is a technical problem rather than a problem relevant to the inclusion of the content. If the content attribution is there, the attribution is given, and any concern with the difficulty in accessing such credit should be raised elsewhere. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13,784 bytes is how long it is now. It wouldn't fit. And yes, it is the same as deletion, since no one is likely find their way to the page with the redirect once nothing links to it to begin with, and read the history. There is no reason why it shouldn't have its own page. It is a key part of a notable work of fiction. Dream Focus 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is going to be a merge, it's a full one or nothing. A selective merge removes the whole point of merging. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what little sourced content there is with Eve Online and delete the rest per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A game guide would have numbers, listing various stats, and whatnot. This is just a description of ships from a notable work of fiction. Dream Focus 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Game guides need not be statistical. A lot of the details about what upgrades do, for example, go too far into WP:GAMEGUIDE material, and generally violates WP:VGSCOPE. So the problem here is not really notability, but more about what Wikipedia is not. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAMEGUIDE#GUIDE Where in that list, is there anything related to the article? I read through it, but don't see any definition that this article falls into. I also added a link to the article for a news article, specifically about the ships, it getting its own coverage, and a key aspect of the game. Dream Focus 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most reasonable people would think that creating an article on a detailed explanation of an upgrade system in a video game constitutes a gameguide. But if you're not satisfied there, you can look at WP:VGSCOPE, which is the video game Wikiproject set of guidelines which have had consensus for years. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not it violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, the majority of content it constitutes nonetheless lacks reliable sources and is therefore original research and unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most reasonable people would think that creating an article on a detailed explanation of an upgrade system in a video game constitutes a gameguide. But if you're not satisfied there, you can look at WP:VGSCOPE, which is the video game Wikiproject set of guidelines which have had consensus for years. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAMEGUIDE#GUIDE Where in that list, is there anything related to the article? I read through it, but don't see any definition that this article falls into. I also added a link to the article for a news article, specifically about the ships, it getting its own coverage, and a key aspect of the game. Dream Focus 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Game guides need not be statistical. A lot of the details about what upgrades do, for example, go too far into WP:GAMEGUIDE material, and generally violates WP:VGSCOPE. So the problem here is not really notability, but more about what Wikipedia is not. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A game guide would have numbers, listing various stats, and whatnot. This is just a description of ships from a notable work of fiction. Dream Focus 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are 79 books listed on Amazon for Eve Online. Many, and perhaps all, will including information about the ships. You have a fictional element, covered not only by its primary sources, but dozens of independent publications as well. That makes it notable. Also, the amount of literature in the game and on the website for the ships, and stories involving them, show they are more than just simple stats. Dream Focus 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a quick look through the sources and haven't found anything that would verify information on this topic that would still comply with WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having glanced through some of these sources, I see no evidence that the ships are covered in sufficient detail to in them to deserve an article. Again: We do not have a separate article on the different classes or raids in World of Warcraft, even though they have garnered far more coverage than any ship in EVE (save perhaps the Titans). That's because it would violate WP:NOTGUIDE--just like this article does. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ships are what the game is about, you getting around, fighting, and pirating others with those ships. So you can't have a book about it, without mentioning the ships. I believe this counts as notable sources. Dream Focus 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all well and good to do a search on it, but which of these books can actually be used as reliable sources? Search engines have no concept of notability, so we cannot base notability on their results alone. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ships are what the game is about, you getting around, fighting, and pirating others with those ships. So you can't have a book about it, without mentioning the ships. I believe this counts as notable sources. Dream Focus 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having glanced through some of these sources, I see no evidence that the ships are covered in sufficient detail to in them to deserve an article. Again: We do not have a separate article on the different classes or raids in World of Warcraft, even though they have garnered far more coverage than any ship in EVE (save perhaps the Titans). That's because it would violate WP:NOTGUIDE--just like this article does. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly inappropriate per WP:VGSCOPE. Article is nothing more than game guide information and there is no notability asserted whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Eve Online#Ships - Cliff's Notes version of a gameguide is still a gameguide itself. Most references are to player's manual, which is GG-ish. Eve Online's coverage of these ships is already sufficient. I'm apathetic as to whether this is just a redirect or if the article is deleted first. I don't see any significant content worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a game guide. THen redirect to the araticle on the game.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obviously gameguide material. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Clear-cut place for game-related info is under the game name. Making no judgement as to whether the game article belongs in WP or not. Collect (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reviews of the game discuss the spaceships briefly. Example - the two-page Gamespot article mentions the game's "unusual-looking spacecraft" but doesn't go into any detail about specific craft. Wikipedia content should reflect this level of coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Eve Online#Ships per EEMIV. I also think it crosses that line into gameguide material, including minutiae and detailed information. MuZemike 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Some of this information can be trimmed down, as it is excessively wordy. The article has separate sections for each class of ships; instead it would be best if it simply said, "These are the classes of ships" and then mentioned the ship types and different Tech levels. The in-game details presented are a bit excessive, but the idea that some mention of ships be made is supported by Dream_Focus's argument above. -Moritheil (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looking at the first page of sources provided by Dream Focus I'm fairly certain there would be enough there to support this page. (It is interesting one of the books that shows up clearly not on topic). Given that 74 odd books show up, I think there will be enough here to meet WP:N. WP:GAMEGUIDE might be an issue, but I personally favor keeping material of this nature (important work, high-order in context) when it can be sourced. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a followup, let me quote GAMEGUIDE:
Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes. If you are interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.
- Frankly, I don't see this as an instruction manual, advice, or containing how-tos. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not it explicitly violates WP:GAMEGUIDE doesn't matter; there is nonetheless a complete lack of reliable sourcing, rendering the majority or this article's content original research. Furthermore, search results alone don't prove much; unless you can actually extract what's in the results and show what can be used as a reliable source, you haven't got much to establish the notability of the article. Merely being a search result alone does not render a source reliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I never argued GHITs. I argued paper sources cover this game in detail and one would presume the way ships work would be covered as it's a major part of the game. Secondly, drawing from primary sources is different than original research. Lastly, we don't delete articles because they suck (and this one is actually quite good in its current form). We delete them because they can't meet WP:N. It is very very likely this topic can. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which paper sources are these, then? In its current form, the only secondary sources cited by this article are an image from a fansite and a news article about new ships in an expansion of the game. This is far from enough to constitute an article, so where are the necessary sources to establish notability? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I never argued GHITs. I argued paper sources cover this game in detail and one would presume the way ships work would be covered as it's a major part of the game. Secondly, drawing from primary sources is different than original research. Lastly, we don't delete articles because they suck (and this one is actually quite good in its current form). We delete them because they can't meet WP:N. It is very very likely this topic can. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not it explicitly violates WP:GAMEGUIDE doesn't matter; there is nonetheless a complete lack of reliable sourcing, rendering the majority or this article's content original research. Furthermore, search results alone don't prove much; unless you can actually extract what's in the results and show what can be used as a reliable source, you haven't got much to establish the notability of the article. Merely being a search result alone does not render a source reliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gameplay of Eve Online, a more suitable home than Eve Online. Nifboy (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand if possible and if there's nothing done in six months, then merge.--KrossTalk 23:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For me at least it's because there are plenty of paper sources that almost certainly cover this in enough detail. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there are a lot of sources in that search, but which of them contain the necessary reliable information? Search results alone do not assert anything about reliability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 79 book sources listed above. Looking at the titles and descriptions it seems extremely likely that some will cover this material. Some certainly won't (and that can be figured out pretty easily too). Looking at the quality of those, it is very likely indeed that there is coverage that meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there are a lot of sources in that search, but which of them contain the necessary reliable information? Search results alone do not assert anything about reliability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For me at least it's because there are plenty of paper sources that almost certainly cover this in enough detail. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article was originally created as a 70kb monster and was eventually whittled down to 24-40kb before finally settling at its current under-10kb size. Nifboy (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't necessarily an improvement. Was the information removed valid? Nothing should be deleted simply because of the articles size. It was easy to navigate, anyone able to easily scroll through and see the types of ships, reading only what interested them. Dream Focus 03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: Could you elaborate? I doubt the titles, descriptions and "quality" (which is completely subjective) alone could show much for their reliability. As I stated before, search results alone do not equate reliable sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To you, they don't equate reliable sources, but to some of us it seems common sense that this is something they would cover in those books. WP:common sense Dream Focus 03:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I didn't deny that they would contain information covering this subject, but how do any of the sources provided in the search results qualify as reliable? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That includes books on Massive Multiplayer games by major publishers. Generally we take books by major publishers as reliable sources unless there is a reason not to... Hobit (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which books and publishers? You'll have to give specific examples to show such things actually exist, not just a generalisation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, some listed below. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which books and publishers? You'll have to give specific examples to show such things actually exist, not just a generalisation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That includes books on Massive Multiplayer games by major publishers. Generally we take books by major publishers as reliable sources unless there is a reason not to... Hobit (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I didn't deny that they would contain information covering this subject, but how do any of the sources provided in the search results qualify as reliable? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To you, they don't equate reliable sources, but to some of us it seems common sense that this is something they would cover in those books. WP:common sense Dream Focus 03:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Repeating my arguments of the last nomination: This was nominated for deletion in April 2007 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online - and kept. However, I believe that the those calling for a keep were largely motivated by WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and additionally, that community standards have moved even further away from such articles being acceptable. For example, Ashenai argued that "Pages like this one are par for the course for popular MMORPGs, see Runescape skills, or Classes in World of Warcraft." However both of those articles have since been deleted and redirected via AfD discussions here and here. The article is 100% game guide material, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. There are no reliable third-party sources. In short, this article's content is of exactly the same nature as many that have previously found consensus to delete. --Stormie (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ah, thanks for that. There were actually two more AfDs before that, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination) (note the capitalisation), both of which ended up on a keep consensus largely based around the fact that the article is too "large" and "detailed" and claims of "notability", with little elaboration into the latter. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Not a game guide, content of no real world relevence. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A large pat of the article was removed on May 2nd, which means that most people's opinions registered after that date are largely based on the current article, not how it was when it was initially nominated for deletion. See how the article used to look here. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, most of what was removed was unsourced game guide/original research material anyway. I don't see how it could have such a significant impact on this AfD with regards to Wikipedia's policies. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The old version is even worse - like a dog took a dump in a bucket full of cat shit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt have looked at the "old" version. Eminently deletable, per my reasons given above.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If your only argument against the article is its length or appearance, then you have no argument at all. Those are not valid reasons to destroy something. If two AFD already have decided Keep, when the article was long, and most here said Keep when it was long, then consensus is to keep that information. Dream Focus 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs from the past were based on older versions of the article and therefore have no relevance. Anyway, far from "most" of people here have !voted "keep". The length of the article probably won't affect their opinions as most of what was removed was original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't original research to list information you can easily verify online on their website. No conclusions were drawn, only the facts themselves listed. Dream Focus 16:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the past article was even more detailed than the one now. [36] This will be 4th time this same article has been nominated. Dream Focus 22:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's original research if it's not backed by reliable sources, especially secondary ones. Primary sources such as those from the official website won't justify notability alone, even if the parent article (Eve Online) is backed by secondary sourcing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "it survived previous AFD's" is explicitly on the list of arguments to avoid during an AFD discussion--especially given since a number of those ended with "no consensus". TallNapoleon (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's original research if it's not backed by reliable sources, especially secondary ones. Primary sources such as those from the official website won't justify notability alone, even if the parent article (Eve Online) is backed by secondary sourcing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs from the past were based on older versions of the article and therefore have no relevance. Anyway, far from "most" of people here have !voted "keep". The length of the article probably won't affect their opinions as most of what was removed was original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the and Eve Online page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip Ikip (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume by "the Eve Online page(s)" you're referring to Talk:Eve Online? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NOTGUIDE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I like to compare to existing articles and coverage of related topics. For example, Eve-O is similar to Dungeons and Dragons. In D&D, you play as a warrior, or a cleric, or a paladin. In Eve-O, players don't have classes, but rather ships: the Hulk, the Falcon, the Tempest, (...). All of these ships are vastly different from each other, and have a profound impact on how the player plays the game. Players tailor their skills to meet a ships role, and within such adjust to their play style. New ships have a tremendous impact on the gameplay -- remember the drop in mineral prices after the introduction of mining barges? I feel this material is worth keeping because, while ships can be classed together, the different classes vastly affect how you play the game; and that isn't covered in Eve Online or Gameplay of Eve Online. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not you like it has no impact on its notability; if it truly is "worth keeping", then the necessary reliable sources should be proven to exist to justify its keeping. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles, incidentally, also deal with those classes in other games, not just in D&D, which is important because those classes show up frequently in RPGs in general, implying a larger, real-world notability. Falcon-class force recons, however, are only relevant within EVE. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not you like it has no impact on its notability; if it truly is "worth keeping", then the necessary reliable sources should be proven to exist to justify its keeping. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Not only that, but the topic and content here have no notability in the real world. Since all of the content is in-universe it fails our guidelines for writing about fiction. We need real-world notability to be able to cover it adequately. This article is too deep within the game to be able to cover on Wikipedia, this content is best reserved for a specialty encyclopedia that isn't concerned the way its topics are recieved outside of the game's universe. ThemFromSpace 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well sourced for a gaming article , sufficient to establish noteability. Well laid out to. Characters from fiction have their own articles and there not about the real world either. An encyclopedia ought to include articles about human culture, and its eliteist to only have entries relating to high art and literature. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well sourced how? I don't see anything but the Eve Online website itself, and a couple of Eve fansites. This isn't about elitism. This is about the basic level of verifiability that says that articles without third-party sources should be deleted, as well as the policy that Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. We're trying to hold all articles to the same standard here. Randomran (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we really be aiming for the same standard regardless of topic? According to active scientists like Administrator Tim Vickers several of our science articles are frequently referred to by uni students . Ought we really aim for the same standard of rigor on a gaming articles? FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because unlike real science, imaginary internet spaceships are not inherently notable--even if the game they appear in is. I would say that at this point the best thing to do would be a very abbreviated merge to Gameplay of Eve Online, describing the 5-6 different ship sizes and T1, T2, T3. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite their venerated status, many science and maths articles get less than 10 hits per day. So far this month, this articles been getting over 1000 views per day. Its clearly rather notable to the public, Id guess many of those viewers would be dissapointed if the article was heavilly cut down and merged. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because unlike real science, imaginary internet spaceships are not inherently notable--even if the game they appear in is. I would say that at this point the best thing to do would be a very abbreviated merge to Gameplay of Eve Online, describing the 5-6 different ship sizes and T1, T2, T3. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we really be aiming for the same standard regardless of topic? According to active scientists like Administrator Tim Vickers several of our science articles are frequently referred to by uni students . Ought we really aim for the same standard of rigor on a gaming articles? FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll bet an article on the latest WoW dungeon would get a bunch of hits too; that's not a reason to keep it. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, Wikipedia includes content on the basis of notability, not readership. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll bet an article on the latest WoW dungeon would get a bunch of hits too; that's not a reason to keep it. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a list-like article of entities on a one-level-down basis daughter article from a large parent article (possibly too large and developed for a merge). Although listy and descriptive, not a how-to guide as such. I am happy with notability as such and the bulk of non-in-universe material lying with the parent article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is its size any justification to keep the article? Considering the lack of reliable sources, there is very little content in the article worth keeping, and certainly not enough to justify notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep (initial note: I tagged the article for rescue at 18:27, 28 April 2009 when the AfD looked like this, i.e. when only four editors had commented, but anyway...) per the following reasons:
- I will WP:AGF that the description of the article as a "game guide" are not dishonest, but rather a misunderstanding of what a game guide is, i.e. what we are trying to avoid in that guideline against them, namely "how to's". The main purpose of game guides, and as an owners of many game guides, I know, is to provide a strategy for beating the game. This article hardly provides a strategy for how to beat a game. Rather, the article provides a discriminate list that builds upon the main article by illustrating key elements like periodic table of elements of list of Oscar winners expands upon an article on elements and Oscars, repectively. Lists are entirely consistent with both encyclopedias and almanacs, i.e. with our First pillar.
- I call for a "speedy" keep, because we have discussed this article basically thrice already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online ("no consensus" on 17 January 2009), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination) ("no consensus to delete; default to keep. Lack of sources doesn't always mean delete - it's an invitation to clean up, and I truly hope that the editors of this article will do that. No prejudice against later nomination for deletion" on 7 April 2008), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online ("kept" on 15 April 2007). Once again this time, we clearly have no consensus for deletion. But given that we have already twice had no consensus and even a keep closure, repeatedly nominating rather than trying to improve or work on something else is counterproductive.
- The other calls for deletion range from totally over the top examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or are part of an indiscriminate all articles must go drive.
- Moreover, the article's contents are verifiable through reliable sources as confirmed on both Google News and Google Books. Now because they are covered in multiple such sources, the article's content are thus notable as well. That several of these sources are not primary sources, means the subject matter is one that can be written as unoriginal research.
- Finally, per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, no real reason has been presented on why there's a pressing need to redlink. It is not a hoax, not libelous, etc. Obviously, members of our community believe the subject is worthwhile and came across the article somehow. So, it is clearly a valid search term (reason for a redirect) and arguably has content that can either be improved, or maybe merged or to serve as a merge location for any articles on individual ships (reasons for merges and per the GFDL, we do not redlink potentially mergeable content.
- Thus, while there's no compelling reason to delete, there are maybe valid reasons to merge and redirect, and definitely to keep. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt it'll be speedy kept; in no way do previous AfDs have any influence on the current AfD and iteration of the article. "no consensus" is literally "no consensus", not "keep"; it only defaults to "keep" because of WP:PRESERVE, and does not and should not reflect the AfD's (lack of) consensus. Anyway, fundamentally, I still don't see any justification to keep the majority of this article's content. Search results are just search results, not the necessary reliable sources, and to just present a vague possibility of the article being sourced is not equal to such sources being provided. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be speedily kept as no real reason beyond "I don't like it" or a misunderstanding of what a game guide is has been presented for deletion. Looking through the Google results shows multiple coverage in reliable sources. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt it'll be speedy kept; in no way do previous AfDs have any influence on the current AfD and iteration of the article. "no consensus" is literally "no consensus", not "keep"; it only defaults to "keep" because of WP:PRESERVE, and does not and should not reflect the AfD's (lack of) consensus. Anyway, fundamentally, I still don't see any justification to keep the majority of this article's content. Search results are just search results, not the necessary reliable sources, and to just present a vague possibility of the article being sourced is not equal to such sources being provided. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for an article to be kept it need only be sourceable, not already sourced, and there is no time limit. The compromise way of handling background material is to use combination articles like this. The individual elements of content do not need to be notable. DGG (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the subject of the article DOES. I maintain that this is not sufficiently notable to justify having its own article. I would accept a merge and redirect to Gameplay of EVE Online. No one has adequately justified why this topic is so notable as to have its own article. These ships lack real world notability, and a general interest reader does not need to know the different classes of ships to understand that there are there are little ships, there are big ships, and there are really big ships, and there are some ships that are more advanced than others. Do we really need much more than that? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, there is currently far from sufficient evidence that reliable sources exist. Neither Google nor Amazon have any concept of notability or reliability, and it is up to us to find what is and isn't reliable ourselves. We should not base the article's notability solely on the fallacious idea that because a number of WP:GHITS turn up for it, there must be sufficient reliable information within those results to establish an article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the subject of the article DOES. I maintain that this is not sufficiently notable to justify having its own article. I would accept a merge and redirect to Gameplay of EVE Online. No one has adequately justified why this topic is so notable as to have its own article. These ships lack real world notability, and a general interest reader does not need to know the different classes of ships to understand that there are there are little ships, there are big ships, and there are really big ships, and there are some ships that are more advanced than others. Do we really need much more than that? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve as per comments made by TheChrisD and Hobit. It does not at all read like a "how-to" and the article topic is noteable and sourceable. The article is informative and contains no stats, guide-like elements or tips/strategies. ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 07:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's sourceable, where are the sources? Being a search result alone exhibits absolutely nothing about the reliability of a source. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violation of WP:NOTGUIDE, effectively making the article gamecruft, and fails WP:N. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, espeically when the article is in no honest way a gameguide, but by contrast is obviously notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the necessary real-world context, then? Google results are far from enough to show such a thing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It concerns a topic covered in multiple sources found in Google News and Google Books. That is more than enough real-world context, i.e. multiple authors in the real world saw fit to write about the subject. We don't need more than that. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Real-world context isn't enough. For a subject to be notable, its sources have to be reliable and verifiable too. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, it is notable by any reasonable or logical standard for a paperless encyclopedia. The fact that its sources are reliable and verifiable make it notable. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What standard is that? I haven't seen any elaboration whatsoever in this AfD as to how the provided sources qualify per those policies. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They meet the policies as elaborated by Hobit below. They are secondary sources that discuss the subject in an out of universe manner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What standard is that? I haven't seen any elaboration whatsoever in this AfD as to how the provided sources qualify per those policies. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, it is notable by any reasonable or logical standard for a paperless encyclopedia. The fact that its sources are reliable and verifiable make it notable. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Real-world context isn't enough. For a subject to be notable, its sources have to be reliable and verifiable too. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It concerns a topic covered in multiple sources found in Google News and Google Books. That is more than enough real-world context, i.e. multiple authors in the real world saw fit to write about the subject. We don't need more than that. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the necessary real-world context, then? Google results are far from enough to show such a thing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, espeically when the article is in no honest way a gameguide, but by contrast is obviously notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Books likely to cover this material: [37] (not independent), [38], [39], [40], [41]. The first will clearly cover this material in some depth. One can also find some material on-line [42], [43], [44], have some coverage. [45] seems to be a very solid source for this topic. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can really only see the reliability in two or three of these sources, largely Eurogamer and the Prima guide. As for the other books/sites, you'll have to elaborate on how they qualify as reliable. I highly doubt being sold on Amazon alone provides any form of reliability check for these books. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? You are challenging widely available books as reliable sources for the topics they cover without providing any reason to doubt them? If you have doubts about the reliablity of any of those books, please feel free to raise them. Unless they are self-published, they will generally meet the requirements of WP:RS. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. "availability" doesn't say anything about a source's reliability, only its verifiability. Sources should be shown to be both before use on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. In general whole classes of sources are generally taken as notable until shown otherwise. Local news stations, local newspapers and non-self-published books all fit that description. If you've a specific objection, please make it. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So any book that is published by someone other than us qualifies as reliable? WP:RS states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't see where such a reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" is with most of these sources, and that is what you'll have to elaborate on. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. In general whole classes of sources are generally taken as notable until shown otherwise. Local news stations, local newspapers and non-self-published books all fit that description. If you've a specific objection, please make it. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. "availability" doesn't say anything about a source's reliability, only its verifiability. Sources should be shown to be both before use on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? You are challenging widely available books as reliable sources for the topics they cover without providing any reason to doubt them? If you have doubts about the reliablity of any of those books, please feel free to raise them. Unless they are self-published, they will generally meet the requirements of WP:RS. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can really only see the reliability in two or three of these sources, largely Eurogamer and the Prima guide. As for the other books/sites, you'll have to elaborate on how they qualify as reliable. I highly doubt being sold on Amazon alone provides any form of reliability check for these books. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per sourcing available and discussions above. The main article(s) including Gameplay of Eve Online are reasonably well-written and large enough that this would reasonably be spun out quickly if merged. It makes more sense to disrupt these articles less and work towards improving them by leaving this in place and adding sourcing and clean-up writing, thus regular editing issues vs deletion issues. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the quality of prose nor size alone have any impact on whether an article is notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. The fact that it is covered in multiple reliable sources is why it is notable and why so many editors across four discussions want the article kept. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous discussions should and do not have any impact on this. Both the article and editors have changed since when they occurred and say nothing about how things are in their current state. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Four discussions with many of the same participants have yet to come up with any consensus for deletion, ergo, the community does not think it should be deleted, as there's just no reason to do so. Lists of this nature serve a valuable purpose for our readers, which is why editors are determined to defend this notable article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The community of however long ago is impertinent to that of today. If their opinions still stand, then they'll be recited. Fundamentally, if any significant points arose previously, then they'd turn up here too. If not, then there's no exhibited consensus for them any more. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, their opinions still stand as we once again have no consensus for the third time (the first time was "keep"). So, now we should be focused on improving the article instead and we should make use of the sources provided by Hobit above to do just that. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have consensus until the AfD is closed. To use a prediction of how the discussion will pan out to argue a point in the discussion is nothing but paradoxical. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly it, there is no consensus, although I personally think the arguments to keep are most persuasive. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it has not been decided by an admin yet that there is "no consensus". What one of us thinks of the consensus is irrelevant and should not have an impact on the admin's decision. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That neither of us is convincing the other means that we don't agree, i.e. don't have a consensus, although again, I still think that strength of argument would favor keeping; however, I would not arrogantly claim it should close as "keep" as it seems pretty split, although looking closer at some of the bolded deletes, there are calls for merges and redirects within them, which favors some kind of keep. But anyway, aren't we passed 5 or 7 days at this point? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it has not been decided by an admin yet that there is "no consensus". What one of us thinks of the consensus is irrelevant and should not have an impact on the admin's decision. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly it, there is no consensus, although I personally think the arguments to keep are most persuasive. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have consensus until the AfD is closed. To use a prediction of how the discussion will pan out to argue a point in the discussion is nothing but paradoxical. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, their opinions still stand as we once again have no consensus for the third time (the first time was "keep"). So, now we should be focused on improving the article instead and we should make use of the sources provided by Hobit above to do just that. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The community of however long ago is impertinent to that of today. If their opinions still stand, then they'll be recited. Fundamentally, if any significant points arose previously, then they'd turn up here too. If not, then there's no exhibited consensus for them any more. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Four discussions with many of the same participants have yet to come up with any consensus for deletion, ergo, the community does not think it should be deleted, as there's just no reason to do so. Lists of this nature serve a valuable purpose for our readers, which is why editors are determined to defend this notable article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous discussions should and do not have any impact on this. Both the article and editors have changed since when they occurred and say nothing about how things are in their current state. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. The fact that it is covered in multiple reliable sources is why it is notable and why so many editors across four discussions want the article kept. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the quality of prose nor size alone have any impact on whether an article is notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Why isn't this closed yet? There is no consensus, and no chance of anyone convincing the others to change their opinions at this point. Shouldn't it close as no consensus, thus the article left alone? Dream Focus 03:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 7 days, yeah. This is getting stale, anyway, and I'd expect any "no consensus" would pan out to a "merge" as a moderate point between the keeps and deletes, or something. Hell, it won't be a delete, so there's potential to expand on the current content, even if it is largely, currently unsourced and unsuitable for inclusion, by its presence in the edit history. This is basically growing somewhat moot now, and I'm growing somewhat tired. G'night. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge is the same as delete. There is no way more than a token amount of information would be copied over to another article, thus the rest deleted. Having a redirect on a page, is the same as a delete, other than the fact people can see the history of the page. If there is a merge discussion later on, everyone who participated here should be contacted, to give their opinions. I don't think you'll get consensus to merge, if you fail to delete. Dream Focus 03:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Just an opinion page. You can always find an essay somewhere to support both sides of any argument, or simply create one yourself for that purpose. Dream Focus 03:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Summary style. This is an appropriate split of a subtopic that does not need to be covered in depth in the main (a.k.a. parent) article. — BQZip01 — talk 06:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Card Pack 1: Secrets and Sabotage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE) as it is merely a listing of collectable cards from The 39 Clues series, which are otherwise completely non-notable. The article fails the general notability guideline as well as its underlying policies on reliable sources and verifiability by being based purely on non-independent, non-third-party sources and primary sources. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom: Since when was a single Card Pack from a CCG notable? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RayTalk 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:N. If there are reliable sources for this I'd reconsider. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--I fail to see how this card game meets WP:N. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Many people need this information.Ag97 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 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. Frank | talk 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mumbai Terror Strike-Pakistan Perspective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Soapboxy personal essay. Says nothing that's not already covered more accurately and in greater detail in the main article at 2008 Mumbai attacks but says it in a non-neutral manner. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SOAP andy (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an article with this name is inherently POV. Drawn Some (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Currently written as an essay and not salvageable - at best it would be a POV fork Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not salvageable, unsourced, uninformative, POV fork. RayTalk 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pakistan's response is already in the 2008 Mumbai attacks article. Forks are not allowed. PirateSmackK (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an article entirely unsourced and POV Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, opinion-piece --Deepak D'Souza 06:50, 30 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Manoj Pradhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable writer per WP:CREATIVE, unreferenced vanity page, can find no reliable sources online per WP:RS to support notability MuffledThud (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable despite self-claims of great importance; completely promotional. Drawn Some (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pompous, self-promotional, unverifiable. andy (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A straight Google search yields interesting results, but they probably suggest that the name Manoj Pradhan is held by several people. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - part of a WP:Walled garden: see also WP:Articles for deletion/Jasodhara and WP:Articles for deletion/Jasodhara global media MuffledThud (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Lets wait for the magnum opus (“The Truth”) to be published, reviewed and duly acknowledged. As India's motto states Satyameva Jayate - we can be patient. :) Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Wikipedians, I appreciate the need for more references to make an article better. However, confining references to the web only definitely shows lack of foresight and wisdom. India is a country that is still far from being webbed substantially to trace every references on it. A true encyclopaedia must reflect facts that can be traced from all sources i.e, print sources, web sources, people and culture etc. Piyushsao (talk) , 5 May 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jasodhara" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.19.60.7 (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an "American Mullah" who has gained "critical acclaim" as an "athlete, novelist and rap musician" and has recently established the "Islamic Society of Ukiah", but alas, no verifiable reliable sources are included to establish notability. Article was previously prodded, but the prod was removed. A search for "Malik Ali" is problematic as there is more than one. A search for the reported birthname, "Panagis Dionysios Evangelatos", returns an arrest record. A search for the reported rap album, "The Urban Adventures of Jacques Moves" returns nothing. Plastikspork (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and this is particularly problematic since this is a biography of a living person. RayTalk 09:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "gained critical acclaim as an athlete, novelist and rap musician" - this incredibly nebulous claim to notability isn't actually backed up anywhere in the article and certainly isn't backed up by any external sources I can find. Assuming this man even exists, he is clearly not notable. Delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since I see nothing here but questions, as marked by nominator. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author left me a message on my talk page, which I am pasting here as it related to this discussion. Plastikspork (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Plastikspork,
My name is Malik Ali and I am the author of the Wikipedia page, Malik Ali. I reviewed your comments this morning and I wanted to make you aware of some revisions I have made and some concerns I had.
First, I added a section titled Reliable Sources that reference my accomplisments as a writer to the paper that I was employed at, as well as what newspapers published articles about me as an athlete. I certainly hope you review the modifications I have made in a fair manner. Furthermore, I was greatly offended that you chose only to recognize that Panagis Dionysios Evangelatos is only noted for being arrested, but you didn't care to mention a single word about the degree in English and World literature also earned under that name.
I hope you consider my message with honesty and fairness, and appreciate that my page is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia.
Malik Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alim27 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Plastikspork, My name is Malik Ali and I am the author of the Wikipedia page, Malik Ali. I reviewed your comments this morning and I wanted to make you aware of some revisions I have made and some concerns I had. First, I added a section titled Reliable Sources that reference my accomplisments as a writer to the paper that I was employed at, as well as what newspapers published articles about me as an athlete. I certainly hope you review the modifications I have made in a fair manner. Furthermore, I was greatly offended that you chose only to recognize that Panagis Dionysios Evangelatos is only noted for being arrested, but you didn't care to mention a single word about the degree in English and World literature also earned under that name. I hope you consider my message with honesty and fairness, and appreciate that my page is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. My site is well-written and incorporates many other releveant Wikipedia links, regardless of the sarcastic and rude comments made by Mr. Plastikspork. It now has reliable sources from third party publishers as suggested. Malik Ali: The American Mullah
Malik Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alim27 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alim27 (talk • contribs)
- Delete An unsourced autobiography. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep close, no reason for deletion, pointy username, on major article. Fram (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is too long, but content could easily be merged to European Theatre of World War II, an article that seems quite lacking compared to this one. --XxSPEEDY KEEPxX (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so what is your reason for nominating it for deletion? Drawn Some (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment --XxSPEEDY KEEPxX (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Vampires in popular culture. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strigoi in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Trivia of the worst sort - uncited, irrelevant, out of context listcruft. As a very distant second, I'd merge this back into strigoi, which was hardly long enough to warrant a split, but really, we may as well get rid of this one. Biruitorul Talk 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather uncivil, per WP:Cruft: "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Also though it is not required, it is courteous to notify the creator of this page of the AfD. Ikip (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to strigoi after removing any redlink examples and add a 'sources' tag to the section. Edward321 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeDelete Optimistic and trivial. Dahn (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I strongly oppose any kind of merge into Strigoi. I've seen a lot of these sections, and I'm sure that no sources are likely to be forthcoming. Keeping this kind of material in the main article gives a completely unbalanced perspective of the creature, per WP:WEIGHT, giving excessive importance to modern (often American) cultural references over fundamental mythologies. It absolutely should remain separate, and there is no fault in having a short article in either place; it simply means there is more room for new, relevant material. Mintrick (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Mintrick's opinion that this list shouldn't be merged, but I disagree that the conclusion to be drawn is that it should remain. This is an indiscriminate list of factoids that, even if it were sourced, adds nothing to anyone's knowledge about strigoi. If anyone can demonstrate that "strigoi in popular culture" has been a topic of secondary sources that would support an article, I'll reconsider. Deor (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Vampires in popular culture (and its related articles such as Vampire films) The use of notable legendary or mythological concepts in major works of fiction is notable. If the fiction is notable to have an article here, and if a strigol is of major significance within it, a listing is appropriate. But I am not convinced that in most of the works anything specific is in fact being referred to that is any different fro vampires, just using a less familiar name. DGG (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Per DGG, our readers and editors want this information so it's our job to present it encyclopedicly with due weight. -- Banjeboi 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Ikip (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this page was actually moved to its own page today, from the original Strigoi page.[46] Ikip (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything worth having into Vampires in popular culture. I'm usually not a fan of dumping a dreadful article on a decent one, but both articles really need the same cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reading the description of the things from their main article, it is clear that most of the time, the word does NOT refer to vampires, but other things. And why is it alright for a similar mythical creature, vampires, to have a side article listing their appearances in popular culture, but not Strigoi? There are enough notable references of it, to warrant its own page. I would like to see a list of classical text written about them, if any have been translated from the Romanian. Someone could then use the information to find out how these stories have evolved, influencing and being influenced by history. Dream Focus 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing more than a list of appearances. No actual content to merge anywhere. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the vampires article, per all of the above. Artw (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy-deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs) under G11. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead by April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band with none albums released, no interviews, etc. The article is a complete collection of biased editions along with a series of original research. An exciting read for all! Cannibaloki 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 as blatant spam for the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 04:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete self-promotional spam for non-notable band. Drawn Some (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Live from Live Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable digital-only EP distributed through iTunes Store, which don't meets the notability guideline for albums. I not found any reviews to prove its relevance. Cannibaloki 03:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." - from WP:NALBUMS. Drawn Some (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Drawn Some apparently missed the "may" part of that quote. There are no sources for this album, and iTunes-exclusives are almost never notable as they rarely get reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 04:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is repeatedly mentioned as part of a digital boxed set. If final decision is to delete, I suggest you protect the page from re-creation or you know what will happen again and again and again. Drawn Some (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources I concur with The Hammer. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, any album by a band as significant as Metallica is notable - just as anything by the Beatles or U2 is made notable by the band's significance. I realize this does not fall under the notability rule, but I think the "common sense and the occasional exception" rule is appropriate here.Greedyhalibut (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited.--Cannibaloki 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - Notability is not inherited is the policy - but I think the "common sense and the occasional exception" rule is appropriate here - as it would be in the case of a Beatles album without significant press coverage (perhaps none exists), which would still be included in any comprehensive music encyclopedia (presumably, Wikipedia aims to be, among other things, a music encyclopedia). In sum, I think Metallica albums are an exception to the general rule.Greedyhalibut (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited.--Cannibaloki 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A mention in Metallica might be appropriate per WP:NALBUMS. However notability is not inherited, and albums need to meet the referencing and notability requirements set forth in WP:MUSIC. As an itunes exclusive there's little coverage that I could find, nothing meeting WP:RS. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- 2001 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2002 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2003 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2004 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2005 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2006 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2007 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2008 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Non-notable award it seems. Almost all the sources are interviews, blog posts or primary sources, with no non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Several hits from Gbooks. [47] Edward321 (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several in this instance means four, since the rest are based on excerpts from Wikipedia. And I've missed the part where you've edited the article to reflect the new coverage you've found. Sorry to sound like an arse, but I've been here before. [48]. I'm tired of doing the work. People want articles kept, then do the work involved in maintaining them. Hiding T 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does not have a deadline. Vodello (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very zen. And also utterly meaningless. It's like saying, hey we don't have to do anything ever! great statement, but no actual substance or bearing on reality. The article does have a deadline, just like every article. That deadline is set by consensus. You want to see the article kept, improve it. I've already done that, I'm not doing it again. I simply want people to stop listing sources they have no intention of using to improve the article. The article hasn't altered since it was nominated, yet there's sources listed here to help improve it. Look at all the people commenting below, not one wants to do the work. Shame on you all. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's actually right. There is no deadline. A topic is either notable or not, its not dependent on the current state of the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're actually wrong, the current state of an article is a dependent factor on everything. I say that as the person who wrote the half of the deadline essay currently being referenced. And you're also wrong that a topic is either notable or not. If that were truly the case, there'd be no arguments over notability. Hiding T 08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no. The page could have no sources whatsoever, but in the AfD it could be shown that there actually are sources that demonstrate notability. The topic would meet the guidelines even if the article didn't reflect that. Granted, WP:N also leaves inclusion ultimately to consensus and not just a checkbox. In this case, we only have one reliable article and no indication that there might be other coverage, so it doesn't matter. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However in this case, they've kind of worn out the "there may be usable content" argument. If there was potentially useful content in those articles, it would have already been put into the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no. An article can cite a million sources and still not pass WP:N if consensus determines otherwise. Like I say, content is decided through consensus, not rules. We don;t apply rules for the sake of applying rules, since consensus can change. Hiding T 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My last statement said exactly what you just said. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a semantic disagreement; the two of you agree with each other near as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that seems to be the case >.> Sorry for letting it go on like that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a semantic disagreement; the two of you agree with each other near as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My last statement said exactly what you just said. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no. An article can cite a million sources and still not pass WP:N if consensus determines otherwise. Like I say, content is decided through consensus, not rules. We don;t apply rules for the sake of applying rules, since consensus can change. Hiding T 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're actually wrong, the current state of an article is a dependent factor on everything. I say that as the person who wrote the half of the deadline essay currently being referenced. And you're also wrong that a topic is either notable or not. If that were truly the case, there'd be no arguments over notability. Hiding T 08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's actually right. There is no deadline. A topic is either notable or not, its not dependent on the current state of the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very zen. And also utterly meaningless. It's like saying, hey we don't have to do anything ever! great statement, but no actual substance or bearing on reality. The article does have a deadline, just like every article. That deadline is set by consensus. You want to see the article kept, improve it. I've already done that, I'm not doing it again. I simply want people to stop listing sources they have no intention of using to improve the article. The article hasn't altered since it was nominated, yet there's sources listed here to help improve it. Look at all the people commenting below, not one wants to do the work. Shame on you all. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does not have a deadline. Vodello (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several in this instance means four, since the rest are based on excerpts from Wikipedia. And I've missed the part where you've edited the article to reflect the new coverage you've found. Sorry to sound like an arse, but I've been here before. [48]. I'm tired of doing the work. People want articles kept, then do the work involved in maintaining them. Hiding T 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main article was previously nominated (with a different spelling) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (delete), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 11 (overturn and relist]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination) (keep). Fram (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per prior AfDs to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They have no bearing as consensus can change. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per prior AfDs to keep. _Plus there doesn't seem to be any new reason to delete this, as it was already permitted to exist, and the information is either the same, or even had more. Deletion is both illogical and uncalled for. It's like having an appeal for someone ruled innocent, to try and find them guilty again... it doesn't work that way. Sorry. --Fesworks (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, was there any mainstream coverage that turned up throughout those afds? 'Cause I sure as heck didn't see it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous debates have no bearing as consensus can change. You know how you're not reading the same books at school that your grandad read, that's what it is like. It's not like a person,. because this article isn;t a person, and it's not like a criminal procedure, because this isn't a legal process. But thanks for the thoughts. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not again -- Strong Keep per previous AFDs. This is a gateway AFD that's attempting to lead to the removal of many webcomic aricles that have won awards from the WCCA and have had their articles kept on AFDs partially for winning these awards. Hopefully this will not be another battle of admins (and vets that are best buddies with admins) and regular users, which usually seems to be the case with the mission to purge Wikipedia of all webcomics. Vodello (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You really think I have a hidden agenda to purge webcomics pages from Wikipedia?! Ha. Get real. And you're still not addressing the main fact that there don't seem to be any significant third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the astounding bad faith, you just lost a friend. DELETE. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you fail to realize that it was voted to keep, with it's existing (at the time) resources, and additional resources since. Thus, it means that there is nothing LESS from what was acceptable beforehand. So your argument is null unless you provide new and different arguments and/or counter points that go beyond the previous deletion attempts.--Fesworks (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change, please read up on Wikipedian policy. We aren't doomed to have to repeat the mistakes of the past if we so choose. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the NEW YORK TIMES already inarguably counts as one credible 3rd party resource, thus making the WCCAs only need one additional credible, 3rd party resource to be allowed on Wikipedia, as per it's own rules. Oh, and look there, G4's Attack of the Show mentioned them as well according to the references. That's 2, so it's good to keep, per Wikipedia's rules. Also, as far as other 3rd parties references, Comixpedia is one, plus mentions on two different podcasts... but of course, these particular thrid parties may not be seen as "notable" by Wikipedia's standards, but that point is moot since it only needs two... which I just told you.--Fesworks (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We decide things by consensus, not by reference to rules. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Covered them in a substantial way, or mentioned them offhand? WP:GNG exists so that we have reliable sources with which to write an article, not a ticky-box we have to fill in before faffing on for five paragraphs based on blog posts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you continue to omit the New York Times in hopes that users will vote without reading the article in question and trusting you based on your username alone, it is difficult to take this nomination seriously. Vodello (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the NYT report? It's a very trivial mention. I should know, I used it to strengthen the article as a compromise bid last time out. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep very notable (a lot of people would have heard of this) and Fesworks, you can't just make something notable if it's in the wiki-support paper New York Times. All I can now say is: Not again. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of people have heard of a lot of things. That means nothing. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how speedy keep applies here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of people have heard of a lot of things. That means nothing. Hiding T 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm sticking with my previous opinion [49] - the awards are the spine for the NYT article (the analogue being it is like an article on the Oscars or BAFTAs). However, I would merge the years back into the main article. (Emperor (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The chief difference between the Oscars/BAFTAs and these being that those film awards are prestigious and widely-reported awards whose recipients are chosen by notable figures in their field and that these awards aren't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough notable sources reference this, most importantly the webcomics themselves. I note a link to a television show mentioning it also. Dream Focus 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The single source is a buried mention in this NYT article. If we want to be technical, that's not substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. In a more practical way, there's really no way we can write an article based on a paragraph and a half in a NYT story that's primarily about Scott McCloud. The rest of the "coverage" beyond that a navel-gazing, with a committee-member's blog, blogs interviewing people involved, etc. Strong delete to the directory of winners of these awards, as that's just excessive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -
Doesn't meet Wikipedia's general criteria for inclusion. My search has only turned up one reliable source that mentions it. I don't see how this could be a viable article given the lack of sourcing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a 5 min interview from G4TV that was mentioned in previous AfD's [here] it seems to me like non-trivial coverage from another independent source. I'm changing my vote to Keep, however I will be incredibly disappointed if the article doesn't progress when and if this survives AfD. These reliable sources need to go into the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- What would we do with it? It's the panel chairman (not really a notable figure in his own right) giving promotional answers to softball questions. I think that's the main reason it's not been included in the article.
- We could take the tickybox approach to WP:GNG and slap in a couple of maybe-substantial-maybe-not or maybe-reliable-maybe-not references while building the article chiefly around reference junk food, or we could actually respect the intent of the guideline, and see if there are references sufficient for building an actual article. For something entirely on the internet and not very old, if the references don't exist on the internet they likely do not exist anywhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what, you're right. If after 2-3 AfD's nothing usable has been done with these sources; this really can't be substantial coverage. Call me a flip-flopper, but I'm going to go back to my previous stance of Delete, because the two reliable sources do not deal primarily with the topic, but with webcomics in general. The spirit of the guideline is to provide meaningful content to an article for a general audience, and I think this article is just an excuse to keep lists of award winners. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AMIB, you're saying, that WP:N means to use the GNG when it gives reasonable results. That means, in effect, to use the GNG when it shows notability or non-notability for what you consider based on some unstated criterion to be notable or non-notable, and don't use it when it gives a result you do not want. But sources must be in line with the type of subject, and webcomic topics will almost always have not have conventional sources--so if they do at all, then the topic is notable. . DGG (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm saying that the idea of WP:N is that we only write an article on a subject when there's sufficient commentary in reliable sources to support an article on the subject. We can wikilawyer about whether the NYT article's coverage is "significant" enough or the interview in AOTS is "reliable," or we can examine them and determine what factual claims can be derived from them and whether this is an article's worth of factual claims.
- Can this article be rewritten to be anything but a permastub based on these sources? I believe not. The NYT article notes only that the awards exist, and are modeled after and somewhat like other peer-chosen rewards. The AOTS "interview" is, like most AOTS segments, an opportunity for the panel head to come on the show and evangelize the awards and webcomics in general, with scarcely more insight than a press release.
- I refuse to accept that webcomic articles must use "unconventional sources" consisting of press releases and blogs of people directly involved in the subject. (The "junk food" sources I referred to above.) "This is important, so we should relax WP:RS to write articles on it" is the reverse of WP:N, which is the idea that we follow the reliable sources to topics of importance. If the reliable sources haven't left us enough to write an article, we should not write one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This award is very important within the webcomic community. In addition to the arguments above just have a look how many artists have drawn something for the 2007 ceremony. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to whom? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, like I already said, two different, long-running, webcomic-themed Podcasts have discussed the awards independently, as well as having people of the WCCA committee on, over more than one episode. However, It's probably going to be argued that since these podcasts (while 3rd parties and independent), don't have/qualify for wikipedia articles, that they don't count as notable references themselves. Basically, the point of THIS post of mine here is to say that we can prove it... that as far as several portions of the webcomic community, that the WCCAs were notable and important, it technically doesn't count because technically it's not admissible in "court". Also, admittedly there are several portions of the webcomics communities that don't find the WCCAs important.. but again, it's inadmissible proof.
- Which is probably why these "delete or keep" discussions end up working in favor of the article. As someone has stated, that is why we have these discussions, when the references surrounding the article come into question. --Fesworks (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's get away from the wikilawyering. Which podcasts are you referring to? What claim do they have to any authority? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just discovered that 3 different webcomic podcasts have at least covered the awards at least once, which is really no different than any other news source covering other awards shows. At least one episode of Digital Strips (#27), and then several episodes (either in part, or as the main focus) of The Gigcast (#77, #77.5, and others) and The Webcomic Beacon (#5, #11). Of course, I doubt that any one of these are wikitechnically notable enough to count as references, but they are reflections of some webcomic communities. Flawed as the WCCAs may be, they were still covered and talked about by several sources. So, basically, I'm "just saying"... My vote is to keep this article mostly on the previous decisions, and if these podcasts happen to help, cool. Though I kinda doubt it, plus I'm not actually going to argue if they should count as references or not. I'm mostly just presenting information in this case. --Fesworks (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's get away from the wikilawyering. Which podcasts are you referring to? What claim do they have to any authority? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sufficient coverage not present to meet WP:GNG and per AMiB. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brazil–Finland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
whilst these 2 nations have embassies. the extent of bilateral relations is quite limited according to the Finnish govt [50] LibStar (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the two are friendly, with a recent state visit in the mix, but there really isn't any in-depth coverage of the relationship turning up. - Biruitorul Talk 05:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly yourself. If the centralised discussion produces any guidelines (it may not) with sufficient detail to affect borderline cases such as this one (very unlikely), then these guidelines will be based on the results of this discussion and similar discussions. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing here other than directory entries. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources discuss this relationship or otherwise establish notability for this relationship. Since we already have guidelines on these matters, derailing AFD's pending the outcome of a process tha will never yield a consensus (and is scheduled to end when, exactly?) would be disruptive.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Keep - 2 x resident ambassadors + state visits. Large Finnish investments in Brazil. Also, Finland has been a major merchant sea power, with regular routes to Brazil. P.S. This link says Brazil is Finland's most inportant trading partner in South and Central America, followed by Mexico and Chile. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- do you have citations for "Large Finnish investments in Brazil. Also, Finland has been a major merchant sea power, with regular routes to Brazil"? LibStar (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This source lists the largest Finnish direct investments in Brazil:
- Valmet tractor factory (1960), largest producer of tractors in South America
- Nokia mobile phones factory in Manaus (1998), 3000 employees
- Stora Enso/Aracruz Celulose pulp mill in Bahia (2005), largest ever foreign direct investment in Brazil (1,25 billion USD), largest producer of eucalyptus pulp in the world.
- For Finnish investments these are notable, considering that the largest ever direct foreign investment in Finland will be the Google data center in Hamina with 50 expected employees. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This source lists the largest Finnish direct investments in Brazil:
- do you have citations for "Large Finnish investments in Brazil. Also, Finland has been a major merchant sea power, with regular routes to Brazil"? LibStar (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The economic ties between them, make them notable. It is a relationship, and it involves two countries, thus the article subject is validated. That information should be added to the article itself of course. Dream Focus 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blooded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable novelization Orange Mike | Talk 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a trout slap: A nomination should explain why something is considered non-notable and what research went into the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- explanation - Fails to meet WP:BOOK: no reviews in reliable sources, no sourcing of any kind, no assertions of notability, just plainly a non-notable book. It came out when the series was on the air, and totally failed to make a splash of any kind. How much detail do you really expect me to go into on one this obvious? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MgM's policing/trouting of AfD noms keeps us all on our toes. It's especially helpful for first-timers who might not be familiar with AfD and may be confused about why their articles are being deleted. It's better to overexplain than to underexplain. This one actually wasn't exactly obvious, but after looking at the articles for the Buffy novels listed on List of Buffy novels, I can see why it should be deleted. Nearly every single one of these novels references the same three profoundly non-notable blogs and personal web sites. None of the books have received much press attention, and the articles don't give more than short plot summaries -- not much more than is included in the list. They're not notable on their own, and all the relevant info about them is included on the list page, so I suggest bundling all of these novel articles into this AfD and then deleting the lot of them. Graymornings(talk) 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only references are two blog-style reviews from authors trying to make a name for themselves. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In a reasonable number of libraries for a new publication.i added the authors names, which might help indicate the notability: all three of them very well known; the third is the principal author for the Buffy series. Low quality article, as customary when people write about favorites. Needs a search for additional reviews, which probably will be found. DGG (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if the notability of this novel cannot be established, I'd be reluctant to recommend deletion in this case. List of Buffy novels lists many other novels with articles - either those novels have notability problems of their own and should all be considered for merging/redirection/deletion, or this article is an anomaly and should be gently merged to not create a hole in the coverage of novels. – sgeureka t•c 07:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The two interrelated issues are (i) notability and (ii) verifiability. I tend to think the novel reasonably meets notability though the fame of the authors and such, as described above. My real concern is whether there are sufficient external and independent sources to verify the information in the article. At present in stub form there is not much to verify, however, so I think it could be kept. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:51, 28 April 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 per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Swine flu conspiracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable whacko conspiracy theory. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as nonsense; per last sentence, almost a WP:POINT. Made up for fun. JJL (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete found some weak sources (newspaper blogs I think) [51] and www.naturalnews.com/026141.html [unreliable fringe source?] talking about the possibility of the conspiracy but don't give proof that such a conspiracy exists. Besides, everybody knows that the birds did it as a smokescreen to mask the existence of their own avian flu. --Lenticel (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not a conspiracy starting service. Borock (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is fringe and WP:OR. There's a new scientist blog post that mentions it, but that hardly rises to the level of reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as there is no substantial evidence to give this theory any relevant weight. JogCon (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, two blogs aren't an indication that this is notable as a conspiracy theory. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, no reliable resources. Besides, Napoleon confided in me that Snowball is responsible for spreading the swine flu. Drawn Some (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Speculation, no credible resources. Zab (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I honestly don't see why hoaxes aren't speedyable Sceptre (talk) 08:05, 28 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Todd Friel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I realize what nominating this article for deletion means – I've spent days of my life trying to save it. However, the article contains seven sources, and all but three are self-published. Of these three good sources, one is a trivial mention, and the other two don't, in my opinion, establish notability for inclusion. Weak delete. TheAE talk/sign 02:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: agree that sourcing is too marginal to establish notability (in spite of sterling efforts on AE's part to maximise what could be found). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete it. This guy's a fairly well known Christian talk radio host. I know of him because he recently spoke to Christopher Hitchens on his Wretched radio show (that's the name of the show) where he got a good pasting from Hitchens, in my view. If nothing else, fans of Hitchens who play the segment on You Tube are going to come to Wikipedia to get some background on the guy. The article seems accurate. Can I respectfully suggest lightening up on Wikipedia's usual requirements? If 3 of the sources are self published that leaves four that aren't. I'd post a link to YouTube's recording of the chat with Hitchens but I know YT is frowned upon as a source. His show has a website that you could point to. Leave it up, and put the usual disclaimers. Mrcomeara (talk)
- Comment: I saw this shellacing he took as well. Unfortunately, unless it was reported in a reliable source, it does not add to his notability. If notability cannot be established, then Hitchens fans will simply have to find their way to his website to find out about him. All but two references are to his website, his agent or groups that had hired him to speak at them. The remaining two are mere announcements (see WP:NOT#NEWS) lacking any significant coverage of Friel himself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if sources cannot be accreted, the article must be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PERNOM Sceptre (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources are borderline acceptable imo, I don't think deletion is necessary. C.U.T.K.D T | C 10:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marc Enfroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article has previously been deleted twice, both times self-created by User:Enfroy. It seems he is back under User:PabloSanchez65. Fails WP:Music notability requirements: #1 - has not been the subject of multiple nontrivial published works; fails #2 in that the chart he claims to be included is not a national chart and is non-notable; also claims to have won an award which is not a major award per #3, and is also non-notable. (New Age Reporter is a site that provides promotional services.) EZStrider (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as author): The artist has been placed in rotation on the Music Choice Soundscapes channel, recently charting at #8. This channel is available nationwide on all major cable systems. This should meet WP:Music notability requirements as stated in #11 which states "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." See http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:gTa0aXM5bhEJ:www.musicchoice.com/charts/topten.asp%3Fchannel%3DSoundscapes+marc+enfroy+%22music+choice%22&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us as verification PabloSanchez65 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable references to support WP:Verifiability regardless of the lack of notability. Drawn Some (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trillionaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This short article manages to combine speculation and factual error. Speculation because no one has been a trillionaire in US dollars, British pounds or Euros. Factual error because not "everyone" in Zimbabwe owns money (infants, the feeble-minded and convicts come to mind as exceptions). That most Zimbabweans were trillionaires is interesting, but a) essentially meaningless, given how little value their currency had and b) hardly unique, as seen at Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation. Moreover, there's a link to a deleted article, and this word has an entry in the Wiktionary, which is where it really belongs. Biruitorul Talk 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there should be some Japanese trillionaires... 100yen to the US dollar approximately for much of the last decade. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - nothing has changed since the last AfD. Other -illionaires redirect to millionaire so that would seem sensible here. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to millionaire - neologism. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per the Police, if there really are trillionaires it might be a reasonable search term, and "millionaire" would be the best target. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, i am Junkcops! The Junk Police (reports|works) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If nothing has changed since last Afd then it should be kept. But more importantly, what the article says is true, most Zimbabweans were trillionairs, and most ionairs articles state that its in some currency usually in US $, Euros, pounds but that doesn't mean it has to be.Pubuman (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last AfD resulted in a delete. This is "recreation of deleted material", and by the way there is only one other "-ionaires" article, which is the one where there is something thoughtful to say about the subject. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was going to say move to Wiktionary, but it's already there. Unless there are reliable references discussing this in a non-trivial manner, it doesn't qualify for an encyclopedia article. There is probably discussion of Zimbabwean inflation in other articles. Drawn Some (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment articles on everything - Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since they are no Trillionares in the World, this page is pretty useless. Webster6Yo, So 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inherently a dictionary term, and I don't think anything encyclopedic will be found to justify an article. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article should be replaced by a redirect to billionaire, which is slightly more reasonable. At some point, another factor of 1,000 just doesn't make a difference any more. Technically this is probably a "keep" vote, but the point is that the article as such shouldn't exist. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. The article has no real purpose in Wikipedia until someone owns $1 trillion dollars or euros. —Terrence and Phillip 02:53, 4 May 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 userfy/speedy delete (non-admin close). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kurt Oldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:COMPOSER (hence WP:ENTERTAINER), no reliable sources. Fleetflame 00:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is very telling that although he has composed music for more than a dozen films, all but two are red-linked. There must be 3rd party references for verifiability and those are lacking. Drawn Some (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - obscure composer of scores for such important works as a "web series" with a $600 budget. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update The creator of this article just posted to my talk page, "Can you please remove this article and place it where I can have access to it but it is no longer public?" - what should we do here: userfy or...? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. Move to User:Lexme123/Oldman and Speedy delete Kurt Oldman as CSD #R2. Fleetflame 14:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and speedy the redirect by R2, G6 or G7. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done; but this is the second time that we've done this. I hope it turns out better than the last one. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and speedy the redirect by R2, G6 or G7. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:16, 1 May 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 . Article has since its creation included a major segment of text copied directly from the subject website. There is no verification of permission to use this material although the creator has been notified how to do so and the matter has been listed for more than seven days. There is no clean version to revert to. In addition consensus seems to be that even if the church may be notable, the current article doesn't verify or properly address this. There is no prejudice against creation of a new copyright-infringement free article on this church, provided that it verifies that it meets notability guidelines with proper reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shirelive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable church. No reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. The article is promotional in nature and large chunks of it appear to have been lifted directly from the official site. Mattinbgn\talk 11:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I marked the copied text as a copyright violation. What remains isn't much. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm going to abstain for now, but if this is a large church, certainly there's some notability? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A church that seats 1200 is not exceptionally large. The bar for megachurch is usually drawn at 2000. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, good point. Delete. No really good coverage. Somebody change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A cursory glance suggests there's been a deal of media coverage of this church, although most of it in conjunction with the controversy surrounding Matt Corby's Australian Idol appearances. Re the 1200 versus 2000 seats, nowhere is there a guideline that a church has to be a megachurch to be notable. Indeed, with the average congregation size in Australian churches at less than 60-70 (the figure it was eight years ago, 1,200 is notable. Having said all that, the challenge with this and similar articles is around keeping WP:NPOV Murtoa (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being large does not make it interesting or notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be interesting to be notable. I agree that size isn't everything, which was why I was responding to the point that it wasn't megachurch in size. Murtoa (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article makes no attempt to claim significance, importance, or notability. Drawn Some (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Phillips Petroleum Company. No prejudice against keeping if Art Smart comes through with his sources (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Phillips explosion of 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks the historical notability for its own article per WP:NOT#NEWS. The criteria it lacks are articulated at Wikipedia:News_articles#Criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habanero-tan (talk • contribs) 2009/04/21 03:04:58
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any appropriate content to Phillips Petroleum Company or delete. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Phillips Petroleum Company. The event is not notable enough to have its own article. Timmeh! 21:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. In the next few days, I will provide additional reliable information to ensure satisfaction of notability standards. Thanks. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 01:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - put all 3 Accidents into 1 Article seperate from the main company Article. Phillips Disaster Phillips explosion of 2000 & Phillips explosion of 1999 would all fit nicely into 1 Article but would bloat the company Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Claudia Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks V, RS and Notability. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that this article should be allowed to exist and be improved upon. The actress's body of work, including frequent appearances on BBC television, is "notable" enough to include in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.173.122 (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In which case please add the info and the references. Kittybrewsterx ☎ 07:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still learning about Wiki so perhaps it would be helpful if you explained to me what you mean by V or RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.173.122 (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS. Are you Claudia? - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still learning about Wiki so perhaps it would be helpful if you explained to me what you mean by V or RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.173.122 (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator makes no indication they applied WP:BEFORE. AFD is not a place to force cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have found no V or RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not Claudia for christ's sake. However, I have a question and, since you have taken an apparent vested interest, maybe you can help. I was under the impression that imdb.com was considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Am I wrong? If so then I might have to scrap the article after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.173.122 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just asking. WP:COI and WP:CIVIL. IMDB is a start. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not Claudia for christ's sake. However, I have a question and, since you have taken an apparent vested interest, maybe you can help. I was under the impression that imdb.com was considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Am I wrong? If so then I might have to scrap the article after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.173.122 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty, I have attempted to cite imdb.com as a reference. I will try to find some time over the next couple of days to make certain that i have cited that source (and others I will attempt to find) properly. Perhaps, after this, I will have learned enough to contribute further. My degree is actually in psychology so perhaps I can move on to more serious content when I have learned how to contribute something simple such as this article.--71.176.173.122 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)--71.176.173.122 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete With only some appareances as a minor character she fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers at the moment. However note that Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources were clearly met from the first version of the article and are no reason for a nomination.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability and yes I looked. Furthermore, the article does indeed fail verifiability and reliable sources at this time. The only sourced information is her appearance in certain productions. Clearly not notable. When she becomes notable and there are sufficient reliable sources for verifiability, then let there be an article. I hope she gets a starring role in a hit film and becomes rich and famous but in the meantime she shouldn't get a Wikipedia article. If there are sources, let someone show them. Drawn Some (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per nom's lack of WP:BEFORE (sorry Kitty). WP:V and WP:RS were easy to meet... so I just did so. Perhaps WP:N can be found in her stage work, if not film. She did receive some nice reviews for her work in The Witches Hammer. Care to seek them out? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the four cited references in the article, I can find no mention of the subject in the first one (other than as a search result); and the other three are just bare listings of her name in the credits for productions. The article fails WP:GNG as lacking evidence of "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then unfortunately, you did not look throuroughly, as she is in most definitely IN all 4 refs. First point here is that the nom said she failed WP:V and WP:RS and those two claims were provably incorrect, showing lack of diligent WP:BEFORE. Second point is that a diligent search of the films for which she is credited or the stage plays she has been in might well show greater coverage of her roles... and with The Witches Hammer having wide reviews, I can imagine her work as "Rebecca" was itself covered... which would then meet GNG. No one here asserts such sources DO NOT EXIST... only that they do not see such added to the article. Since Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE and does not expect to be perfect, the article should have been sent to WP:CLEANUP for further work... and as noted by Mgm, not sent to AfD to force such improvement. Bad form. Third point, as I have just begun looking at T.W.H. reviews, and she and her character of Rebecca are in ALL of them... somtimes in great depth. No one else even looked?? Bad form. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware that the rationale "There might be sources someplace" is considered sufficient by some of the members of WP:ARS; but I don't consider it so, and WP:GNG would suggest otherwise. I'm of the opinion that this might be a put-up-or-shut-up situation. Deor (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting rebuttal... specially since I am not saying there "might" be anything. What I am saying is that there ARE reviews that speak of her and her role as Rebecca in The Witches Hammer. Is it that you do not wish yourself to look at the multiple film reviews HERE? And that you are of the opinion that I go to them all and present them to you one by one by one? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware that the rationale "There might be sources someplace" is considered sufficient by some of the members of WP:ARS; but I don't consider it so, and WP:GNG would suggest otherwise. I'm of the opinion that this might be a put-up-or-shut-up situation. Deor (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I look at the list of films she has been in, and notice which ones are blue links. It was already decided in a recent AFD that The Witches Hammer was a notable film, and thus the star actress in it as notable as well. She played a significant role in a notable film, which meets the notability guidelines for actors. Dream Focus 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails bio, entertainer. That a person has appeared in a film that may be notable does not make them notable. No coverage of substance beyond the trivial, no major awards won, not viewed as having made a significant contribution to her field (though i hear her cameo on Footballer's Wives led Glenda Jackson to declare "we have uncovered the next great acting talent." Unfortunately, that's just a rumor) or otherwise achieved wide fame, acclaim or infamy. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be what I call "not yet notable". Perhaps Ms Coulter's fame will explode next month.... and when that happens, then we will of course have an article on her. But until that happens, no. Delete. DS (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer please note the incorrect logic. Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to a significant roles in a notable films is a claim to notability here and is easily verified, which gives her a pass per WP:ENTERTAINER, which specifically states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". She has. Its been verified. And agin... no one has told me the did not find she or her character of Rebecca from The Witches Hammer spoken of in all these many reviews... Fatally-Yours, Best Horror Movies, Science Fiction, Horror and Fantasy Film Review, Twitch Film, Evil Dread, Far East Films interview with The Witches Hammer cast and crew, Beyond Hollywood, Horror 101, Eat My Brains, DVD Resurrections, Cinema Crazed, Razor Reel, and many more... so I can only guess that folks are opining delete without due consideration of WP:BEFORE or any attempt to see if she is being reviewed by experts in the genre. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MQS. Meets WP:ENTERTAINER with Witches Hammer's major role and other roles. Arguments above that this isn't verifiable are, well, interesting. Those !votes should be ignored as being factually incorrect. That she doesn't pass GNG is debatable, but also irrelevant as she does pass the SNG in question. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MQS, GNG and SNG don't exist. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- :-) Good point. MQS is MichaelQSchmidt, WP:GNG is the general notability guideline. SNG is the subject notability guidelines, in this case WP:ENTERTAINER. Sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MQS, GNG and SNG don't exist. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:17, 5 May 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 Deleted by User:Nixeagle per WP:CSD#G7 (author requested deletion by blanking page). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gourdinian Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is not blatant enough for a speedy tag (which I declined), but I can't really find anything to verify this at all. Is it a hoax? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. Nothing on Google Books, and, ahem, nothing in a collection of books including Algeo and Pyles. 5 speakers? Western Europe? But it isn't even in a country somewhere? Or is it Italy? Pff, nonsense. Please deliver a stern warning to the creator--I have a wiffle bat you can borrow. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:MADEUP. Doesn't even make sense. Also vandalized the article on Romance languages. Drawn Some (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per WP:MADEUP. The editor who added the initial Speedy tag points us to this page, which does seem to indicate that the person who created the article also created the language (as if that wasn't obvious already).
For the record, another editor added a speedy tag again,
but I removed it(NB: he added it back) -- partly because we're in the middle of an AFD discussion, but partly because I agree with LinguistAtLarge that this shouldn't really fall under the category of "obvious vandalism". Stuff made up one day added to Wikipedia can just be someone misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia, rather than intentionally damaging the encyclopedia. --Miskwito (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-added the speedy tag because a.) speedy and AFD can overlap, and b.) I believe that it is indeed epic fail of the common sense test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll concede they can overlap, and if that were my only reason I wouldn't have done anything. I've been considering this some more, though, and I'm realizing that I don't know that I was thinking about "stuff made up one day" in the right way. "Stuff made up one day" applies more to things like "Blah blah blah is a game played by three people in Delaware since last Tuesday", whereas this article is purporting to be about something other than it actually is. It's describing a fictional language as if it were real. And I admit that the distinction hadn't occurred to me initially. However, I still don't see how it can qualify as "blatant vandalism", because it's entirely possible that the editor misunderstands the type of article that's acceptable on Wikipedia, and isn't intentionally trying to damage the project. I mean, this clearly is an article that should be deleted, but I still don't think speedy deletion is the correct channel for that, and I think we should be communicating what the issues here are to the editor, rather than having a bunch of people posting warnings on his talk page and then slapping a speedy tag on the article --Miskwito (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we're already here, it would hurt to get an AfD verdict, which would be helpful if the article is indeed deleted and then re-created. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would hurt? Or was that a typo? --Miskwito (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lignuists don't make typos! ;) Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the initial Speedy tag. IMHO it is vandalism rather than a misunderstanding of what's appropriate on WP because the author made up a whole history for it, which counts as blatant and obvious misinformation. Most hoaxers don't do it twice, so Speedy and a warning is good enough. andy (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "wouldn't", but it must have been a Freudian slip since linguists don't make typos. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)(talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)*Delete. I agree that this looks like a hoax, although probably not so totally obvious to be speediable as vandalism. Google has never heard of *Gourdinia, and *Gourdin yields nothing helpful either. The mention of the dialect existing on both sides of the La Spezia-Rimini Line suggests that the author who invented this language has done a bit of reading in comparative Romance philology, but needs to ponder further. I wish him all the best in his language construction efforts; it is a great and harmless hobby. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, article's creator blanked the page indicating he wants it gone. Deleted as a G7. —— nixeagleemail me 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and someone should speak to the anti-vandal person that reverted him and warned him... what he did was appropriate. —— nixeagleemail me 17:44, 28 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rare Cuts (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I cannot find any reliable sources that have anything more than a track listing and release date for the EP. I also cannot find any news sources in which it is talked about. Also, it was never listed on the band's website and was only released in Japan. It fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh! 21:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. Drawn Some (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per reasons above. Road to Nowhere (EP) should probably also be deleted for the same reasons, though this might not be the place to discuss it. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just nominated that article for deletion for essentially the same reasons. Timmeh! 22:15, 28 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Theeradha Velaiyattu Pillai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Explicitly fails WP:NFF as the film is still in the pre-production stages with an unconfirmed cast and crew. PC78 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. What more can be said? Oldlaptop321 (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom or move to name space. Clearcut. Drawn Some (talk) 03:47, 28 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hand of Blood EP: Live at Brixton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable live EP by Bullet for My Valentine. Hand of Blood, the studio EP, is very notable, but this live performance EP has not had any reviews or coverage on it by reliable sources as far as I can tell. Timmeh! 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since if there is no independent coverage this unofficial album (ie, bootleg) is not notable. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS; it seems to be a promo CD.--Cannibaloki 00:29, 4 May 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. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unremembered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about an independent film. The author removed my prod tag saying that the film was a truly independent one, having been filmed on a budget of $35,000. While that is an achievement, it does not make it notable per Wikipedia standards. If sources are added that show that the film is notable I will withdraw the AfD, otherwise, I maintain that the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy as per article discussion page. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. You can't have an encyclopedia article without WP:VERIFY either. Drawn Some (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any coverage (well, there are YouTube clips!) Drmies (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication that this film has been recognized as notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The movie hasn't yet premiered and the production has not received significant coverage by independent sources to meet WP:NFF. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 28 April 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. Fram (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- London Buses route 549 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
London bus route which is not notable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Written well enough, provides information that may be hard to find elsewhere. It just needs sources to make sure that the information is reliable. Instead of 'delete' tag, it should have an 'unsourced' tag.Chrisahn (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If information is hard to find elsewhere, that could mean that it is not notable. Do you know if it is likely that sufficient non-primary sources exist? —Snigbrook 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there isn't enogh notability for a separate article, it could be redirected (and possibly merged) to List of bus routes in London#500-599. —Snigbrook 23:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If something is hard to find elsewhere, then how are you going to prove or disprove notability. What you're really doing is confusing notability with verifiability. Still grounds for deletion, but based on a different reason. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In a way, you are right. The article may fail WP:N, I'm not sure. I still think that articles like this are useful and thus should be kept. This article doesn't hurt anyone, it's not an advertisment, so I don't see why it must be deleted. But that's a bigger discussion that I don't really want to get into here.Chrisahn (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe have a read of WP:NOHARM. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link, but I did add some other arguments besides "doesn't hurt". While we're at it, you should have a read of WP:JNN. Applies exactly to your nomination.Chrisahn (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, not notable, can be re-made if anyth interesting happens. I'm all for coverage, but let's be objective Chzz ► 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Articles on bus-routes need maintenance every time the time tables change. The operator and passenger transport authority have the incentive to keep information up to date. When the creator loses enthuiasm, he will stop maintaining it, and it will become obsolete. Obsolete information is dangerous, becasue it is liable to mislead. This is a strong reason for not having articles on bus routes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's a strong reason for putting a tag 'warning! may become obsolete!' (don't know if such a template exists) on top of sections that are in danger of becoming unmaintained, and deleting or updating the section (or the whole article) if and when it becomes obsolete.Chrisahn (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete yes, very well written, but does it satisfy WP:N? I somehow don't think a common-or-garden bus route satisfies that. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are literally hundreds of articles about London bus routes. Why is route 549 less notable than, say, 78, 80, 123, 288, 356, 486, U7 or hundreds of others? Tag articles as 'stub' or 'unsourced' or whatever if necessary, but keep them and let them grow.Chrisahn (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck out by Jenuk1985[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Labyrinth (Blutengel album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing indicates that this album is notable in any way. The name of the album in the main article for the band is more than enough. roux 18:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of any coverage in more than one reliable source. It fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh! 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keepthe album apears to be well known and has over 36,100 GHITS and has charted in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116Rebel (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per precedent that charting albums by notable artists are usually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the info and source that this album had charted, that was added post AfD nomination. There's more than a snowballs chance that more info can be added too. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cinema Studies Student Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable collegiate cinema club mhking (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My article was revised to show how the club is notable. The group is likely only notable to the Toronto public, but it is notable nonetheless. I added instances of the group being cited in well-circulated Toronto newspapers and shown when notable figures have been involved in the club's events, such as Spencer Rice and Kenny Hotz from comedy central's show "Kenny vs. Spenny", and famed international film director Atom Egoyan, who is heavily involved with the Cinema Studies Program at the University of Toronto. Comment added by Jazzyjpl (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — Jazzyjpl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very limited third party coverage. [52]. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Very limited third party coverage" is kind of an understatement--there is no coverage at all, and the article has no encyclopedic quality or content. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete First, subjects of articles are notable to Wikipedia standards or they are not. Unfortunately this group does not have non-trivial third party coverage to firmly establish notability and certainly not enough to support the article, most of which is WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 03:54, 28 April 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. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jennie Lee (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ice skater who has only competed at a Junior (under 19) level, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, "...not competed at a fully professional level" nor "...at the highest amateur level" Tassedethe (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability per nom. Drawn Some (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, can recreate if/when she places in a senior competition. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:11, 28 April 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. May be shorter, but still blatant advertising: dedicated to the highest standards of excellence and integrity &c. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- EMDR International Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Created again after speedy deletion, overall the same information, just the blatant advertisement parts taken out. COI based on article creator and lacking establishment of notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely spam, not a legitimate professional organization but a referral company. Page should be protected from re-creation. Drawn Some (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A-YA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Serious prose issues, seems like a bad internet translation job. Sources are iffy; they look good initially, but the magazine is only mentioned one time in each source. Makes for questionable notability, bringing to community for consensus. GlassCobra 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seems to be enough coverage found by a Google Books search to show notability. Yes, there are plenty of false positives, but these[53][54][55][56][57][58] seem to have coverage of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm convinced by the references provided by Phil Brider but some of them should be added to the article. Drawn Some (talk) 00:24, 28 April 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. BJTalk 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Annesley Abercorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable PPC, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Being chairman of the Bow Group would also appear not to be sufficient grounds for notability; cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Bristow (chairman of Conservative Future, but I suggest that the two organizations are comparable). Being a parliamentary advisor is likewise non-notable, as per the article's previous (successful) nomination. Wereon (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - as per above - non-notable person. Also, if you look at the history of the article, you find that it started as a vanity piece by the subject, was edited down to a stub for non-verifiability, and what little remains keeps being edited by the subject, to remove embarrassing details like his real birth name.
Politico234 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POLITICO 234 CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. LOOK AT PREVIOUS EDITS MADE MY POLITICO 234 BELOW. HE IS SIMPLY OUT TO SLANDER THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annesley_Abercorn&diff=224196299&oldid=221239087 (midget tossing) Politico234> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annesley_Abercorn&diff=224196299&oldid=218427215 (masturbation) Politico234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpetmonster (talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant, and doesn't invalidate Politico234's present claims.
- Carpetmonster, to avoid conflicts of interest, would you mind telling us please what exactly your relationship with Mr. Abercorn is? I note that you've at least got close enough to photograph him, and provided many of the biographical details. Are you working on behalf of the HGCA? Wereon (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weron, would you mind telling us please what exactly your relationship with Mr Abercorn is? And who Politico234 is? And what exactly Politico 234's relationship with Mr Abercorn is!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.156.129 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, Politico234 has no relationship whatsoever to Mr Abercorn - they've never even met. He is merely an interested third-party observer of British politics. He does, however, respectfuly request that Mr Abercorn cease making legal threats such as his accusations of slander, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats , whether he is using his 'Carpetmonster' pseudonym, or a traceable IP addresses like 86.143.156.129. Incidentally, for the record, any hypothetical written defamation is libel, not slander. Ignorance of such a collosally important point - particulrly in one who is standing for election to be a lawmaker - does not tend to lend much seriousness to such accusations.
- As for the edits Mr Abercorn has so kindly highlighted, I stand by my defence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Politico234 - as I said there, when I was new to wikipedia I regarded the original article written by him at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annesley_Abercorn&oldid=194193605 to be so patently ludicrous, laughable, and self-serving that I thought it merited satire - and so I added a few contributions in a spoof vein. I have since accepted that this was contrary to wikipedia's rules, and since being made aware of this, you will see from my edit history that I have only made factual changes which have either had verifiable sources, or else removed large chunks of far-from-NPOV and/or unsourced material. This is in marked contrast to Mr Abercorn's ongoing, periodic, self-serving edits.
- Politico234 (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weron, would you mind telling us please what exactly your relationship with Mr Abercorn is? And who Politico234 is? And what exactly Politico 234's relationship with Mr Abercorn is!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.156.129 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, this is getting ugly. I asked Carpetmonster about his relationship with Abercorn because the message he left above was practically identical to one left on, and subsequently deleted from, the talk page to this nomination, made by User:86.143.156.129 - the anonymous user above - leading me to conclude they are one and the same. The IP address is one of the handful which has been vandalizing the article by removing Abercorn's birthname, leading me to suspect that Carpetmonster is either the subject of the article or someone closely associated with him. Plus, there's the whole thing, as I said, of owning posed photographs of the subject, which does suggest an association.
- For the record, though, I will state that I have no connexion whatsoever (to the best of my knowledge) with Abercorn, Carpetmonster, Politico234, Hazel Grove, Andrew Stunell, the Bow Group... — Wereon (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though I regret already stepping into the Bizarroworld of this AfD. For the record, I am the son-in-law of Wereon and a former candidate for the Loonie Party, before the Bow Group paid an alien to take over my body. This guy Abercorn, apparently, is notable--though not as a politician, really, but as a clown. Here's the Daily Mail online: "...a terrific, eye-bulging belter called Annesley Abercorn. Despite the aristocratic surname Mr Peppercorn, or whatever, proved to be an Asian lad with a flair for histrionics. "Waste! Waste! Waste!" he shouted..." Anyway, there's plenty of coverage on Google News. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi son. It's worth pointing out that nearly all of the articles about Abercorn you found are about his performance at the 2004 Conservative party conference. I can't see how that makes him notable, especially as Wikipedia does not even consider the party conferences themselves notable. Wereon (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See, that's why I'm getting a divorce. Yeah, alright, you're right--though there is that one thing about the name change, which, in my opinion, moves the whole subject past the "one event" kind of thing. How about I say weak keep, and I promise I won't shed tears over deletion (one without salt, of course). Now, if we keep, than we can verifiably refer to someone as an eye-bulging hysteric...surely there is a beauty in there... BTW, will you ask your daughter to come back home one of these days? Drmies (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi son. It's worth pointing out that nearly all of the articles about Abercorn you found are about his performance at the 2004 Conservative party conference. I can't see how that makes him notable, especially as Wikipedia does not even consider the party conferences themselves notable. Wereon (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. لennavecia 04:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with nom and Jennavecia (talk · contribs) that this fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cirt (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Theory of Others (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reasons for deletion:
- For over a month, the article has been tagged as not meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements and as unverifiable, yet no changes have been made to improve it.
- Specifically, it has proven difficult to find any information to verify the article's content because the term 'Theory of Others' does not appear to be used much elsewhere.
- The external link to the person who is supposed to have coined the term (Dr. Raka Shome) is dead (page not found).
- In theory this topic should be relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, however, a discussion thread started over one month ago there has not produced any support for it. Shanata (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Shanata (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I found Dr Raka Shome's webpage in archive.org; it was last updated in Feb. 2008, so I've updated the article. Not sure at all about the subject matter being relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy; - Political Science; Media and Commnications, Feminist Theory or Socialogy are all possibilities. There does seem to be an awful lot of references, published before 1994 and therefore unlikely to be on the internet.Edgepedia (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad that you were able to find this page. As you'll note, the phrase 'theory of others', which the current article attributes to Dr. Raka Shome, doesn't even appear on Dr. Raka Shome's webpage. This seems to indicate that even the person who is supposed to have coined the terminology doesn't find it to be sufficiently notable for inclusion on her webpage. Shanata (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- She does seem to be cited on google scholar [59]. A primary source for this theory can be found here. Edgepedia (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any mention of the Theory of Others in this source. Shanata (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sociology-related deletion discussions. Edgepedia (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr Raka Shome's is still listed as on the staff at LSE [60] The staff page link doesn't work. Edgepedia (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A search for the term theory of others on the LSE website does not seem to produce any links suggesting that this theory is notable, either. Shanata (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Someone set up this as an parody of the article on the Other, and inverted the meaning of the theory. Sorry, I don't have time to explain more, I can add the details after Wednesday this week.--Ducio1234 (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment this article does look like a content fork of Other, and I was thinking that we need to merge some of this into that article. However, this is outside my expertise and if this is shown to be wrong, or even a parody, I would vote to delete it. Edgepedia (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, at best this is a tendentious article redundant to the far superior article on Other, which appears to be much the same thing. The hypothesis of the "theory", which proposes that neocolonialism, racism, and all manner of stereotype are perpetuated in rhetorical studies and everyday life when groups or cultures not native to dominant white men and their sphere of influence are engaged is either quite shallow if this kind of discourse means something to you, or patent nonsense otherwise. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are exactly right, Theory of Others is patent nonsense. The Other doesn't accurately describe the theory behind the idea, but Edward Said in Orientalism (book) first used the concept of the other as a way to explain how the West understands and subjugates the Orient through this process by creating a sense of otherness or separation. Homi Bhabha, who is cited in Theory of Others took that idea and applied it Colonialization. Bhabha tried to explain that Western countries created a false sense of otherness in the countries that were colonized. His intention was to understand this process so that colonized people and their societies could come to reposition themselves as equal in the world.
- I suppose the article is not exactly a parody, but User:Tvmogul presents a false view of the idea, as theory of others is not "the discipline of rhetorical studies" and it was not Dr. Raka Shome who originated the idea. Theory of Others is a major over simplification and of the ideas. There are other reasons to delete this page, as it's not clear and there already exists an article on this topic.--Ducio1234 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no mention in reliable sources on google scholar, google books, plain google turns up wikipedia mirrors and one 2008 thesis. This idea has not caught on and it is inappropriate to have an article on it until it does. Wikipedia is not on the leading edge of anything, we trail behind other sources. 11:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as a content fork of Other, with nothing worth merging per Smerdis of Tlön and Ducio1234. Edgepedia (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No defense given, a non-notable neologism, and the article was likely spam and borderline patent nonsense: Convergence of requirements from the consumer and the enterprise user is evident especially in cloud infrastructure. &c. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consumerprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The title of this article is a neologism. I have searched, but found only three uses of it:
- in the title of a 2006 interview on ZDnet here with a man from Yahoo (though the word is not actually used in the interview),
- in this blog entry from 2007,
- in the title of a session at a Dow Jones conference in Feb 2008.
This does not suggest that the term has "taken off" enough, or has a clearly-enough defined meaning, to satisfy WP:NEO or be the subject of a properly-sourced article. The present article itself cites no sources and appears to be original research. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nom. Matt (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NEO Drawn Some (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fangtasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. The author has made attempts to improve the article since the original PROD, and it's no doubt notable 'in universe', but there's nothing that establishes notability in terms of 'real world' coverage per condition 3 of WP:FICT (or WP:GNG). I'm unsure whether substantial 'in-universe' coverage infers the same level of notability, hence the AfD for guidance. CultureDrone (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tricky one because there is clearly lots of fan material out there. However, I cannot find any secondary sources that discuss the article. I suggest merge and redirect to True Blood. (Suggesting redirect to the TV series as most ghits are in the context of the TV show, not the books). Quantpole (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see this as tricky because there are no reliable third party references that I see to support a verifiable article. Drawn Some (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have explained slighlty better. I said it was tricky because there is so much fan material out there it's difficult to filter through it to see if there are any decent sources. I suggested a redirect to True Blood based on the amount of interest there seemed to be, so I would think it is a reasonable search term. Quantpole (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent sources, single location for a series of books. Relevant info should be merged into appropriate articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:19, 5 May 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Koel Bewaren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable band. One of the members later became a somewhat notable actor, and that's about it. No evidence for the award they won, no evidence that the band has received even local recognition. Six Google hits for their only, independently released album[61] Obnly twoi GOogle hits for the band plus their best known member[62]. No results (apart from Wikipedia) for the award plus band[63]. Whatever search I try, I can't find any reliable independent sources about this band, so while it seems obvious that they existed, they have not received any attention and their claims to fame are too minor or unverifiable to be passing WP:MUSIC. Fram (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The only real references I can find are to proper food handling technique. Non-notable. I do wonder, though, if the internet had been as huge in 1990 as it is now, if there would have been references. It's quite likely. Drawn Some (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- La Vida Locash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability of any kind. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree no assertion of notability, significance, or importance. This being the second deletion, the page should be protected. Drawn Some (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - recreated content with no solid sources (google turns up blogs and sales/streaming sites). Salt the earth after. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repair permissions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article appears to be entirely in violation of WP:NOTMANUAL, and does not appear fixable to avoid this violation. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Hard because it's referenced and not nonsensical, but it also is inherently unencyclopedic. Maybe I should say that the references themselves suggest that it's not a notable topic, just as "changing spark plugs" is not notable (but Car repair is). Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's nothing that would keep some of this information from being merged into the MacOSX article if it was in a different tone. Shadowjams (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be the all-too-common conflation of "technical" and "instructional" here in this discussion. The article has technical content, but it is not instructional. It is informational. It discusses what this process is and does, why one performs it, when it is and is not necessary, who performs it, and where various data files and other things involved in the process are found. It isn't a walk-through. It isn't a tutorial. There are no step-by-step recipes. There's no "Now that you've done that, you next …". It's informational content on a (per the sources already cited in the article alone) notable subject. A quick search reveals plenty more sources that cover this. (I stopped looking after reading what the first 20 books, that discussed this subject directly and with more than a passing mention, had to say.) The PNC is amply satisfied. The only problem with the article is that it's not comprehensive. It doesn't fully characterize the dispute as to whether, and in what circumstances, this procedure is necessary, for example. But that's solved by editing, not deletion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, if you'll take another look at the article, you'll see that it is, in fact, a how-to guide. It discusses — as you say — what, why, when, who, where…and it also says how. These five-Ws-and-H (Who, what, where, when, why, how) are a hallmark of a how-to guide. I'm also not sure I agree with your determination that the subject is notable by dint of being included in whatever number of websites or books. So is orange sherbet (or, to borrow Shadowjams' analogy, changing spark plugs), but we don't have articles on changing spark plugs or orange sherbet. We have Spark plug and Sherbet. How do you figure that Repair Permissions is notable as defined here on Wikipedia? —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Shadowjams's assertion that it's not a manual, but I really have to question how notable this topic is on its own. Matt (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to your question lies in the numerous web sites and books that cover it. Look for sources yourself, or indeed simply read the sources already cited in the article, and you'll see what I mean. There are multiple independent published works by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy to defend, that address this subject directly and with more than a simple passing mention. That's notability. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is with the fact that this material applies only to computers running Mac OS X. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it if it applied to multiple operating systems. This is the same reason that we got rid of articles such as Torchic -- the parent subject is notable, and there's plenty of sources (even reliable ones) that talk about the subject, but outside of the parent subject's universe, the subject just isn't notable. Matt (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to your question lies in the numerous web sites and books that cover it. Look for sources yourself, or indeed simply read the sources already cited in the article, and you'll see what I mean. There are multiple independent published works by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy to defend, that address this subject directly and with more than a simple passing mention. That's notability. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep that's not a reasonable criterion. Major programs in major computer systems are notable, and OSX is in that category. Nor is it a reasonable comparison. Computer programs have a different sort of notability than Pokemon characters. I'd advise those trying to delete fiction not to expand their POV into the rest of the universe, or there will be a good deal more opposition. DGG (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: DDG, your comments read as though you're angry or upset, but I'm not sure why. This present discussion is about whether Repair permissions is encyclopædic and otherwise in line with the intended scope of Wikipedia. You seem to feel that it is, and I'd like to understand why. It's not clear to me how your remarks about deletion of fiction and "POV expansion into the rest of the universe" are germane to the present discussion. Could you please try again in a calmer, more engaged, less scolding tone? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I googled on "disk utility repair disk permissions" and expected to find a Wikipedia page close to the top, and so it was. Please don't delete this page. Ragoon —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Observation: You have just nicely illustrated that this pseudo-article is being used according to what it actually is: a tech manual in violation of WP:NOT. Please keep in mind that "I like it" is not a valid reason for keeping an unencyclopædic article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep - lots of sources seem to cohere on the topic, article needs cleanup and better sourcing but does seem to scrape notability. Perhaps could be merged into another topic though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Disk Utility. BJTalk 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cindy & Mindy Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a WP:BLP about twin reality television contestants, which is currently unsourced. In fact, there isn't even a source indicating they are actually twins, or just share the same last name. Each one fails individually by the WP:ONEEVENT criteria (if you believe in it) and both fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Plastikspork (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cindy Hall and Mindy Hall, which both redirect here, should instead redirect to the relevant reality television program article (or relevant season article) as plausible search terms. The two sources provided at the end of the article both claim in passing that each is an twin of the other, but each person's main "claim to fame" is through being a reality television contenstant, and being related to each other appears to have minimal bearing on this. I'll say
weakdelete article and re-aim redirects, but would like to know what the relevant policies/guidelines for Wikipedia articles on twins are. -- saberwyn 04:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Modified: -- saberwyn 10:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split or delete: Notability aside, I don't understand why these 2 should share an article in the first place merely because they are twins. Their "claims to fame" do not entwine with one another and are completely unrelated. It is not a case like that of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen where the 2 of them have collaborated extensively with each other and gained fame as a pair (and even they have their own individual articles). MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment definitely split if not deleted per reasons given by MarkMc1990. Drawn Some (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither have any long-term notability as neither won either of their reality show appearances. No third-party coverage. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E, redirect individual entries to appropriate show pages but delete combined entry. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:05, 5 May 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. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TIND (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about an art collective that fails to meet notability. The article has one external link to an article on the group by Nightlife Magazine (Montreal). The only other coverage I can find is really accouncements - [64], [65]. Whpq (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to exist, but per article and gsearch there is no evidence of meeting WP:N. JJL (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the one article does not constitute significant non-trivial coverage to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Backshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable former local news presenter. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and send to cleanup. As a BLP it's a mess, but even as a "former local news presenter", he received coverage that meets require ments of WP:BIO [66] [67]. Just a matter of setting the article to right. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 28 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Protect America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable small business. Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not exactly a small business, one of the top home security-system companies in the second tier of providers with over 20,000 installations in at least one year. But I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that would allow a verifiable article to be created. Drawn Some (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While this may be a consumer business, it is referenced only to a listing in a trade publication and to a Better Business Bureau site; no notability shown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ochanthuruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It appears to be a neighborhood in Cochin, India, not a separate town. MBisanz talk 01:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment is it a village as described in the article or just a neighborhood? Even the smallest villages get Wikipedia articles, I know of some that aren't even legal entities but just crossroads that are here. If it is a true village with an official government then keep, if it has no government and is just a neighborhood, delete. I can't determine which it is. Drawn Some (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Paalappoo's improvements. Salih (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Salih. Renaissancee (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Salih.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Towns/villages are notable regardless of size and, as mentioned above, the article has been greatly improved.--Oakshade (talk) 17:46, 1 May 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- B-CIDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Only mentions of this I could find are MySpace and other social networking sites, no reliable sources. tempodivalse [☎] 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 01:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of albums being on a notable label. No indication of anything that satisfies WP:MUSIC. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Drawn Some (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:50, 29 April 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blood solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a small non-notable company. The sources listed are mostly self-published (linked in and the company's own site). We don't have articles on each of 10 different plumbers for a given village who all offer the standard plumbing services, do we?-- Syrthiss (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. No reference to the company in the one independent source cited. Tevildo (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:53, 2 May 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 nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Metamorphosis: The Alien Factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Based on the following search:
the subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and therefore doesn't comply with the notability requirements. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Search for ["Metamorphosis: The Alien Factor", review] found some you likely missed: In-depth review by TV Guide of the 1993 DVD release[68] and one by All Movie Guide[69] (a review reliable enough that it was picked up by New York Times), and another article about the producer and director and film in New York Times[70], as well as write-ups in several books. All depends on one's search parameters. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have just expanded, cleaned-up, and sourced the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Michael's clean up. well sourced article. Ikip (talk) 12:03, 30 April 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.